"the end of the war from the Chesnut's perspective" Topic

April 23rd—My silver wedding day, and I am sure the unhappiest day of my life. No wonder John Chesnut is bitter. They say Mulberry has been destroyed by a corps commanded by General Logan.

Someone asked coolly, "Will General Chesnut be shot as a soldier, or hung as a senator?" "I am not of sufficient consequence," answered he. "They will stop short of brigadiers. I resigned my seat in the United States Senate weeks before there was any secession. So I cannot be hung as a senator. But after all it is only a choice between drumhead court martial, short shrift, and a lingering death at home from starvation."

These Negroes are unchanged. The shining black mask they wear does not show a ripple of change; they are sphinxes. Ellen has had my diamonds to keep for a week or so. When the danger was over she handed them back to me with as little apparent interest in the matter as if they had been garden peas.

One year ago we left Richmond. The Confederacy has double-quicked downhill since then. One year since I stood in that beautiful Hollywood by little Joe Davis's grave. Now we have burned towns, deserted plantations, sacked villages. "You seem resolute to look the worst in the face," said General Chesnut, wearily. "Yes, poverty, with no future and no hope." "But no slaves, thank God!" cried Buck. "We would be the scorn of the world if the world thought of us at all. You see, we are exiles and paupers." "Pile on the agony." "How does our famous captain, the great Lee, bear the Yankees' galling chain?" I asked. "He knows how to possess his soul in patience," answered my husband. "If there were no such word as subjugation, no debts, no poverty, no Negro mobs backed by Yankees; if all things were well, you would shiver and feel benumbed," he went on, pointing at me in an oratorical attitude. "Your sentence is pronounced—Camden for life."

Chesnut, Mary Boykin Miller . A Diary From Dixie (pp. 103-104). HarperCollins Canada. Kindle Edition.

Now we have burned towns, deserted plantations, sacked villages. "You seem resolute to look the worst in the face," said General Chesnut, wearily. "Yes, poverty, with no future and no hope." "But no slaves, thank God!" cried Buck.

The prevailing attitude towards slavery within the south, as near as I can make out, was that it was a bad system that everyone was trapped in. Those who celebrated slavery as a "positive good" were a minority, the flip side of the abolitionists and a reaction against them. Slavery was so complex and so intertwined that, like the Gordian knot, it could only be slashed asunder by the sword.

Of course the fact that abolition would impoverish the planter class was part of the puzzle ball.

Lest it be objected that Chesnut was "not representative" of southern thought, please note that he was in fact LITERALLY representative, of his state (SC) in the US Senate.

ZZ, whatever your heart does, your head needs to move to a better location. Certainly the diamond episode illustrates something about the relationships (complicated) between masters and servants within slavery, and probably not what you think. But you have quite missed the point. You DID notice that amongst their economic and legal jeopardy they REJOICED that slavery was done? What do you make of that?

Hi John.

Her diaries went through multiple edits, yes. Including the one by Vann Woodward that won a Pulitzer.

I doubt she represented "the vast majority of Southern aristocracy" but she was far from alone, as well.

And former US Senator Chesnut DID represent enough of SC to be chosen by the legislature as a senator.

Slavery was a TRAP the south was ultimately glad to be cut away from.

Mary Boykin Chesnut (née Miller) (March 31, 1823 – November 22, 1886) was an American author noted for a book published as her Civil War diary, a "vivid picture of a society in the throes of its life-and-death struggle."[1] She described the war from within her upper-class circles of Southern slaveowner society, but encompassed all classes in her book. She was married to a lawyer who served as a United States senator and Confederate officer. Chesnut worked toward a final form of her book in 1881–1884, based on her extensive diary written during the war years. It was published in 1905, 19 years after her death. New versions were published after her papers were discovered, in 1949 by the novelist Ben Ames Williams, and in 1981 by the historian C. Vann Woodward, whose annotated edition of the diary, Mary Chesnut's Civil War (1981), won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1982. Literary critics have praised Chesnut's diary—the influential writer Edmund Wilson termed it "a work of art" and a "masterpiece" of the genre[2]—as the most important work by a Confederate author.

You can't say that one person views are representative of over 11 million people. I could find a southern man from East Tennesse who wrote a diary. He fought for the Union. So, then I could say "see, people in the south opposed secession and were loyal to the Union." What Chestnut wrote was her opinion it does not prove anything beyond that.

I didn't say that. Though "representative" does mean something in regards to an elected official. So does a Pulitzer prize for history.

So then you could say SOME people (in Chesnut's case) hated slavery and were glad to see it destroyed, while being Confederate patriots.

Which is what I said. Stop arguing with things I didn't say.

I'm certainly no expert, but I have not seen a shred of evidence to substantiate this claim: "The prevailing attitude towards slavery within the south, as near as I can make out, was that it was a bad system that everyone was trapped in." This is particularly true if we are looking at the Southern leaders most involved in policy decisions. What they did certainly have, was plenty of reasons to try to make it appear that this was their view.

If you know the story of George Washington's attempt to free his slaves, you will see the "trap" quite clearly, as GW did.

Thomas Jefferson's credentials opposing slavery are first-rate: he tried to condemn it in the Declaration, he wrote powerfully against it in NOTES ON VIRGINIA, and he succeeded in keeping it out of the Northwest. Yet he never freed his slaves. Why? Because the practical obstacles to doing so were too great.

Of course cynicism may be used to dismiss what ANY leader, or any human, says, about any subject. And such a dismissal may be justified, no doubt; we are all fallen, all sinners. But I prefer to have heroes, even (or maybe especially) flawed ones.

No, as the Admiral says, "It's a trap!"

Of course, neither GW nor Jefferson were leaders of the Confederacy, so I'm not sure why their thoughts are relevant to your earlier claim. And as for Jefferson -- I'm curious to know your opinion of Kaplan's recent book: he certainly does not share your opinion that Jefferson clearly opposed slavery, at least not when to do so would have been a personal inconvenience.

Oh for heavens sake.

If a freed slave is required by law to leave the state, as was often the case (and so leave home and family and economic security) I would consider that a "practical obstacle."

Ah, John, you should have been alive then. The world would have marveled at your compassion and wisdom and statesmanship.