"The 'Other' Side of the Slavery Question" Topic

In your personal opinion, do you think the South fought for a just cause?

I don't see how I can easily answer your question since you want to assign a simple yes or no response to a complicated scenario. Did the North fight for a just cause? What exactly what was it? I am not sure I could answer that question either. Complicated.

Read Glatthaar. And the ANV had a large slave contingent with them on a regular basis, often doing military work like digging fortifications.

Since I don't have the Glatthaar book maybe you could help me out with some later war statistics.

With respect to having a large slave contingent in the AoNV that is irrelevant to the question whether or not the bulk of Southerners fought for the Confederacy because they were pro slavery. I might also point out the Sherman in Georgia had no problems "conscripting" black civilians as cheap labor for the Army of the Tennessee. People often do what they need to do to win.

Slavery is evil, and to the extent that the South fought to preserve it, their cause was unjust. That does not make the north's determination to preserve the union by force a just cause. The southern desire for political as well as cultural independence was not intrinsically unjust, or if it was then so was 1776. And the north made the war into one to abolish slavery, which WAS a righteous cause.

Slavery is evil, and to the extent that the South fought to preserve it, their cause was unjust.

So…that extent would be 100%

That does not make the north's determination to preserve the union by force a just cause.

The USA was the only democracy on the planet and I think Lincoln's desire to preserve it so that it did not perish from the earth was just.

The southern desire for political as well as cultural independence was not intrinsically unjust,

It's called rebellion and if you're going to do it, make sure you win. WHat did Ben Franklin say about hanging together or separately?

I think it is rare for a desire to be unjust, it's the physical implementation that is unjust. But you hit the nail on the head, the South didnt want to be reasonable, they wanted it completely their way and they miscalculated with Lincoln.

or if it was then so was 1776.

Is this some sort of "either" "or" historical blackmail?

And the north made the war into one to abolish slavery, which WAS a righteous cause.

Do my eyes deceive me? Is this a breakthrough!?

The USA was the only democracy on the planet and I think Lincoln's desire to preserve it so that it did not perish from the earth was just.

Do you really believe this? What about Great Britain in 1860? Canada became a full fledged democracy in 1867 and was moving towards it in 1860. France was constitutional monarchy in 1860 and returned to being a Republic in 1871.

There were strong forces within the Confederacy that were lukewarm at best to slavery. North Carolina's decision to leave the Union was a near run thing (at least until Lincoln's call up of the state militias.) The idea that the South was monolithic rabid cesspool of pro-slavers is false.

Do you really believe this? What about Great Britain in 1860? Canada became a full fledged democracy in 1867 and was moving towards it in 1860. France was constitutional monarchy in 1860 returned to being a Republic in 1871.

Not only do I believe it but it's true! Great Britain was not a democracy in 1860. France was definitely not one. Your own facts tend to miss the Civil war's start by several years. Frankly, most miss the end date by several years.

But if you want to believe they were, then please also try and stick to the important point here that there weren't a lot of democracies on planet earth and that President (Not king or Emperor) Lincoln as head of the most democratic government at the time had an obligation to Liberty to keep it from evaporating.

There were strong forces within the Confederacy that were lukewarm at best to slavery. North Carolina's decision to leave the Union was a near run thing (at least until Lincoln's call up of the state militias.)

I can live with this.

The idea that the South was monolithic rabid cesspool of pro-slavers is false.

Who says this?

Are you saying that the majority of soldiers in the AoNV owned slaves? If not, what's your point?

OFM, did you happen to read the Atlantic article linked above?

I'm asking what YOU are saying. Your job is to tell me what the link says, interpret it, and say whether you agree with it.

There's a whole lot of links being thrown around in this thread, and strangely, some (naming no names) aren't exactly standing behind what the linked articles say.

Marcus Brutus,

Typical Lost Cause/Southern apologist response. You can go on and on and on about "facts", post a 13 paragraph response on the minutiae of the Morril Tarrif, but as soon as you are asked for a personal opinion, you can't answer. You either aren't developmentally mature enough to form a personal opinion, in which case why should we take anything you write seriously, or you are ashamed to make your personal opinion public.

"Did the North fight for a just cause?"

Yes. Fairly simple to answer.

Abolition was a just cause, union not so clearly just.

And why is the cause of the Union of the country not 'clearly just?'

That is how the Founders realized their winning independence and transforming from colonies to nation.

What is your agenda here? It is clearly not historical inquiry or a search for facts.

Doc, I think the cause of the Union was just. That's my personal opinion.

I'm asking what YOU are saying. Your job is to tell me what the link says, interpret it, and say whether you agree with it.

Once I know you've read it then I can provide further commentary.

Typical Lost Cause/Southern apologist response.

Sorry but your question Cleburne is not answerable in a yes or no format.

But if you want to believe they were, then please also try and stick to the important point here that there weren't a lot of democracies on planet earth and that President (Not king or Emperor) Lincoln as head of the most democratic government at the time had an obligation to Liberty to keep it from evaporating.

I think you have done a good job laying out the rationale for the North's war of aggression against the South. It had nothing to do with slavery. Rather, imbedded in the North's ideology was a embrace of Manifest Destiny. Once one sees oneself as special and anointed by Providence for a special task (to be the shining light of democracy in the world) then anything is permissible.

I've got to say here at this point that I am not particularly inclined to the South in the ACW. I have always gamed Union for instance. What I object to in this discussion is what I see as a revisionist project to simplify the War down to one element, slavery. I think this is a historically untenable position even though the current Zeit Geist seems to favour it. I think to do justice to both sides one has to understand each sides dilemmas. That requires some sympathy for the two protagonists in this conflict which I see completely absent in many comments.

Sure it is.

Cleburne, do you think the South fought for a just cause?

No, I do not.

Others have no problem answering it either.

MB, yes, one of the basics of historiography is multiple causation: complex events have complex causes. The Civil War was as complex as it gets, yet somehow we are to insist that it is all and only slavery. As you say, that suits the zeitgeist, but is not true.

Tell me Cleburne, what is a "just cause?" If, as I believe, the South and North went to war for many reasons how does one assess and weight them to so as to come down with a simple a yes or no answer?

MB, yes, one of the basics of historiography is multiple causation: complex events have complex causes. The Civil War was as complex as it gets, yet somehow we are to insist that it is all and only slavery. As you say, that suits the zeitgeist, but is not true.

Amen doc!

Cleburne, for the third time, slavery is evil and its defense unjust, but the desire for independence was NOT unjust.

Humans often act from multiple motives, of which some may be wrong while others are right.

Just saying "slavery slavery slavery" does not make it so.

When the Confederate Congress voted to enlist slaves, in early 1865, they knew it would lead to a weakening of the slavery system. They did it anyway because independence had become the higher priority. That is, they had TWO war aims, protecting slavery and winning independence, but were (reluctantly) willing to sacrifice the first if necessary to achieve the second.

I have quoted repeatedly Mary Chesnut, as fervent a Confederate patriot as existed, saying that if the south fails in its attempt to win independence, AT LEAST we'll be free of slavery.

July 3 1862
If anything can reconcile me to the idea of a horrid failure after all efforts to make good our independence of Yankees, it is Lincoln's proclamation freeing the negroes.

Her husband was a Confederate general and she sewed with Mrs. Jefferson Davis, but what would SHE know about what the war was about?

Did the Confederate Congress promise emancipation to any slaves who enlisted? Or was that some vague promise to "look into it" after the war?
And who of the mythical myriads actually enlisted? Freemen? Or did Massa Randolph say "Cassius. You and Hector will come with me down to the City Hall. I got something important for you to do."

…the desire for independence was NOT unjust.

Yes, it was. Because that desire was the support of slavery and its maintenance as the economic system of the South.

John, it was not fully implemented before the war ended -- but of course the Congress did not know that was to be the case.

link

Here's the text. The law passed by a single vote, and it did not offer freedom. In fact it specifically said it did not alter the relationship between slave and master.

SEC 5. That nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners and of the States in which they may reside, and in pursuance of the laws thereof.

Nevertheless, it was a significant weakening of the system, for several obvious reasons: tens of thousands of slaves would be armed and trained as soldiers, which diminished if not undercut entirely the whole rationale for white supremacy.

The question of the slaves' response is a good one, though unanswerable. The Chesnut's slaves probably would have volunteered; some of them had offered to, earlier. Otoh, it was obvious that the imminent northern victory would bring freedom, so that would not be a motive.

Well Doc, I'm not having a direct conversation with you, am I? Did I ask you if slavery was evil? No. I heard your answer the first time. I'm looking for individual opinions. I have yours.

You keep bringing up "why" people fought. That's irrelevant to me in this discussion. What I've said, multiple times, is that "what" they fought for, their goal, is all the same. That goal is the establishment and survival of a Confederacy whose economy requires slavery to function.

Marcus Brutus, its up to you to define what a "just cause" is. Its your personal opinion. It can be fact based, emotionally based, or any combination. Again, its a personal opinion.

The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.

Another is just means, including discriminating between combatants and civilians.

The criteria are clear enough, but some competent authority must decide when you are a point of last resort, and what the probability of success there is, etc.

I think you have done a good job laying out the rationale for the North's war of aggression against the South.

Have I? How would this be possible considering the Confederacy started the war?

I think of all people, Lincoln was capable of several things at the same time. I mean, if Mary Chestnut could sew and ALSO write a diary, then I think Lincoln could save the Union AND free the slaves…how did that turn out, do you think?

It had nothing to do with slavery. Rather, imbedded in the North's ideology was a embrace of Manifest Destiny. Once one sees oneself as special and anointed by Providence for a special task (to be the shining light of democracy in the world) then anything is permissible.

You know this is the same impetus that makes us guardians against…gasp…Marxism?

Who enlisted the slaves? Did they volunteer, or did Master sign them up? I imagine that even if they volunteered, it would have to be with Master's permission.

That is simply even more proof, if needed, of how up the Confederate States were.
Was it just a proposal, or did their "Congress" actually vote on it? Did Davis sign it? I ask about Davis because I once read that he was a stickler for Constitutionality, and "Congress" thought they could get away with all sorts of screwball legislation because they knew Davis would veto it. This was actually in an article praising Davis.

I think you have done a good job laying out the rationale for the North's war of aggression against the South.

It was NOT "the North's war of aggression against the South!" It was the Federal government (of the WHOLE country -- the same one we have today) against a conspiracy of pro-Slavery politicians to overturn the presidential election of 1860! Further, there were many people (voters even) in the South who did not approve of secession -- so many, in fact, that some "Southern" states never seceded.

Also, as Charge pointed out, it was the Confederacy that started the war (can you say "Fort Sumter"?)

Trajanus, Since you have the book by Glatthaar what are the statistics for the 1863 AoNV and slave ownership?

Sorry it doesn't work like that. We can agree that The Atlantic picked the obvious but there is just too much data in the book to easily answer your question.

Yes, 1863 will be different to 1861/62 but there are all number of reasons for that, as there are for the big increase in ANV desertions in 1863 and 1864 for example.

Of course the firebrands came in at the start the introduction of Conscription shows that the number enthused tailed of dramatically. That can be seen as men deciding they didn't have slaves so, to hell with it, or it can be seen as people with slaves realising they would not die to keep them.

What I can say is by the Winter of 1862, 49.3% of all those who joined the ANV voluntarily, had already done so. Hence conscription and another reason why the 1862 intake would differ in make up from 1863.

Glatthaar's book has many tables but it also groups information in many ways and runs it back wards and forwards in many comparisons. Its benefit is showing combinations of causation but it makes for a complex read.

The text of the book itself is full of data points extrapolated from the research and there a fixed sets relating to the three Branches of Service, the Army as a whole and eight other categories. All this shows the many reasons behind the numbers.

In terms of slave ownership in the Army.

Those who personally owned slaves

1861 – 9.5% 1862 – 18.2% 1863 – 13.7% 1864 – 23.1%

Those who's family owned slaves

1861 – 35.3% 1862 – 42.1% 1863 – 31.0% 1864 – 40.7%

Those coming from a household that owned slaves

1861 – 43.6% 1862 – 47.6% 1863 – 38.5% 1864 – 44.0%

Please note this is not the same as year of entry, rather those who were still there.

I think this would be an illustration of the impact of slavery on the lives of those joining the Army. In what way you can judge for yourselves.

Just saying "slavery slavery slavery" does not make it so.

And yet, even the late, great Wilfred M. McClay, that modern day embodiment of the Spirit of '76, cites slavery as the underlying reason for the war.

I have quoted repeatedly Mary Chesnut, as fervent a Confederate patriot as existed, saying that if the south fails in its attempt to win independence, AT LEAST we'll be free of slavery.

A lot of people believed a lot of different things about the war, some thought it was adventure, some thought it was about culture and others thought it was about the government not regulating the size of sugary drinks but that doesn't mean that they weren't mistaken.

It does seem that the South had many who were paranoid about both the federal government and the North but that mental fugue doesnt mean that the real issue wasnt about slavery. Basically, just because some of these persons suffered from delusions doesnt mean I have to take what they thought or wrote as the real reasons about what was going on.

How is it that no one has every made a film about this great American heroine? She's like a real life Bridget Jones.

Well, Mary Chestnut knitted with Mrs Davis.
She kept a diary.
And…..
Yeah. Highly influential.

Her husband was Davis' military secretary. She was one of the wealthiest and most socially prominent women in the south. Don't know how influential she was, but the two of them knew what the southern leadership was thinking.

Bill McClay is indeed great but not late.

And John, if you'd bother to read the link, you'd know the answer.

Marcus Brutus, its up to you to define what a "just cause" is.

Actually Cleburne you asked the question. What do you mean by "just cause"?

Then you are just going to start arguing about definitions and get side-tracked. Its a personal opinion. Its a judgement. I get it. You are incapable of forming a personal opinion. Or don't want to share it publicly.

Had the South not fired on Fort Sumter and remained quiet for the next several months what would the North have done? Do you see any scenario where the North doesn't eventually mobilize against the seceding States? Just curious.

It sure seems to me that Sumter was the pretext the North was looking for for war. I think it was a foolhardy thing to do on the part of the Charleston garrison and those who led it but that is another matter.

Just fwiw, Chesnut,

July 1863:Uncle William says the men who went into the war to save their negroes are abjectly wretched. Neither side now cares a fig for these beloved negroes, and would send them all to heaven in a hand-basket, as Custis Lee says, to win in the fight.
        General Lee and Mr. Davis want the negroes put into the army. Mr. Chesnut and Major Venable discussed the subject one night, but would they fight on our side or desert to the enemy? They don't go to the enemy, because they are comfortable as they are, and expect to be free anyway.

1862:

April 29th. – A grand smash, the news from New Orleans fatal to us. Met Mr. Weston. He wanted to know where he could find a place of safety for two hundred negroes. I looked into his face to see if he were in earnest; then to see if he were sane. There was a certain set of two hundred negroes that had grown to be a nuisance. Apparently all the white men of the family had felt bound to stay at home to take care of them. There are people who still believe negroes property – like Noah's neighbors, who insisted that the Deluge would only be a little shower after all.
        These negroes, however, were Plowden Weston's, a totally different part of speech. He gave field-rifles to one company and forty thousand dollars to another. He is away with our army at Corinth. So I said: "You may rely upon Mr. Chesnut, who will assist you to his uttermost in finding a home for these people. Nothing belonging to that patriotic gentleman shall come to grief if we have to take charge of them on our own place." Mr. Chesnut did get a place for them, as I said he would.
May 6
  Hampton estate has fifteen hundred negroes on Lake Washington, Mississippi. Hampton girls talking in the language of James's novels: "Neither Wade nor Preston – that splendid boy!-would lay a lance in rest – or couch it, which is the right phrase for fighting, to preserve slavery. They hate it as we do." "What are they fighting for?" "Southern rights – whatever that is. And they do not want to be understrappers forever to the Yankees. They talk well enough about it, but I forget what they say." Johnny Chesnut says: "No use to give a reason- a fellow could not stay away from the fight – not well." It takes four negroes to wait on Johnny satisfactorily.

March 18, 1862
Mr. Chesnut's negroes offered to fight for him if he would arm them. He pretended to believe them. He says one man can not do it. The whole country must agree to it. He would trust such as he would select, and he would give so many acres of land and his freedom to each one as he enlisted.

So, they still need Master's consent to "enlist". Ok.

Or, MASTER can compel them to enlist, and pretend they "volunteered". Who's going to question Master?
Right. 😄🍺

And how would that be different from being drafted?

So now you want to draft slaves.
It's getting better and better.

Didn't the Confederacy exempt slave owners from conscription?
Hell, it gets fairer and fairer.

John, first you are saying the Confed armies were filled with slave owners, then that they had exemptions?

Why would drafting a slave be any worse (or better) than drafting a free man? Aren't all and each of their lives equally valuable?

Had the South not fired on Fort Sumter and remained quiet for the next several months what would the North have done? Do you see any scenario where the North doesn't eventually mobilize against the seceding States? Just curious.

It's moot because the South fired the first shot. Why would anyone indulge your counterfactual question when you dodge, alter, cut and paste what actually happened? You, doc and others consistently confuse causes of the war for war aims, insist that majorities matter sometimes and then minorities matter at other times. There is very little consistency in much of what the posters "Not rehabilitating" the South are saying.

The cause of the war was slavery and the Northern war aims included preserving the Union, cutting the Confederacy off from trade and beating the CSA armies etc. No one was going to charge "slavery" on the battlefield.

Southern war cause was preservation of slavery and their aim was to both hold out long enough to get foreign recognition and bloody the North's nose enough for them to let the CSA go.

Were there other causes or aims? Probably but they were minor. Maybe there were a hundred others but their percentage importance are minuscule and they dont get anything near equal weight to the future of slavery and the Union.

It sure seems to me that Sumter was the pretext the North was looking for for war. I think it was a foolhardy thing to do on the part of the Charleston garrison and those who led it but that is another matter.

Has anyone ever suggested that the secession, the CSA, the slave owners or anything about what the South did was smart?

John, first you are saying the Confed armies were filled with slave owners, then that they had exemptions?

Don't go putting words in my mouth. I was asking M Brutus if that was what he thought.

Why would drafting a slave be any worse (or better) than drafting a free man? Aren't all and each of their lives equally valuable?

If you can't see how making an already miserable man who has absolutely no say over his life cannon fodder is worse than drafting an allegedly free man, than I pity you.
You can't see how Massa dragging Pompey down to the courthouse and signing him up is an abominable evil? Not only that, by the very law you cite above, if he isn't killed in combat, he will return to being a slave.
At least if Jake Jenkins survives the war, he's a free man.

You keep proclaiming how EVIL slavery is, and you can't grasp this simple concept. I'm forced to believe that you think slavery is evil only as a debating point.

You keep digging in Au pas on the cause of the ACW only being about slavery. Go on Youtube and you can find many short videos about the causes of the ACW. I stress the plural cause(s). I have two or three books on the causes of the ACW. Not cause but causes. No serious historian argues that the ACW was caused only by slavery. Your assertion is not sustainable.

As far as counterfactuals even the whole matter of For Sumter and the gamesmanship on both sides needs to be unpacked. I agree that the South fired the first shots but the movement towards that moment is a more complicated story than saying "they fired the first shot." Come on. Let's be serious about the whole matter.

From a histrionics point of view a bad decision on the hotheads part in Charleston. I am sure there were many cooler heads throughout the South who regretted the news.

If a slave's life and liberty are as important as a free man's (they are) then a free man's life and liberty are as important as a slave's (they are).

The POINT about the law is simply that the Confederate leadership ultimately valued independence over preservation of slavery. Of course it was the bare-minimum: "politics is the art of the possible" and even that highly defective law passed by one vote. But the Confederates knew as well as Fred Douglass did that large numbers of blacks under arms was a sea change, a crack in the concrete out of which something would grow. And the Chesnuts are examples of southern whites who hated slavery and were glad to see it gone, even when it bankrupted them personally.

You may imbue all of this with whatever outrage and indignation and other emotion you care to. Perhaps I even agree, in parts. So what?