Slavery; the root cause of Secession & War

[Johan Steele]

Rosecrans was not a noted Abolisionistbut he was a graduate of West Point I believe third of fourth in his class.  He was the first Union general to soundly whip Lee and he did it in West Virginia before Lee was famous.  If you don't know who he was, look to the Army of the Cumberland.  I'm not a big fan of "Old Rosy" as his men called him but this letter I think sums up the attitude of many a US soldier.  The last paragraph in particular I think sums up the Lost Cause (both modern & postwar) quite well.

The words of the men of the day.  Written in 1862.  I take it you've read very few period articles or writings.  I would suggest it; the Victorian prose and style can be confusing to the modern reader but it is quite telling to read the words of the men who were there.  What they thought and did w/ no post war apologetic interpretation from the Lost Cause.

FYI, the slaveocracy did their very best to cultivate themselves as an aristocratic class.  Knowing Rosecrans as the well educated man that he was, I'm curious if your Oxford Dictionary is an 1860 edition as that is what he would have been using.

[Johan Steele]

"The South went to war on account of slavery... South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

John Singleton Mosby

Do you believe that Abolisionist rhetoric?

[Catherine Hopley]

"Rosecrans was not a noted Abolisionist"

No, he wasn't. But in this instance he was parroting abolitionist rhetoric.

"I take it you've read very few period articles or writings."

Well, that's not exactly true. I have a personal library of about 700 volumes on mid-19th century American history.

"FYI, the slaveocracy did their very best to cultivate themselves as an aristocratic class.  Knowing Rosecrans as the well educated man that he was, I'm curious if your Oxford Dictionary is an 1860 edition as that is what he would have been using."

The meaning of the word "aristocracy" has not changed over the last 140 years. If you believe it has, it is incumbent on you to produce supporting evidence.

The largest slaveholders certainly enjoyed wealth and political power - and in those respects they were not dissimilar to genuine aristocrats. But precisely the same thing may be said about the plutocrats of the North. The northern portions of the United States have never been an environment in which poverty is a comfortable experience, and political power and a bulging bank balance have always gone hand-in-hand there.

The reason why the essentially meaningless term "slaveocracy" was used ad nauseam in abolitionist tracts and speeches was because it pressed all kinds of negative buttons with the American people. The notion of aristocracy was unAmerican....it threatened to get in the way of what a gullible and unsophisticated people still thought of as America's destiny - to lead all those benighted foreigners to democracy (and build a substantial de facto empire in the process) - and all with God's approval to boot.

""The South went to war on account of slavery... South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

John Singleton Mosby

Do you believe that Abolisionist rhetoric?"

Southern motives for secession have been discussed very extensively in forums like this one. For the moment I have nothing to add on that subject. I would prefer to concentrate on the equally pressing question of why the North went to war. This is generally overlooked, and the balance needs to be redressed.

And remember that Mosby was in Grant's pocket when he wrote the above: he was dependent on old Hiram for his livelihood.

[ole]

Am I to take this as meaning "Welcome to the forum. A pleasure to make your acquaintance"?

Most assuredly, Miss Catherine. It is a pleasure to have another outstanding spokesperson chime in to keep the discussion moving. You may call me Billy Goat Gruff. Or The Troll. I exist to stir the pot. And I seldom worry about giving offense. At least my kids like me.

Welcome aboard!

ole

[ole]

Southern motives for secession have been discussed very extensively in forums like this one. For the moment I have nothing to add on that subject. I would prefer to concentrate on the equally pressing question of why the North went to war. This is generally overlooked, and the balance needs to be redressed.

All right, Miss Catherine, let the games begin! Why did the North go to war?

ole

[Johan Steele]

No, he wasn't. But in this instance he was parroting abolitionist rhetoric.  I doubt that, he was giving his opinion.

"FYI, the slaveocracy did their very best to cultivate themselves as an aristocratic class.  Knowing Rosecrans as the well educated man that he was, I'm curious if your Oxford Dictionary is an 1860 edition as that is what he would have been using."

The meaning of the word "aristocracy" has not changed over the last 140 years. If you believe it has, it is incumbent on you to produce supporting evidence.  Actually as you brought it up I leave it to you.  I'll put my money on Old Rosy knowing te English language... as I said many of the slaveocracy did their best to cultivate a aristocracy; and they had largely suceeded by 1860.

The largest slaveholders certainly enjoyed wealth and political power - and in those respects they were not dissimilar to genuine aristocrats. But precisely the same thing may be said about the plutocrats of the North. The northern portions of the United States have never been an environment in which poverty is a comfortable experience, and political power and a bulging bank balance have always gone hand-in-hand there.

The reason why the essentially meaningless term "slaveocracy" was used ad nauseam in abolitionist tracts and speeches was because it pressed all kinds of negative buttons with the American people. The notion of aristocracy was unAmerican....it threatened to get in the way of what a gullible and unsophisticated people still thought of as America's destiny - to lead all those benighted foreigners to democracy (and build a substantial de facto empire in the process) - and all with God's approval to boot.

""The South went to war on account of slavery... South Carolina went to war as she said in her secession proclamation, because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln...don't you think South Carolina ought to know why it went to war?"

John Singleton Mosby

Do you believe that Abolisionist rhetoric?"

Southern motives for secession have been discussed very extensively in forums like this one. For the moment I have nothing to add on that subject. I would prefer to concentrate on the equally pressing question of why the North went to war. This is generally overlooked, and the balance needs to be redressed.  It is generally overlooked?  You must not visit the same forums I do, genaerally it's all the evil US's fault from your side of the aisle.  Redressed?  Lets stick w/ history over fantasy.

And remember that Mosby was in Grant's pocket when he wrote the above: he was dependent on old Hiram for his livelihood. Again I doubt that very much, Mosby was bought... so his opinion was obviously garbage.  Well he was there, he garnered an opinion from his personal experiances and he dared voice that opinion and for that the Lost Cause has spent 140+ years crucifying the man along w/ other good CS soldiers such as Mahone and Longstreet.  I don't buy it.  Mosby was a legit soldier on the sharp end, not a stay behinder who wouldn't know a rifle from a rocket.  I also believe he was enough of a man to voice HIS opinion.

Like Ole, I too have become quite jaded and crochety.  I grow weary of the same tried and failed arguments and fantasy charges painting the US as the anti-christ.  The tariff's will be trumpeted as the real reason of the war and slavery had nothing to do w/ it at all and the Southern Slaveocracy pure as the driven snow.  My opinions have been formed by a decade or more reading the men of the day; their letters and diaries... I prefere those to the apologists writing well after making every effort to paint their cause in as good a light as possible.

As for the blame; plenty to go around w/ incompetant & corrupt politicians on both sides of the argument.  The difference between the two?  IMO one side was formenting treason the other the status quo.  Both should have been lined up against a wall and read from the book.

[Catherine Hopley]

"as I said many of the slaveocracy did their best to cultivate a aristocracy"

As you dismiss the dictionary definition of the word, perhaps you can give us your own definition of "aristocracy"? If you believe that slaveowners tried to cultivate an aristocracy, it follows that you must some vague notion of what the word means.

"You must not visit the same forums I do, genaerally it's all the evil US's fault from your side of the aisle."

Well, let's be realistic. If one believes that the Confederate States had a right to exist it follows that one must be critical of the U.S. government and the Northern people. Just as a Union sympathiser is bound to use harsh words about what he sees as the criminals, rebels and traitors who formed and fought for the C.S.A.

"Again I doubt that very much, Mosby was bought... so his opinion was obviously garbage. "

Nobody has said that Mosby's opinion was garbage. But the fact that he became a Republican (a Quisling, from a Southern point of view) and was dependent on his former enemies for his livelihood is a factor which one has to take into account when evaluating his post-war utterances.

"I grow weary of the same tried and failed arguments and fantasy charges painting the US as the anti-christ."

"The anti-Christ"? Hyperbole like that really doesn't get us anywhere. I'm bound to ask why, if you find reading pro-Confederate arguments such a painful experience, you bother to participate in forums like this. The whole point of these discussion groups is to open oneself up to alternative points of view.

"My opinions have been formed by a decade or more reading the men of the day; their letters and diaries... "

And other people have spent just as long, if not longer, reading the same sources and coming to different conclusions to yours. 

[Catherine Hopley]

"All right, Miss Catherine, let the games begin! Why did the North go to war?"

All major political decisions are taken in accordance with self-interest. The states of the Lower South, for example, seceded from the Union because they believed such actions served their interests. The Confederate government was formed for the same reason.

So, in order to understand why the government in Washington decided to wage a war of conquest against the Confederacy, we need to establish why they thought such a war would serve their interests.

The answer isn't difficult to find. Lincoln and most of his cabinet members were Republicans. They had just won office for the first time, but only as a result of the division within Democrat ranks.

But, having attained power through a fluke, they were then presented with a golden opportunity to ensure Republican domination of American politics for at least a generation to come. If they could achieve victory over a small agrarian nation with grossly inferior resources they could wave the "Bloody Shirt" to their hearts' content. They would reap the dividend of victory, whilst the Democrats would be tainted by their traditional Southern powerbase.

It was the equivalent of a political blank check. They would have had to be mad to let the opportunity pass.

[Johan Steele]

"as I said many of the slaveocracy did their best to cultivate a aristocracy"

As you dismiss the dictionary definition of the word, perhaps you can give us your own definition of "aristocracy"? If you believe that slaveowners tried to cultivate an aristocracy, it follows that you must some vague notion of what the word means.  Yes Maam I do have a "vague" idea of what it means.  You were asked to provide why you thought a learned man of 1862 was so obviously uneducated in his use of the word.  You haven't.  Do you have a "vague" notion why such a man might use the term?
"You must not visit the same forums I do, genaerally it's all the evil US's fault from your side of the aisle."

Well, let's be realistic. If one believes that the Confederate States had a right to exist it follows that one must be critical of the U.S. government and the Northern people. Just as a Union sympathiser is bound to use harsh words about what he sees as the criminals, rebels and traitors who formed and fought for the C.S.A.

"Again I doubt that very much, Mosby was bought... so his opinion was obviously garbage. "

Nobody has said that Mosby's opinion was garbage. But the fact that he became a Republican (a Quisling, from a Southern point of view) and was dependent on his former enemies for his livelihood is a factor which one has to take into account when evaluating his post-war utterances. Ahh but now you are implying since he became a Republican, oh the horror, and was dependent upon his enemies for a livliehood it has to be taken into "account."  Meaning of coarse that it is of dubious legitimacy.
"I grow weary of the same tried and failed arguments and fantasy charges painting the US as the anti-christ."

"The anti-Christ"? Hyperbole like that really doesn't get us anywhere. I'm bound to ask why, if you find reading pro-Confederate arguments such a painful experience, you bother to participate in forums like this. The whole point of these discussion groups is to open oneself up to alternative points of view.  I visit these discussion groups to learn, not to be spoon fed.  I like to see sources (thank you for those you've provided) that prove to me the speaker on the other side of the screen actually has a clue and isn't merely cutting and pasting Lost Cause rhetoric w/out actually looking at them.  It's amusing really, lets talk reasonably and not inflame anybody type post is immedietly followed by a post w/ "conquest" and the charge that the war was merely a power grab from the purposefully vague "North."

Pro Confederate is not and never has been pro south or pro US for that matter.

"My opinions have been formed by a decade or more reading the men of the day; their letters and diaries... "

And other people have spent just as long, if not longer, reading the same sources and coming to different conclusions to yours.    True, I have no doubt.  The problem I've discovered is that most of those who have actually spent that kind of time in research seem to often end up on my side of the aisle.  While the other side of the aisle seems to have an overly large congregation of the Saints Kennedy and DiLorenzo... neither of which could research their way out of a paper bag.

[/b]

"They will omit no means, honest or dishonest, to insure success.  Misrepresenting, calumniating our motives, ridiculing our honest efforts to mitigate the horrors of war, and inflaming the passions of the populace by low epithets, are among the milder and more ordinary means resorted to by this psuedo 'chivalry,' the meanest aristocracy that ever stood at the head of a civilized society."

William S Rosecrans 20 July 1862

I believe Rosecrans was right in 1862 and in 2008.

I have become quite jaded and more than a littel crochety of late.  I do apologize if I've lumped you unfairly into a crowd that you don't belong but your first post seems to have put you squarely in the middle of them.

If you've 700 books on the subject certainly then you've come across the rather common opinion of the CS soldier that the loss of the CS govt was no loss at all.  The distinct air of betrayel and abject incompetance from Richmond was overwhelming to them.

I am merely interested in the men on the sharp end, the men who did the fighting and dieing; the ones who did the dirty work w/ little or no thanks from those they were doing it for.  The stay behinders who invented and still invent things out of whole cloth were/are the first organized attempt to harm the US.  That they suceeded to do as much harm as they did in the later half of the 19th and first half of the 20th is proof that they were effective.  That they continue to do so is merely proof they are still around and need a counter balance of some sort... truth is a good start.

[Catherine Hopley]

"It's amusing really, lets talk reasonably and not inflame anybody type post is immedietly followed by a post w/ "conquest" and the charge that the war was merely a power grab from the purposefully vague 'North.' "

It isn't inflammatory to argue that the Confederacy was "conquered". That doesn't mean that it is necessarily a correct notion: it is perfectly possible to argue that the Confederacy never really existed and that the U.S. government simply suppressed a criminal conspiracy. I am sure that would be your point of view, and it's a perfectly legitimate one. But if one doesn't happen to see things that way, if one happens to believe that a small nation was wiped off the face of the earth by a powerful neighbour, then it is a literal impossibility to avoid using the word "conquest".

Likewise, it isn't inflammatory to use words like "treason" and "rebellion" when discussing the war from a Union point of view. I'm certainly not offended by the use of these words, and I genuinely fail to see how one can explain the Unionist perspective without using them.

What you appear to be saying is that any expression of a Confederate point of view is inflammatory. That is a hopelessly partisan and one-eyed attitude.