Posted on 06/06/2020 7:40:09 PM PDT by Meatspace
Of course that assumes Churchill was unaware of the problem you note. He was a good enough historian that I decided he would not make that mistake.
We’re still alienated from the north
So they are invading us yet again escaping their mistakes yet again
Aggrieved by the action and tendencies of the Federal Government, and apprehending worse in the future, a majority of the people of the South approved secession as the only remedy suggested by their leaders. So travelers enter railway carriages, and are dragged up grades and through tunnels with utter loss of volition, the motive power, generated by fierce heat, being far in advance and beyond their control.
Destruction and Reconstruction is a great read, plus I'd like to recommend for further reading, anything you can find on "The Red River Campaign".
Most Confederate supporters do not take that into account when dealing with the impact slavery had in the south.
>> “I completely agree and compliment you for the accompanying reference as evidence for the above conclusion.”<<
Thanks.
Families who own slaves is one reason I spoke above of "households". "Though it's undeniable that the Confederacy gave special status to slavery, records show that most Confederate soldiers came from households that didn't own slaves." States varied in how many families had slaves, but they were in the minority in every state. Wikipedia:
"One estimate is that in 1860, about 25% of households and 5% of the population (384,000 people) in the South owned at least one slave. An alternative estimate is that 36% of men lived in slaveholding families, and the percentage of men who had economic ties to slavery was much higher."
Still most didn't.
I certainly would not regard Churchill as a supporter of slavery. Mary Chesnut’s Civil War provides a useful incite into how the institution was regarded by those not part of the political elite Churchill mentions. Overall, I think I will stick with my estimate of less than one in a hundred.
But still it's easier to understand how the South could rebel when 25% of its people derived direct benefit from slavery and countless more derived indirect benefit.
Nor would I.
Overall, I think I will stick with my estimate of less than one in a hundred.
But recognizing just how much of Southern society drew direct benefit from slavery makes it easier to understand why the south would rebel to defend it.
I've always recognized that slavery was a major cause -- I'd say the root cause -- for the sectional differences that led to secession. I don't infer from this, though, that Confederate soldiers where fighting for slavery, especially not the majority who came from households without slaves, and not even slaveholders just as Lee. When it came to the war itself, I think defending what they considered their homeland was a more important motivation.
I'm quite willing to denounce slavery (as Jefferson himself had), but am not willing to treat with contempt persons whose actions were understandable in the historical context of their societies. The Mason-Dixon line didn't divide good from evil in the United States, and to interpret that war in simplistic terms is neither accurate nor fair to the persons involved.
I am. Frankly, I’m ok with this. Not because it’s “on trend” given the protests but because whether intended or not, the flag represents rebellion. It’s not something we should allow within the higher institutions of our military or government. But that’s just my opinion
No, no it is not.
The war from 1860-65 was not about slavery. Anyone thinking that is a victim of propaganda. It’s no different than today’s media lies. As we all know though, history is written by the victors.
Under the most restrictive understanding of states’ rights, people living through that history believed no faction could use the federal government to launch a military invasion of the south to impose their agenda. Resisting the northern invasion was the rallying cry needed to create an army.
Sure it was.
Anyone thinking that is a victim of propaganda.
Then the southern leaders of the time were victims of propaganda because they thought their cause was motivated by protecting their slave institution.
As we all know though, history is written by the victors.
And as we also know myths are written by the losers.
I’m Albertan, I’m not from there.
You’re so one sided you can’t see the trees directly to the front.
You would fit right in. You seem to have swallowed the Kool-Aid already.
You’re so one sided you can’t see the trees directly to the front.
A true 'pot calling the kettle black' moment if ever there was one.
>> "Then the southern leaders of the time were victims of propaganda because they thought their cause was motivated by protecting their slave institution." <<
Some of them did. Robert E. Lee is probably the best known Confederate, and I quoted him previously. Wikipedia:
"...Lee was offered by presidential advisor Francis P. Blair a role as major general to command the defense of the national capital. He replied: 'Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?' "
Also, bear in mind that Lincoln himself -- by far the most important person on the other side -- had stated in his First Inaugural Address, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He explicitly fought the war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Also, significantly, his Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the states that had seceded, but not in the ones that had remained in the Union.
Slavery was a root cause -- probably the root cause -- of secession, but the war was not fought to preserve or end slavery. It was fought to preserve or end the Union.
The leaders of the time disagree with you.
"Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." - Lawrence Keitt "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South... This war is the servant of slavery." - Rev John Wrightman, South Carolina, 1861.
"What did we go to war for, if not to protect our [slave] property?" - CSA senator from Virgina, Robert Hunter, 1865
"The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves." - John S. Mosby
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world. --Mississppi Declaration of the Causes of Secession
SIR: In obedience to your instructions I repaired to the seat of government of the State of Louisiana to confer with the Governor of that State and with the legislative department on the grave and important state of our political relations with the Federal Government, and the duty of the slave-holding States in the matter of their rights and honor, so menacingly involved in matters connected with the institution of African slavery. --Report from John Winston, Alabama's Secession Commissioner to Louisiana
This was the ground taken, gentlemen, not only by Mississippi, but by other slaveholding States, in view of the then threatened purpose, of a party founded upon the idea of unrelenting and eternal hostility to the institution of slavery, to take possession of the power of the Government and use it to our destruction. It cannot, therefore, be pretended that the Northern people did not have ample warning of the disastrous and fatal consequences that would follow the success of that party in the election, and impartial history will emblazon it to future generations, that it was their folly, their recklessness and their ambition, not ours, which shattered into pieces this great confederated Government, and destroyed this great temple of constitutional liberty which their ancestors and ours erected, in the hope that their descendants might together worship beneath its roof as long as time should last. -- Speech of Fulton Anderson to the Virginia Convention
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. -- Texas Declaration of the causes of secession
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. -- Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.