New Book on Lincoln's Racial Views

[Willard]

But the problem is that you give the "working poor" no will or voice of their own. In your argument they are there to be manipulated and have no control over what happens. Common people can egt angry on their own, there doesn't have to be a planter standing in front of them rabble rousing.

Your words, not mine. People can be manipulated into doing things that aren't in their best interest and history is replete with examples. The fact that they were uneducated and poor actually makes my point easier to prove - they never realized that it wasn't in their best interest to fight that war. Sure they would give the common answer that they were fighting for their rights - but right to do what? Own slaves? Exactly what was it the common man was fighting for, especially when industrialization would soon make slave labor obsolete?

That's alright neither does yours. You are basing your entire explanation on the premise that slavery would have been emancipated gradually and with compensation. That never even came close to happening. The most ardent abolitionists never wanted anything but absolute and immediate emancipation. Lincoln didn't just up and decide one day that he'd throw emancipation in the mix. There was tremendous pressure all around him.

I am basing nothing on it - just saying that it was an option on the table. I agree that it was unlikely in 1862 for the southern gentlemen to swallow their pride, but it still was a possibility - and a far better possibility for southerners overall than what was to follow.

I never said it wasn't, so you're piling on an argument to bolster your overall position, I guess? Also, since when do official documents represent what every person thinks?

Once again, if it wasn't for slavery, what was it for? You can't answer that question without going back to the root of the rebellion. My assertion is that the legal basis that the southern states were building for secession, as outlined in their ordinances of secessions and declarations on causes is a good place to start. I guess those should be thrown out because they don't support your position?

Shelby Foote isn't the authority he once was. Scholarship has gone way past that. Every academic I've seen positively loathes him as the centerpiece of Ken Burns' documentary. And here again, you go on a premise that has absolutely no proof. Gradual and compensated emancipation was never even close to offered formally. So it's not solid ground to compare to. Plus, you're saying that the North would have been gracious victors when it was they who torched most of the South on purpose? There is no way they could have anticipated that level of destruction being thrust upon the populace - destruction which arguably has crippled the entire region ever since. What Lincoln wanted was rarely exactly what happened.

So know we are basing the legitimacy of the information on the fact that several historians loathe Shelby Foote? Perhaps you should go read the section I cited - you will find that there are multiple pages of excerpts from an address Lincoln gave in December 1862 - one that he was sure that would be reported on the south. The fact that it wasn't formally offered means nothing. The option was on the table.

As for the level of destruction in the south, they should have thought of that possibility before firing the first shot on at Fort Sumter. And please, don't give me the BS response that the south was torched on purpose...the south was in rebellion and destroying their ability and will to wage war brought it to an end. Now I am sure you will follow with anecdotal stories of Yankees raping and pillaging, and I will respond with stories of southerns doing the same, so we can dispense with that now as both of us would agree that any excessive atrocities were horrible. However, destroying the south's ability to wage war as whole was a legitimate objective - whether it be through blockades, tearing up railroads or burning munition factories.

That seems a good stretch to include the MAW. However, the South had a comparably tiny population compared to the North (2/3rds being case in point). Why was it wrong for Southerners to worry about losing representation for their point(s) of view? They did not necessarily have to "dominate" politics, hence all the 1:1 moves. Seems to me they were more afraid of having their ideas and whatnot trampled on by a veritable flood of representatives in the North. If, in their eyes, the system of government was no longer willing or able to represent them fairly, in their eyes, then they sought to break away from that and attempt to fashion a nation more true to what they perceived as the true ideals of the Declaration/Constitution/Revolution etc. It may have been foolhardy, but it wasn't the action of "taking their ball and going home". I think there again you err in being pejorative with your terminology and thereby oversimplify the matter terribly.

Whether you agree with me or not about the MAW is immaterial. I would suggest your do some research on it before stating it is a stretch. Their is ample documented information about the war and it's causes, as well as the political backlash amongst northern/southern Whigs and Southern Democrats - especially the latter's push for the war to extend slavery to the Pacific. Once again the Wilmot Proviso was a direct result of the MAW and one of the precipitating causes of the Compromise of 1850. To say the MAW is stretch is not an objective review of the events or sentiments of the people at the time.

I understand the south was worrying about losing representation - but the root cause of that worry was based upon their need to maintain the legal/social/political order to continue to prop up slavery. That was not done to benefit the common man, it was done to maintain the wealth/power structure of the southern elite. Had they - the southern elite - truly had the best interests at heart of the common man, they would have looked at ways of investing and developing their wealth for the entire region as opposed to spending that treasure to defend their way of life.

[JC Edwards]

If I was to spend time completely reading all of this......I would never get any work done for Norb!:laugh:

[cliometrician]

I see nothing new here in the book in question. Lincoln's views on colonization are quite well known. Of several good books on the subject of Lincoln, slavery and emancipation (such as Guelzo's THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION), see the latest: Eric Foner, THE FIERY TRIAL: ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND AMERICAN SLAVERY.

[Michael Slaunwhite]

I gotta hand it to ya Willard, you is a born Politician!

That there piece was as good as War n Peace.

Seriously I did like it and had to agree on some of your points

Gotta agree about Baylors Tipple that would be worth a pursuit

Braxton Bragg

Hi Mister Bragg.

I totally agree with you (except on Baylor, I don't know the man). Whenever Southern Steel, and Willard start discussing something I sit back, get my coffee ready, and have a good time reading. I always read what these two gentlemen post because you are normally guaranteed a good read.

Excellent Discussion guys!

[SouthernSteel]

Having a heck of a time accessing the site and getting the forums to load lately...anyway.

Your words, not mine. People can be manipulated into doing things that aren't in their best interest and history is replete with examples. The fact that they were uneducated and poor actually makes my point easier to prove - they never realized that it wasn't in their best interest to fight that war. Sure they would give the common answer that they were fighting for their rights - but right to do what? Own slaves? Exactly what was it the common man was fighting for, especially when industrialization would soon make slave labor obsolete?

Hardly. Don't try and turn what I said against me, I know quite well what I said and it is not that at all. I credited them with the ability to think for themselves. I'm not calling them brilliant philosophers but they had their own principles and you can't just discount them because it doesn't fit your argument. However, yet again, as is obvious with your "sarcastic" posts replete with demeaning comments about the character of Southerners who are petty and selfish and uneducated, etc., it is obvious you have little interest in doing anything but trying your best to stomp this into the mud for whatever reasons you have. Northerners still delight in it and any Southerner who tries to defend any of it merely a misguided closet racist neo-Confederate who is terribly misguided.

There was an entire social order in place, and if you accept the idea (complete with the installment of an aristocratic class, etc.) that the South is and really always has been highly conservative, they would have naturally resisted any sort of change. Even though the system in place might not have been accomodating to make every white southerner rich, there was some security in knowing one's place in society and that it was safe. This was cemented in part by the fact that Americans (and later Southerners especially) made slavery a racist institution, so that no matter how low or poor a white person might be, they could feel that they were at the very least superior to a black slave. I'm not saying it's right, but it does appear to have been the case as per modern historical scholarship.

I am basing nothing on it - just saying that it was an option on the table. I agree that it was unlikely in 1862 for the southern gentlemen to swallow their pride, but it still was a possibility - and a far better possibility for southerners overall than what was to follow.

Wow! Please don't treat me like I'm stupid. You referenced it several times in your previous post and said essentially disproved anything I said. It was the central tenet of your argument, and there's no real sense in denying it. You said that because this offer "existed" that Southerners were basically stupid to have done what they did. If you're so high on finding legislation and legal bases for things, find me an official, signed offer from any sort of governmental body that guaranteed gradual, compensated emancipation. It never happened, never even came close. It existed as an idea and was discussed, but was honestly even less successful than some of the recolonization efforts - some of those were ventures that were actually launched.

Once again, if it wasn't for slavery, what was it for? You can't answer that question without going back to the root of the rebellion. My assertion is that the legal basis that the southern states were building for secession, as outlined in their ordinances of secessions and declarations on causes is a good place to start. I guess those should be thrown out because they don't support your position?

I never said that it wasn't slavery, but I think it is still a bit too simplistic to call it that and only that. I also never said those sources ought to be discounted. I just think you're arguing a point that I never contested only to be able to throw more weight behind your overall argument and make yourself out to be better informed.

So know we are basing the legitimacy of the information on the fact that several historians loathe Shelby Foote? Perhaps you should go read the section I cited - you will find that there are multiple pages of excerpts from an address Lincoln gave in December 1862 - one that he was sure that would be reported on the south. The fact that it wasn't formally offered means nothing. The option was on the table.

No, we are basing the "legitimacy" of modern scholarship on the current situation of modern scholarship. They don't "loathe" him because they don't like his hair or something. They think he subscribes largely to the very ideas that you are discounting. He is presented very much as a Southern romantic, of sorts, and that is what they do not like. I'm just telling you what I have experienced. Don't get mad at me for reporting that. And I wish you would stop saying that this offer was "on the table". Lincoln never said, "hey, guys, if you come back now, we'll give you a nice golden parachute for this whole slavery thing." It was never in legislation, never anywhere really. The entirety of Congress was finally free to do whatever they wanted in the absence of the Southerners, and you think they were about to cow-tow to them? I don't think so.

As for the level of destruction in the south, they should have thought of that possibility before firing the first shot on at Fort Sumter. And please, don't give me the BS response that the south was torched on purpose...the south was in rebellion and destroying their ability and will to wage war brought it to an end. Now I am sure you will follow with anecdotal stories of Yankees raping and pillaging, and I will respond with stories of southerns doing the same, so we can dispense with that now as both of us would agree that any excessive atrocities were horrible. However, destroying the south's ability to wage war as whole was a legitimate objective - whether it be through blockades, tearing up railroads or burning munition factories.

Ah yes, because Southerners should have had the gift of premonition? Nothing like that had ever been experienced, that's why it is known as a hallmark of "modern" warfare. It was new, and there's really no way that anyone could have expected it, especially to that degree and in that form. It's not a BS response - you want to tell me that torching the homes of families and indeed entire cities was a purely military objective? There are cases where they even torched and pillaged the farms of free blacks, but it's ok because they were going after military targets and not inflicting suffering on the Southern populace for revenge. None of it is anecdotal, please stop dismissing my arguments because you disagree with them.

If you have examples where Southerners marched through several northern states and burned entire cities and took everything they could get their hands on, then please, submit it as "anecdotal" evidence. I have no doubt that there were some Southerners who went out of their way to do the same, but they didn't wreck entire states. And the blockade, railroad destroying and munitions factory burning (of which there were maybe a dozen across the entire South, and not in many of the regions through which Sherman cut his swath to the sea) are convinient examples but ignore the fact that most of what was destroyed was the property of average southerners. "Making Georgia Howl" has absolutely nothing to do with military targets and everything to do with a campaign designed to exact some sort of revenge and sap the will of the people by breaking them physically. Starving people don't put up much of a fight because they're too busy looking for food.

And what about the blockade? It was designed to cut off all resources as well, and so ended up making even the simplest dietary staples all but unobtainable. It's not as if they stopped all ships going to the South but let the ships carrying food and medicine through. The North conducted all operations like that with no intentions of being graceful about any of it. Butler's entire idea behind exploiting the rule that allowed confiscation of war property was to make slavery an issue and permit him to remove them. He surely was not concerned with only taking a few at a time and paying the Southerners back.

I understand the south was worrying about losing representation - but the root cause of that worry was based upon their need to maintain the legal/social/political order to continue to prop up slavery. That was not done to benefit the common man, it was done to maintain the wealth/power structure of the southern elite. Had they - the southern elite - truly had the best interests at heart of the common man, they would have looked at ways of investing and developing their wealth for the entire region as opposed to spending that treasure to defend their way of life.

Again, I think you're asking for premonition here or judging heavily with hindsight. You're asking a region whose wealth and production was based entirely in agriculture to willingly abandon that to build factories and suddenly become industrial? You're asking for a sort of "Great Leap Forward" sort of deal with attendant disaster and suffering, I think. The South was a major, arguably the major producer of raw materials, particularly cotton. Much of Northern industry was able to exist due to the close proximity of plentiful raw materials. If Southerners switched to factories as well, that supply would've been tough to come by. I would have to research it more, but as I recall, Southerners were concerned about inequality in that trade (Southern raw materials north) being developed in legislation to benefit the North. But overall, you can't just have expected the South to abandon its basis as a slave society (as opposed, as historians love to point out, to a society with slaves).

No one has ever argued that the Southern elite were altruistic in their motives, as far as I am aware. Elites rarely are, northern industrialists included. Cheap labor makes their wealth possible. However, poor southerners, which made up the majority of the Southern white population, were not attaining slave-owning status at any sort of rapid rate, so while they might hope to attain it, they had to be somewhat satisfied with their position in life - otherwise, what's to stop them from rising up on their own to overthrow the aristocrats? Slavery as a racial institution was exactly designed with the common man in mind. That way, regardless of economic status, whites could feel a part of Southern society and knew they were, as I said before, at the very least above black slaves.

As I said before, was there a good deal of manipulating of the "lower classes" (sorry, that term gets into a whole different segment of arguments, mostly economic) by the elites in the South? No Doubt - but the same was true in the North. Still, it is impossible to argue objective that Southerners should have "seen" industrialism coming like an unstoppable wave and should have prepared themselves to surf on it. That goes, so far as I am aware, against the very fabric of Southern ideology and society (yes, all of it, even the poorest whites), even if it had somehow been possible to foresee this, as you say.

[KG_Soldier]

Parker's argument makes no claim that slavery isn't a factor in the start of the war. In fact, he doesn't claim it's not the main cause of the war. But, as often happens, someone makes a claim that there were factors other than slavery which contributed to the start of the war and/or why Southerners fought, and the retort is a litany of reasons why the South's support of slavery is the only cause which deserves consideration. Which validates Parker's assertion that "Any sort of pro-Southern mentality is not only discounted, it is met with utter disgust. This is from absolute, first-hand experience in academia (albeit primarily in PA). The best solution is to keep your mouth shut on that topic, I have found."

You're really using a strawman argument(simplified): Parker says, "There are factors other than slavery which helped cause the war," and then you say, "How can you claim slavery isn't the primary factor in the war?"


And Willard, come on, what point are you trying to make by claiming that the South would have been better of if it had accepted an imaginary offer from the North to compensate them for the loss of slaves in a gradual emancipation deal in return for the South rejoining the Union?

Gee. . . I think you can say both sides would have been better off had that happened and the war ended in 1863, the South more than the North, obviously.

[SouthernSteel]

Gee. . . I think you can say both sides would have been better off had that happened and the war ended in 1863, the South more than the North, obviously.

This is actually a pretty interesting question, although one which I have not done any real research into (I don't find Reconstruction overly interesting...and neither do History classes, since it is probably one of the most skipped subjects, falling at the end of the first "half" of US History - Baylor can likely attest to this one.)

I can't even imagine where the South might be if it hadn't been for the destruction wrought by the war. All I can see is the South the way it is. I can't see it having built up like the Midwest, nor with massive cities like the Northeast (Florida being the exception, obviously - I suppose it mirrors maybe CA?). It really kind of escapes the edge of my imagination, which is odd for me.

[Willard]

Don't have time right now to get address all the points, and I think we are going to have "agree to disagree" on this.

I think KG has isolated the key issue for me:

There are factors other than slavery which helped cause the war, and then you say, "How can you claim slavery isn't the primary factor in the war?

I agree that there were other factors than slavery that caused the war - however those factors were overwhelmingly the result of slavery - whereas you choose to isolate them a vacuum. The problem is that one can't look at those social/political/economic/legal-consitutional issues in a vacuum. The root cause of those problems and resulting sectional friction was overwhelmingly the result of slavery. For example, to talk about Dredd Scott as being a constitutional question of property rights is to miss the point that Dredd Scott was a SLAVE. To talk about the economic disparities between the north/south as sectional friction between an emerging industrial versus agrarian based economy, is to solely miss the point the point that the southern agrarian economy was propped up by the insitution of slavery.

More importantly, re-reading your posts shows some pretty striking differences in perspective. I think it is clear that you view the angry invading Yankess as demons that unjustly raped and pillaged the south. Conversely, you view the south as the honorable gentlemen in a disagreement with their unruly neighbors to the north. You toss out feigned indignation at Sherman's March but fail to mention Andersonville or Fort Pillow. You make naive references to northern blockades not letting in food and medicine - as if supposing the north should allow these goods in upon a southern gentleman's word that it wouldn't be used to support the military?

This idealized view of the south fits neatly in with the revisionist and apologist attempts to paint the south as a victim. However, no where in any of your responses do you make a categorical statement saying that slavery was wrong - if anything there is a romantic undertone to your comments about southern society and ideology. You continue to comment about a need to manintain the economic order and opportunity for the poor white man while neglecting the plight of millions of slaves in chains.

Furthermore, make no mistake that neither side had a monopoly on cruelty or brutality in that civil war. The fact of the matter was that the south was in rebellion and the fastest way to end that rebellion was to crush the will of the people through destruction of industry, transportation and farms that fueled the machine. Sure Sherman burned Georgia - there were plantations, farms, and homes that were supplying the southern armies. By displacing those persons it added a burden to the CSA, thereby multiplying the impact of the damage and exponentially decreasing the time needed to collapse the system. Sure the north enacted this policy on a tremendous scale, but one only needs to read about Rome and Carthage and the 30 Years War to see other examples of regions decimated during warfare.

Was it cruel? Yes it was. But as Sherman said, "war is cruelty you cannot refine."

Was it anymore cruel to enslaving millions? I will let you answer that question.

That being said, there is a difference between honoring one's ancestors and appreciating their courage and sacrifice on the battlefield and a misguided attempt to reframe an argument over a period of 150 years. I don't think anyone from the south who espouses those views are "closet racist neo-Confederates." I simply think their argument holds no water because you cannot seperate the institution of slavery from the social/political/economic/legal-consitutional issues that precipitated the war.

Right off the bat, I don't appreciate the comments about me bashing the south. The fact of the matter is I actually like the south - have a home in Virginia - and married my wife whose family is from Alabama! I guess that makes me a carpet-bagger in fine Yankee tradition.

I also wear a white suit and sing on the weekends...

[RDBoles]

I love this stuff guys. You two sound just like Charles Sumner and Jefferson Davis in the Senate back in 1860. After 150 years has transpired it looks like not much has been changed in the tender feelings of the times. AS far as reconstruction goes, it has to be one of the Nations worst black eyes in public policies. Those dammed Yankees setting all the rules. Unbearable to live with. Keep up the good work it is great to read and it will stimulate others to research better the times that we are so fond of being part of.

[Willard]

Parker's argument makes no claim that slavery isn't a factor in the start of the war. In fact, he doesn't claim it's not the main cause of the war. But, as often happens, someone makes a claim that there were factors other than slavery which contributed to the start of the war and/or why Southerners fought, and the retort is a litany of reasons why the South's support of slavery is the only cause which deserves consideration. Which validates Parker's assertion that "Any sort of pro-Southern mentality is not only discounted, it is met with utter disgust. This is from absolute, first-hand experience in academia (albeit primarily in PA). The best solution is to keep your mouth shut on that topic, I have found."

You're really using a strawman argument(simplified): Parker says, "There are factors other than slavery which helped cause the war, and then you say, "How can you claim slavery isn't the primary factor in the war?"

And Willard, come on, what point are you trying to make by claiming that the South would have been better of if it had accepted an imaginary offer from the North to compensate them for the loss of slaves in a gradual emancipation deal in return for the South rejoining the Union?

Gee. . . I think you can say both sides would have been better off had that happened and the war ended in 1863, the South more than the North, obviously.

KG -

As outlined in my previous post, I am not dismissing the other factors. What I am saying is those factors were secondary and resultant from the primary issue of slavery. The fact that you or Parker may disagree with me is one thing, but no one has been able to provide any legitimate argument/proof to the otherwise.

More importantly, when doing a simple search on the declaration of causes for secession I found over 80 references to slavery. These documents were drafted by representatives elected by the citizens of those states that passed these documents. As Parker said, I disrespected the intelligence of the common man of the south. In an attempt no to do so again, I am correct in assuming that the positions of those representatives on slavery and secession where well known to the citizens and that it would not have come to much suprise to the average South Carolinian that his representative in the state house was voting for secession in an ordinance that mentions slavery dozens of times? However as Parker states, this should be dismissed...

Also, since when do official documents represent what every person thinks?

So in order to offer historical documents as evidence of a position, the standard is that I now must find out what every person thinks? I think that is a bit ridiculous. However, as Parker said, I just threw that out there to make it out as if I am better informed - talk about a backhanded slight on that one!

Shame on me for assuming that given the reverance we have for the Declaration of Independence as the foundation for the revolution, that one may look at analogous documents for seceding states as possible evidence of their intentions and grievances.

Additionally, I am not setting up a straw man argument - I would seriously like you or others to provide me a list a social/economic/political/legal-consitutional reasons that the south seceded that do not have connection to the issue of slavery. More importantly, this isn't about what you "think" but what you can back up with the historical record. I think you will find that such an excercise is extremely difficult, as the most ardent secessionists were also the most ardent pro-slavery proponents.