Robert E. Lee

The Vicksburg Post ^ | January 18, 2009 | Gordon Cotton

[Badeye]

Tens of thousands of Union troops volunteered the first two years of the war specifically to end slavery on this continent. To say slavery wasn’t a huge, ongoing, and always visible and highly charged issue for years BEFORE the first shots were fired is to kid yourself. It was the defining issue during the 1860 election cycle. Check any newspaper or campaign flyer from that era. And yep, Lincoln did play it every which way to his political advantage, even saying as I noted ‘I’m for Union, if that means with slavery, I’m for it. If it means without it, I’m for it. I’m for the Union’ or words to that effect.

The Trent Affair was white hot til letters were exchanged. It lasted 90 days only because of the slow travel times involved between North American and England. While he didn’t want another war with England, its more important to note England had some serious concerns with the French at that moment, and its mad emperor of that moment. They didn’t want a war with America, and they damn sure would not align themselves with a nation codifying slavery, as the CSA clearly did in its Constitution.

I’m aware of when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. I’m also aware of when it was WRITTEN. Had the South defeated the North at Antietam, it would have been issued some other day, there is no doubt about this. The South never had a chance of winning that battle, the only reason Lee was not destroyed in detail was due to George McClellan being one of the worst battlefield commanders in our nations history. He had 5 - 1 odds, and the battle plans, and STILL cowarded for days on the north side of that small creek in FEAR.

You are kidding yourself if you think the South’s ‘diplomatic position’ would have changed as long as it clung to the institution of slavery, and as long as the North existed as the recognized legal governing body here.

The fact is the war would have been over in 18 months had the North used competent officers during that time. The greatest victory’s the South realized were against men even more screwed up than McClellan.

Jackson’s famous ‘Valley Campaign’ is a perfect example of this, as is Lee’s victory at Fredericksburg. Chancellorsville was a victory, ironically because Hooker got his bell rung by a well aimed cannonball that hit the wood column he was leaning on, and OO Howard failing to follow direct orders to ‘refuse the right’ which as you know is exactly where Jackson’s Corps hit the Union in that battle.

Fact is, the South had gallantry, and bravery, and a better core group of officers at the beginning. But what kept the South in the war from 1860 to July of 1863 was luck, poor leadership in the Union Armies, generals that actually agreed with the South’s position on slavery (McClellan in particular, but Meade as well to a lesser extent) and a supply system run by men that wanted to fight the Mexican War again, not the then ‘modern war’ being waged.

Yes, I made a typo, I meant 1862.

[Idabilly]

Lincoln, in his Inaugural Address before the war, gave his support to the first 13th amendment pending at that time which would have explicitly protected slavery where it already existed.

In a debate in England, two notable British citizens, Charles Dickens and John Stuart Mill, took opposing views on the cause of the American War Between the States with Mill stating that the purpose of the war was the abolition of slavery and Dickens maintained that “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

The meeting at Hampton Roads in 1865 and the meeting with Colonel Baldwin in 1861 both showed that President Lincoln’s concern was preventing the secession of the South in order to protect Northern manufacturers and to retain the tax source for the Federal government. The abolition of slavery was not the purpose of the war. In his Inaugural Address he promised he would invade the South for the purpose of collecting taxes and recovering the forts but he would support the first 13th amendment which protected slavery in the states where it already existed.

The War Between the States was not a noble war to abolish slavery, but instead was a war of conquest to require the Southern states to continue paying the taxes which paid for the federal government and to change the system of government given to us by our Founders and instead replace it with a strong national government thereby removing most of the political power from the states and the people. When the famous British historian, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee after the war, in a letter dated November 4, 1866, he inquired about Lee’s assessment of the meaning of the war and the result that would follow. Lord Acton’s letter stated, in part, that:

“I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy . . . . Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”

Lee replied in a letter dated December 15, 1866, and stated, in part, what the result would be:

” . . . [T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” (emphasis supplied).

[Idabilly]

If we look a little further than what our government education has fed us, what really happened? Was not the stated purpose of the conflict to replace one form of slavery with another? Did our then small and limited federal government break down the chains of the Constitution which bound it and create for itself new powers? Were the Masters and overseer’s of the southern plantations replaced with new ones for the great federal plantation? Did the federal government, once limited to a few enumerated powers — a servant of the union of sovereign states and the people themselves — reverse its status and become the master?