Thomas wrote:My own favorite example of Bible morality is when the mob tries to storm Lot's house, and he tells it he'll give them his two virgin daughters to do with whatever they want, if only they leave himself and his house alone. And the LORD thinks this such a stellar example of doing the right thing that he saves Lot, but not the rest of his city, from annihilation.
Impressive morality indeed.
And the old boy got to knock off the daughters himself. Which made him guilty of both incest and debaunching virgins..... They led...interesting.. lives back then didn't they?
Merry Andrew wrote:Couple of things:
yitwail wrote:it's good to see that Discreet has seen the light, but next time he hears his teacher, or anyone else, claiming that white men died by the thousands to end slavery in the Civil War, so African-Americans should feel grateful toward white Americans, remind them that just as many white Confederate soldiers died trying to preserve slavery.
This is probably the most common fallacy about the Civil War, the most widely held by those who learned about the slavery question in grade school and have never read anything further on the matter. Most of the Northern white men who died in the war were in no way interested in ending slavery. That is not what the war was about. The end of slavery came as a result of enactment of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, a couple of years after the war. The war was about maintaining the Union (from the North's federal point of view) or about the right of states to decide for themselves whether they wanted to continue as part of that Union (the Southern states' rights point of view). Slavery was only incidental to all this. In the begining, it wasn't even an issue on the table.
You will see from the foregoing that it wasn't the Southern soldier's main interest to preserve slavery, either. Most Southerners didn't own slaves. Some were even anti-slavery themselves. Robert E. Lee, the great leader of the Confederate armed forces had manumitted all of his slaves as soon as the estate he inherited (where Arlington National Cemetery now stands) was out of probate and he could legally do so. He had no love of the institution of slavery. As far as Lee was concerned, he was a Virginian fighting an invading Northern army.
The fact is, the concensus had pretty well swung to the point of most reasonable men admitting that slavery in mid-19th century was no longer a viable system. What the Southerners didn't like was a government in Washington telling them what they could or could not do. And so they tied to secede.
My other point: what you say about slavery as a moral issue being a cultural value has some merit, Discreet. It is still practiced in many other parts of the world, particulalrly in East Africa. But that is the culture of the slave owner you are talking about. As has already been suggested, put yourself into the shoes of the slave (if, indeed, he/she has any shoes) and see if you think that the question doesn't have a universal moral dimension. I believe it does.
The war was primarily about slavery, Andrew...maintaining it or abolishing it.
If you truly think otherwise, I suggest you read the Declarations of Independence of the various states that revolted....and Lincoln's second inaugural address. They all suggest that the institution of slavery was the prime moving factor.
It has become popular of late to try to make the war into something else (and certainly all wars have varying motivations)....but the primary mover of the American Civil War was slavery.
As for favorite Bible quotes...here is one of my favorites for showing the kind of advice the god of the Bible gives:
"If a man has a stubborn and unruly son who will not listen to
his father or mother, and will not obey them even though they
chastise him, his father and mother shall have him apprehended
and brought out to the elders at the gate of his home city, where
...his fellow citizens shall stone him to death." Deuteronomy 22:18ff
The course of human events is far too complex to admit of simple explanations. Frank is certainly correct that slavery lead to the American Civil War. And MA is correct in stating that for many of its participants it was about the preservation of the union, or the protection of the rights of states (in this case, the putative right to leave the Union). At the beginning of the war, the forces involved were voluteers or militiamen. Very early on, meaning even before the first major battle, militia were phased out of the southern armies, but offered the opportunity to enlist, which a great many did. It took the first battle of Manassass to convince the northern authorities that ninety-day militiamen weren't going to get the job done.
Freeman contends that the early volunteer regiments in the south were made up of the sons of the "better sort of people" (my expression, not his). Many of these men might have owned, or come from families which owned, slaves. Many of the initial respondants in the north to Lincoln's call for volunteers were intent on ending slavery. A most notable example were German-Americans. Germans have always been a significant portion of our population, even before the Revolution. In 1860, the German population of the nation had recently undergone a population explosion, as a result of the failed socialist uprisings in Europe in 1848, which were brutally repressed by Prussian and Austrian authorities. These Germans often volunteered for idealistic reasons, both the preservation of the Union in their newly adopted homeland, and the emancipation of slaves--two influential men of their number rose to high rank, Franz Sigel and Louis Blenker, both of them "Forty-eighters" who fought for the cause of black emancipation.
But by 1862, both governments were conscripting men--and it cannot be said that these men on either side had any particular interest in either ending or preserving the "peculiar institution." Quite apart from that, however, from the very beginning, there were volunteers who did not fight to end or preserve slavery. Little Delaware was a slave state, although i would doubt anyone who asserted that there was any sympathy for the southern cause there--and in any event, the proximity of New Jersey and Pennsylvania made it silly to think of that state seceding or even remaining neutral. Men from Maryland fought on both sides in the war; given that Maryland was a slave state, and the oldest slave state after Virgina, the issue among them was more complicated. "Maryland" Steuart and his volunteers may well have gone south and joined the Confederate cause in defense of slavery, but anyone who asserts as much would have a hell of a time proving it. Marylanders who fought for the Federal government were very likely doing so to preserve the Union, and were taking it on faith that they would not be deprived of their "property." Good indirect evidence of this comes from the dramatic rise in absences without leave and outright desertions of Maryland men in Federal Service after the announcement of the Emancipation proclamation.
The western counties of Virginia were very likely almost evenly divided on the issue of secession. There were very few slave owners in that portion of the state, but a great many supported secession nonetheless. Bullyboys, agitators and outside funds from Ohio lead to a narrow victory of the anti-secession forces in a plebicite which eventually lead to the secession of the western counties from the rest of Virginia, and statehood in 1863 as West Virginia. But large numbers of men from those counties fought for the southern confederacy, even though few of them had a stake in slavery--the most celebrated being, of course, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Roughly the same situation applied in Kentucky, from which substantial numbers of troops were recruited by both the Federal and the Confederate governments. In eastern Tennessee, even though slavery was common, the local citizens were opposed to the breakup of the union, and a small number served with the Federal armies. Many of the rest remained on the sidelines, much to the grateful relief of Lincoln, who chose Andrew Johnson of Tennessee as his running mate in 1864. For many people in the border states, and a great many elsewhere in the north, the sentiments of Winfield Scott expressed their feelings: writing to the Secretary of War in March, 1861, he wrote: "Say to the seceded States: 'Wayward sisters depart in peace.' " This gentle, courtly and above all else, highly competent and professional soldier had his heart broken by the secession of his native state of Virginia, and i believe it broke his spirit as well. After more than fifty years dedicated to the service of the Union, he quietly faded away, dying at West Point in 1866, without having taken active service in the war.
In southern Indiana and southern Illinois, pro-southern sentiment was openly expressed, and the issue was definitely not one of slavery. In the counties of southern Illinois, no one could be certain which side the men would take. John A. Logan of Carbondale, the Congressional Representative and a powerful and influential man, chose to stay with the Union, and most of the men of "Little Egypt" joined him, forming the 31st Illinois Regiment of United States Volunteers, who served with distinction throughout the war. Even so, many men from southern Illinois and Indiana, and even a few from Ohio, went south to join that cause. To heal the wounds of the war, Logan conducted the first Memorial Day service in Woodlawn cemetary in Carbondale on April 29, 1866 (Joe Johnston surrendered on April 29, 1865 in Durham, North Carolina, and to many Federal veterans, that was the end of the war, not the surrender of Lee). Many Federals are buried in Woodlawn Cemetary, which i have visited, including one poor unfortunate from New Hampshire, who seems to have strayed very far from home, indeed. There are also, in a neglected corner of the cemetary, and now disappearing beneath rank grass and weeds, the markers of about a dozen Carbondale men who served in Confederate regiments. Logan, as Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic (the civil war version of the American Legion) presided over the first official Memorial Day service in Petersburg, Virginia (1886?).
In Missouri, the Mexican War hero Sterling Price lead the Missouri State Guard in body into the Confederate ranks. But when Confederate sympathizers attempted to seize the Federal Arsenal in St. Louis, Franz Sigel and his German-American veterans, the "Forty-eighters," marched in and dispersed the crowd by the simple expedient of firing into them, and charging with the bayonet. Price's Washington Artillery from St. Louis had to be supplied by the Confederate government, because the artillery they were provided by the state was firmly in the hands of the Germans. However, when John Frémont (Pike's Peak and all that) declared the emancipation of the slaves in Missouri, and started locking up those alleged to be Confederate sympathizers, Lincoln fired him pretty damned quick. He later ended his own career by proving beyond a doubt, if anyone by that time entertained any such doubts, that he was completely clueless militarily--he twice allowed Jackson's little army to escape when he (Frémont) ought to have had him in the bag.
It even goes to the extreme of Confederate sympathizers raising a southern banner in Los Angeles, and foolishly declaring California for the South. Motives were many, and people's feelings were very conflicted. Frank is absolutely correct that slavery was the root cause of the war. Without the "peculiar institution," sectional tensions and issues of states rights would never have had the significance which would have lead to war. And MA is correct, that for most of the men who fought in that war, slavery was not the issue, the preservation or dissolution of the Union was their cause.
At all events, the one group which got screwed in all of this, predictably, were the slaves. Some Federal armies trailed around a huge tail of fugitive slaves with a few indigent whites deprived by the war of their livelihood and sustenance. Some of those commanders used them as a source of labor, and enlisted some of the men as teamsters or engineers' laborers. Some, like Louis Blenker, actively emancipated slaves, sending them north with instructions on how to contact sympathetic organizations who would aid them in establishing a new life. Other commanders prohibited (based upon sound military policy) these fugitives from following in their wake, and issuing rations to them, then placed cavalry vedettes in the rear to prevent them from encumbering the army as it marched. Eventually, more than 175,000 Americans of African descent served in Mr. Lincoln's armies, and their contribution was indispensible. I do think it can safely be said that United States Colored Troops fought to end slavery.
Anyone willing to make the effort can get a good, detailed, but necessarily brief account of the war from The Civil War: A Narrative, by Shelby Foote. Foote is a native of Mississippi who attended the University of North Carolina, and began writing after the Second World War while working at a radio station in Memphis, Tennessee. The American doyen of letters a generation ago, Bennet Cerf, solicited Foote to write a short history of the war. Foote agreed, but pointed out that it would not be possible to do justice to the subject in fewer that three volumes. These he produced between 1958 and 1974. His treatment is so sufficiently even-handed, that i've had people actually laugh at me when i have told them that Foote is a southerner. The excellent public television "mini-series" The Civil War was based on Foote's magnus opus, and could not have been done half so well without Foote's assistance. Foote's three volume work is now in it's eighteenth edition.
For those who really can't be bothered with three volumes, and particularly those who are only interested in the military aspects of the war, i would recommend A Bird's Eye of Our Civil War, by Theodore Ayrault Dodge. It is once again in print. Dodge was a Massachusetts man who served as an officer in that war, and lost his right leg at Gettysburg. The Massachusetts Historical Society solicited a paper from him after the war on the subject of the battle of Chancellorsville--he responded, and the effort was so well received that he expanded it into a book. It is extremely difficult to find accounts of this battle which are not written from the southern perspective, so it is an invaluable work. He was present, and in fact, his engineer detachment (part of Franz Sigel's Eleventh Corps--this battle ended Franz Sigel's rise in the Federal ranks) was bivouaced on Melzi Chancellor's farm, and he was an eye witness to the spectacular attack by Jackson's "foot cavalry" which turned Hooker's opportunity to crush Lee into a rout of the Federal army. Dodge went on to become America's premier military historian in the 19th century, writing full length and even multi-volume biographies of Napoleon Bonapart, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Hannibal and Gustavus Adolphus (the later contains a great many "thumbnail" sketches of the "great captains" of the Thirty Years War and thereafter, up to the French Revolution). There is definitely a northern point of view in A Bird's Eye View, and as with all of Dodge's work, there isn't squat to do with non-military subjects. Good reading, though, and i highly recommend it. A Bird's Eye View . . . , Chancellorsville, Napoleon and Gustavus Adolphus have all been recently re-issued.
Set
Shelby Foote was featured prominently in the PBS series on the Civil War.
An absolutely enchanting, gracious, humorous and interesting guy...and, as you noted, very, very even handed.
But once you hear him speak...you have absolutely no doubts about where he comes from. Southun' to a fault.
Thomas wrote:My own favorite example of Bible morality is when the mob tries to storm Lot's house, and he tells it he'll give them his two virgin daughters to do with whatever they want, if only they leave himself and his house alone. And the LORD thinks this such a stellar example of doing the right thing that he saves Lot, but not the rest of his city, from annihilation.
Impressive morality indeed.
well, in all fairness, Lot was protecting 2 angel houseguests, who didn't need his
protection anyway, since they had the power to smite men with blindness. on the other hand, the LORD slaying all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not even sparing women or children, does seem excessive.
To say nothing of slaughtering all the first born of Egypt to accomplish something so much less inhumanely.
But the god of the Bible was invented by people needing a murderous, barbaric god to protect themselves from the murderous, barbaric gods of their enemies....so....
Thanks for stepping in, Set. I heartily endorse and second the recommendation of Shelby Foote's work. It is virtually indispensable to anyone interested in the study of the War Between the States. Haven't read Dodge. For an analysis of the overall mood of the country at the time of the conflict, I would recommend Bruce Catton's America Goes to War, a slim volume con taining much insight into what the thinking was at the time, both from the point of view of the two governments (Union and Confederate) as well as the man in the street. Margaret Leech's Reveille in Washington is also valuable as a record of the doings in the capital city at that time.
I think that no clearer statement of the aims of the government as regards maintaining the integrity of the Union, rather than freeing the slaves, can be found than in the letter by President Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, editor of The New York Tribune. In 1862, two years into the war, Linciln wrote:
"My paramount object is to save the Union and is not [emphasis his] either to save or to destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
You will also note that his executive order, which has come to be known as the Emancipation Proclamation, did not, in cold pragmatic fact, free one single slave. On paper, it freed all the slaves "in States now in rebellion against the Union." But these were the Confederate States over which, in fact, neither Lincoln nor his Army had any control whatever. He could just as easily have decreed that, say, tobacco may no longer be grown in Virginia and watch the tobacco growers have a belly laugh. The Emancipation Proclamation specifically, and deliberately, did not address the slave owners in Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee or Kentucky -- states which had not seceded and over which Lincoln did have police powers.
This is not to imply that Lincoln was not opposed to slavery. On moral grounds, there is no doubt that he was violently opposed to it. But he was also a canny politician who did not wish to alienate the slave states which had remained loyal to Union.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Andrew
As Set pointed out...there are two different things being argued here. One...the ultimate cause of the war....and two, the reasons some people fought in it.
Earlier, you wrote:
Quote:Most of the Northern white men who died in the war were in no way interested in ending slavery. That is not what the war was about.
I took exception to that last part. I agree that some of the participants were not especially interested in ending slavery...but don't think for on moment that slavery was not what the war was about.
And further...the declarations of independence from the Union of several of the states specifically state that they were dissolving the bonds h the Union because of northern opposition to slavery.
Most of the time, Frank, you and I don't have much of a disagreement over anything. I don't think we do in this instance, either. My post was in response to the post which mentioned white Union soldiers dying to free the slaves and white Confederates dying to keep people enslaved. The people who actually fought and died, by and large, couldn't have cared less one way or the other, is my point. And I stand by that.
Frank Apisa wrote:Set
Shelby Foote was featured prominently in the PBS series on the Civil War.
An absolutely enchanting, gracious, humorous and interesting guy...and, as you noted, very, very even handed.
But once you hear him speak...you have absolutely no doubts about where he comes from. Southun' to a fault.
Unfortunately, i got to see very little of that, but i did see some of his parts of it. I had the gratifiying experience of turning to one of the scoffers and saying: "Now tell me he isn't a Southerner."
Merry Andrew wrote:Most of the time, Frank, you and I don't have much of a disagreement over anything. I don't think we do in this instance, either. My post was in response to the post which mentioned white Union soldiers dying to free the slaves and white Confederates dying to keep people enslaved. The people who actually fought and died, by and large, couldn't have cared less one way or the other, is my point. And I stand by that.
Point well taken, Andrew.
I was less arguing with you...than filling in a few blanks spots. And, since I am very sensitive to certain revisionism coming from some Southerners...about slavery not truly being a significant ingredient in the war...I may have come on strong.
I do know we are mostly marching in the same direction.
Setanta wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Set
Shelby Foote was featured prominently in the PBS series on the Civil War.
An absolutely enchanting, gracious, humorous and interesting guy...and, as you noted, very, very even handed.
But once you hear him speak...you have absolutely no doubts about where he comes from. Southun' to a fault.
Unfortunately, i got to see very little of that, but i did see some of his parts of it. I had the gratifiying experience of turning to one of the scoffers and saying: "Now tell me he isn't a Southerner."
Guy coulda come right out of central casting.
Look the southern gentleman (quite a bit like R.E.Lee)...and acts it as well.
(Tried to post a picture, but was unsuccessful.)
Shelby Foote, courtesy of "Ole Miss," and . . .
Robert Lee with his sons, immediately after the war . . .
This well-known image is probably what you had in mind when noting the resemblance.
Lee got more than a little neurotic during that war. Look at the rank insignia on his lapel in the second picture. Three stars in the Confederate service was the insignia of a colonel, the highest rank which Lee attained in Federal service. A chaplain (and a reliable source) delivered a message to Lee during the battle of Chancellorsville to the effect that Sedgewick's Federal troops had broken through Jubal Early's lines. Lee suggested that the chaplain sit down in the shade and take some refreshment, then said to him: "I was just now saying to General McLaws (Major General LaFayette McLaws) that he should go an pay a call on Major Sedgewick." Note that he refers to McLaws as General, which was part and parcel of his adherence to strict protocol when dealing with his touchy lieutenants, and that he refers to Major General "Uncle John" Sedgwick as "Major Sedgwick"--which is the rank Sedgwick held at the time that Lee resigned his commission.
In another incident at Orange Courthouse the year before, some matrons had approached Lee, who was flirting with some young ladies (he was an inveterate flirt, although very chaste and proper, and sought out the young ladies whenever the opportunity arose). The older ladies complained that the "girls" had gone to balls held at Federal headquarters when the town had recently been occupied by the Federal troops. Lee replied that it was harmless fun, that the young ladies were entitled to such innocent entertainment, and then: "I know Major Sickles personally, and can assure you that he will have nothing but gentlemen around him." Once again, Lee was referring to Major General Daniel Sickles' pre-war rank. He habitually referred to the Federal armies as "those people over there," refusing to name the United States Army. I think that in the agonizing decision he made in April, 1861, sacrificing a life-time of service to the United States, he, the son of a certified hero of the Revolution, became a little unhinged.
In the spring of 1863, at Chancellorsville, Jackson was badly wounded. Lee's immediate comment was that he felt as though his right arm had been cut off. In the spirng of 1864, during the battle of the Wilderness, on nearly the same ground, James Longstreet was badly wounded, as though cutting off his remaining arm. Richard Anderson took command of the First Corps, and sent in Hood's old Texas brigade. Lee had been riding back and forth on the Orange Plank Road in a distracted manner, and when the Texans arrived, he took off his hat and began waving it, crying out "Hurrah for Texas, give it to 'em, Texas," and spurring his horse toward the firing line. This was very uncharacteristic behavior, and badly spooked the boys. The Texans almost panicked, and the men stopped in the road, and began shouting: "Lee to the rear, Lee to the rear." Non-coms stepped out of the line and grabbed his bridle and forced him to the rear of the column. I conclude that he may have momentarily broken under a strain he had endured for more than three years, and have unconsciously been seeking death in battle--suicide by combat.
I should note that Lee in that last incident may just have been acting in a very canny manner, too. The Texans, with Lee once more safely in the rear, shook out a line in the dense woods, began the advance, and with a shout, slammed into a Federal line comprised of more than four times their number, and fighting like very demons, drove Grant's boys back.
Damn sentanta id pay you for some of that knowledge you have on civil war.
Didn't lee really start making bad decisions during the gettysburg battle. I seem to rem him in desperationi sending a fairly new/young commander up the front lines to push the northerners back. All of them were quickly gunned down by union soldiers and Lee had lost most of his army in this one "push"
Do you know which event i am referring too. Could you give me a lil more info on it
Well, not here and now. I would recommend to you This Hallowed Ground, Bruce Catton, which is a brief account of the war from the Federal side of things. Catton makes a lot of minor errors in his books (he wrote very many on the civil war), in my opinion, but none of them are important. He is an entertaining writer, easy to read.
There is another book, The Killer Angels, which was very popular twenty years ago or so, the the motion picture Gettysburg was based on it. But the author gives a very skewed account of the battle of Gettysburg, he plagarizes shamelessly from a little know book entitled Pickett's Charge, which was published in 1958 in paperback only, in anticipation of the Civil War centenary; additonally, he has leaned heavily on another of the 1950's civil war books, this one about the 20th Maine Regiment of United States Volunteers. That regiment was commanded by a college professor from Maine, named Joshuah Chamberlain, who convinced himself rather quickly that he had won the battle of Gettysburg single-handed. Sadly, he convinced a lot of other people, too--despite being constantly and pointedly contradicted by the Confederate officer he fought, and by his own subordinate officers. Chamberlain rose in rank, eventually reaching the rank of Major General and commanding a corps by the end of the war. He later became the governor of Maine, and built a public-speaking career centered around his standard "how I won the battle of Gettysburg all by myself" speech. The author of The Killer Angels, Michael Shaara, apparently takes Chamberlain completely at his word. He was careful to change the text, otherwise Shaara could probably have been prosecuted for plagarism. His book is very well-written, and very entertaining to read. It also bears exactly that relationship to history which Christian Science does to real science.
