OK, Tarzan, I guess this'll start things off. I'm being a deliberate stinker. :)

Who can guess who said this?

I will say... that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about, in any way, a social and political equality of the White and Black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people.

There is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And in so much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 20, 2001

Answers

It actually annoys me that I should even have to say this, but I will: of COURSE I don't for one moment believe what this person said in the quote above.

I'm just interested in seeing if anyone can identify it. Who said this?

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 20, 2001.

David Duke?

-- White (robes@in.vogue), March 20, 2001.

Sounds like what many of the North Carolinians and Georgians I've met over the years have said to me at one time or another. Must I name one in particular or can I lump 'em together?

Abe Lincoln?

My father?

TR?

D. W. Griffith?

Strom Thurmond?

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 20, 2001.

I'm pretty sure it's Abe Lincoln, who was accused many times of being a "nigger lover" during his presidential campaign. His election was a great big sore spot for the south and lead directly to Ft. Sumter.

Of course, this could also have been said by Bob Barr, who has been dogged by rumors of "passing" as a white person. He does bear a striking resemblance to an extremely light skinned African American.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 20, 2001.

Could it be Abe Lincoln? I think I read something like this before that was attributed to him.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), March 20, 2001.

Jimmy the Greek?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 20, 2001.

U.S. Grant? William Tecumsah Sherman? Thomas Jefferson?

George W. Bush?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 20, 2001.

JFK

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 20, 2001.

No, it was Abraham Lincoln in a response to Stephen Douglas back in 1858.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 20, 2001.

I couldn't guess, so I looked it up. Search engine says it's from Lincoln's second debate with Stephen Douglas.

just a story I heard, fwiw -

By the time I was twelve I had a problem - I stuttered terribly. And one of my best little friends who lived near me had the same problem and we bonded cause we understood how it felt to have kids throw names....y'know, we had names for kids who were different. It's not the name that belongs to them; it's the name we wanna give 'em cause we think it's fun. It's not fun if you're on the receiving end. Russ and I had that problem with trying to get our words together...and we got to the place because we were friends that we could talk 2 or 3 minutes without stuttering cause we accepted each other. One day I was playing ball with my buddy Russ in a big field out there where we lived and there was a little church down there and I hit the ball over his head and it rolled up to the church and the last thing I ever expected the minister came out of that church and said very cutting, cruel things to my little buddy, because he was black. I didn't know he was black til that day.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), March 20, 2001.

Lincoln was a republican, after all.

-- Jesus (martinez@mexico.gov), March 20, 2001.

Lincoln had lots of notions based on the "conventional wisdom" of the day regarding Blacks. For instance, he was in favor of colonizing the freed slaves either in an uninhabited part of North America or sending them back to Africa (Liberia being the main destination).

But there was one thing he did believe, despite his quote given here. And that was that all men should be free, that no man should hold another in bondage.

Lincoln was a complex person, and as a politician he really was a moderate who sought common ground between extreme views.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 20, 2001.

Shall we take a taste of the crippled thinking of the leader of the REBELS? Roll this around on your tongue for awhile:

"The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr. President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority."

---- Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pjdavis/600229.htm

Surely someone in whom pride should be taken, nay celebrated! Wave that flag! Puff out those chests! Don't forget to invoke God, now. It was, after all, His will.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 20, 2001.

I heard a piece on NPR today discussing Lincoln and how some of his words would sound racist in today's context. But that was the point, context. In the context of 1860, what Lincoln advocated was very bold and unconventional.

Doris Kearns Goodwin has just finished a 5 year project writing a history of Lincoln. She is a historian and a Democrat. She says that after the 5 years of work, she has enormous respect for Lincoln.

How quaint do you think our own words will sound in 140 years?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

Buddy,

I said in that other thread that Lincoln opposed slavery. Never denied it. But add to that list several Confederate leaders, from Robert E. Lee to Henry Heth.

This raises a question that no one, and I mean NO one (outside of Civil War discussion groups) seems interested in addressing. I've tried to get a substantive discussion going on this myself, with little success. It goes like this:

How can it be that some of the military commanders who fought for the Confederacy were Northerners who hated slavery with a passion? What motivated THEM?

That's not an idle question. That, coupled with the fact that tens of thousands of freed blacks fought against the Union armies, and that a commission from the South offered, in 1861, to stop pressing for secession and remain in the Union if Lincoln would just drop his trade tarriff (Lincoln refused) make good topics for an even-handed discussion of the thing, too.

But very few people want to talk about these things. Easier just to say, "Rebel=Racist" and be done with it.

Another clue, as Lars said, is

context

Absolutely. Taken in the context of the day, none of these remarks (Lincoln's OR Davis' or even Grant's famous statement that he had kept his slaves, while fighting the Confederacy, because "good help was hard to find") were really that unusual.

The issue of slavery itself? A lot of people (including many Southerners) wanted to abolish it. (The differences of opinion were over the approach and how long it should take.) But the idea that blacks were equal with whites wasn't exactly the prevailing opinion of the day and *ALL* of these quotes must be considered IN THAT CONTEXT.

(Remember the Dred Scott decision?)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 20, 2001.

Bill Clinton?, Alex Baldwin?, Al Gore? Alex Rodriguez? Jimmy Hoffa? Dick Cheney? Oprah Winfrey? Patty Murray? Barbara Boxer? Bob Dole? Alan Keyes? Katie Couric? Tom Hanks? Billy Bob Thorton? Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes fame? Will Smith? Joseph Lieberman? Rush Limbaugh? Tom Leykis? Mike Pizzata? Diane Canyon? Gary North? Jesse Jackson? Fulton Buntain? Billy Graham?

-- Who said it? (we@Need.toKnow), March 20, 2001.

Poole:

To be perfectly honest, I am not a fanatic about family history. I have just been forced into dealing with it as a heir. Most of my family lived in the North. They have been there forever. We spent the last two years weeding through stuff and returning it to a museum in a small teachers college in Cambridge, MA. When we get to the Civil war times [late in the family history in North America], there were some people involved, but not many as far as I know. One direct relative was an Officer in [as I remember] the Ohio 7th. He led the attack on Frankfort that kept Kentucky out of the Confederacy. He wrote no letters that survived. I do have his sword and what is left of his rifle. I had a great [whatever Uncle] who was a general in the Southern Army. He wrote a lot of letters. I have many. If and when I retire [stock market doesn’t look good now], I will begin to go through them. If not, we will bundle them up and send them to VPI. As far as I know, there weren’t slaves in the family. I, of course, could be wrong. Family never did well in the military. One was shot by his own men. An Uncle in the old country got to command a ship of the line and was sunk by the Bismark. We avoid military service. Like the Churchills, faithful but unfortunate.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 20, 2001.

"VPI." Should read VMI; I believe that he taught there before the war.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 20, 2001.

On "context". textbookleague.org refers to this as presentism. This group reviews middle & highschool texts and I recommend it to anyone interested in how their children are being taught history. In particular history texts written by an outfit called Glencoe. Click the grand or master index and scroll down.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), March 20, 2001.

Flint? He's always kicking ant hills.....

-- ortho (ortho@ortttho.gas), March 20, 2001.

How can it be that some of the military commanders who fought for the Confederacy were Northerners who hated slavery with a passion? What motivated THEM?

Short answer: Billy Yank: "Why you fightin' this war then Johnny Reb?" Johnny Reg: "'Cause you're down here Billy Yank."

That's not an idle question. That, coupled with the fact that tens of thousands of freed blacks fought against the Union armies, and that a commission from the South offered, in 1861, to stop pressing for secession and remain in the Union if Lincoln would just drop his trade tarriff (Lincoln refused) make good topics for an even-handed discussion of the thing, too.

tens of thousands of freed blacks fought against the Union armies

This is a myth. I guess you could call it a Southern "urban legend". I'd like to see documentation if you can prove otherwise.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 21, 2001.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/03/21/virginia.confederacy.reut/index.html

Virginia scraps Confederate History Month

March 21, 2001 Web posted at: 1:51 AM EST (0651 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Virginia Governor James Gilmore has dropped the state's traditional Confederate History Month proclamation, replacing it with a tribute to both black and white Civil War combatants, the Washington Post reported in Wednesday editions.

Gilmore designated April as a month of "remembrance of the sacrifice and honor of all Virginians who served in the Civil War" in a proclamation that expressly denounces slavery as the root cause of the conflict, the Post said.

"Everybody who needs to be honored can recognize honor in this proclamation," Gilmore was quoted as saying.

Gilmore, who also serves as chairman of the Republican National Committee, expanded the resolution to say for the first time "that had there been no slavery there would have been no war," the Post reported.

Many Confederate heritage groups argue the primary cause of the four-year conflict was a battle over states' rights.

The second-highest officer in the Virginia chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans denounced Gilmore's revised proclamation as a capitulation to the Virginia NAACP, the Post said.

"Gilmore has knuckled under to the NAACP," Bragdon Bowling was quoted as saying. "Basically, he's done their bidding by honoring people who invaded this state and murdered, raped and pillaged. It's a cop-out, a sellout," Bowling said.

The NAACP last year threatened a statewide tourism boycott over the governor's Confederate History Month designation, despite its specific reference to the horrors of slavery, the newspaper reported.

Black leaders generally hailed Gilmore's revised proclamation as a positive step, the Post said.

Emmitt Carlton, former president of the state NAACP, was quoted as saying that it was a "more balanced resolution" than the one issued by former governor George Allen.

Allen, now Virginia's junior U.S. senator, sparked an outcry from civil rights groups with his 1997 Confederate History Month proclamation, the third of his term that failed to include any mention of slavery, the newspaper said. Allen later apologized.

The Post said that when Gilmore became governor in 1998, he amended the Allen designation to include a reference to slavery, saying it "degraded the human spirit and is abhorred and condemned by Virginians."

But the change did not appease some civil rights activists and the NAACP threatened a boycott similar to the South Carolina protest over the Confederate battle flag that flew atop the state Capitol, the Post said.

Copyright 2001 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

_______

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34281-2001Mar20?language=pri nter

Proclamation Excerpts

Wednesday, March 21, 2001; Page A19

2001: In Remembrance of the Sacrifices and Honor of All Virginians Who Served in the Civil War.

"Virginians, both Confederate and Union, distinguished themselves in their service, fought with bravery against overwhelming odds, and sacrificed their lives in defense of their deeply held beliefs. . . .

"It is fitting to recognize the historical contributions of great Virginians who served the Confederacy with honor, such as General Robert E. Lee of Westmoreland County. . . .

"It is fitting to recognize the historical contributions of great Virginians who served the Union with honor, such as Sergeant William H. Carney of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers, a son of Norfolk who fled slavery . . .

"The practice of slavery was an affront to man's natural dignity, deprived African-Americans of their God-given inalienable rights, degraded the human spirit and is abhorred and condemned by Virginians. . . . Had there been no slavery there would have been no war. . . . "

2000: Confederate History Month

"Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the officers and enlisted men of the Army and Navy and those at home who made sacrifices on behalf of their families, homes, communities, Virginia and country; and that it is just and right to do so. . . .

"The noble spirit and inspiring leadership of great Confederate Generals, leaders and the ordinary men and women, free and not free, of the Confederate States is an integral part of the history of all America. . . .

"Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

____

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33971-2001Mar20.html

Va. Scraps Tribute to Confederacy Gilmore's Salute Includes Unionists

By R.H. Melton Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, March 21, 2001; Page A01

RICHMOND, March 20 -- Gov. James S. Gilmore III (R) discarded Virginia's Confederate History Month proclamation today and replaced it with a tribute to both black and white Civil War combatants that expressly denounces slavery as the root cause of the four-year conflict.

"Everybody who needs to be honored can recognize honor in this proclamation," Gilmore said of the official certificate of recognition designating April as a month of "remembrance of the sacrifice and honor of all Virginians who served in the Civil War."

Confederate heritage groups promptly denounced Gilmore's revised proclamation as a capitulation to the Virginia NAACP, which last year threatened a statewide tourism boycott over the governor's Confederate History Month designation, despite its specific reference to the horrors of slavery.

"Gilmore has knuckled under to the NAACP," said Bragdon Bowling, of Richmond, the second-highest officer in the state chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "Basically, he's done their bidding by honoring people who invaded this state and murdered, raped and pillaged. It's a cop-out, a sellout."

Striking at a core belief of the Confederate remembrance groups, Gilmore expanded the resolution to say for the first time "that had there been no slavery there would have been no war." Many heritage groups say the primary cause of the war was a constitutional conflict over states' rights.

Black leaders generally hailed Gilmore's revised proclamation as a positive step that could also be a political boost to the white conservative Republican who recently assumed the national chairmanship of the GOP and may have his eye on a U.S. Senate seat.

Emmitt Carlton, of Alexandria, the immediate past president of the state NAACP, said Gilmore's revision was a "more balanced resolution" than the one issued by former governor George Allen (R), who sparked an outcry from civil rights groups with his 1997 Confederate History Month proclamation, the third of his term that failed to include any mention of slavery. Allen, now Virginia's junior U.S. senator, later apologized.

Assuming the governorship in 1998, Gilmore amended the Allen designation to include a reference to slavery, saying it "degraded the human spirit [and] is abhorred and condemned by Virginians."

Even with the change, some civil rights advocates continued to be irritated by the official praise for the Confederate cause. Their anger peaked last year, when the 30,000-member NAACP threatened a boycott similar to the South Carolina protest over the Confederate battle flag that flew atop the state Capitol.

For Gilmore, who won election with considerable black voter support, the NAACP boycott threat was a painful turning point in an administration that prided itself on racial inclusion.

It reminded Gilmore's modern Virginia that age-old wounds of racial intolerance had not yet healed. At one point in early April, black leaders held a news conference at the state Capitol here denouncing Gilmore on the Confederate proclamation at the very moment he was in his office downstairs signing the bill for the January holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

For years, King had been honored on the same day as southern Gens. Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. At Gilmore's urging, the legislature changed that.

Gilmore averted a boycott with a pledge to rethink the proclamation. As recently as today, he conferred with former governor L. Douglas Wilder (D), the nation's first elected black governor.

"The governor is trying to show the Civil War was an American tragedy," Wilder said. "I hope this stops it from being a cause celebre for one group or another. It was his intention to clear the air, and I think it does clear the air."

Like the previous April proclamations, the latest version notes that Virginia was the epicenter of the war from the time Richmond became the Confederate capital in April 1861 to the fall of the last capital in Danville in April 1865.

The new proclamation also salutes Virginians on both sides who "distinguished themselves . . . fought with bravery . . . and sacrificed their lives in defense of their deeply held beliefs." Lee and Jackson also get their customary tributes.

But it also includes the tale of Sgt. William H. Carney, of Norfolk, who fled slavery to join the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers and was awarded the Medal of Honor for valor at the siege of Fort Wagner, "where he was struck by three bullets," the proclamation said.

Gilmore said that not issuing a proclamation this year was never an option because logically he would have had to cancel the hundreds of declarations he issues for other groups throughout the year.

Toni-Michelle Travis, an African American who teaches government at George Mason University, said any aspirations for federal office that Gilmore may have could be bolstered by what she called "his effort to reach out."

"It's an olive branch," she said, "but he's thinking of higher office."

Gilmore conceded that his new proclamation would not please all sides -- "I doubt that anybody is totally happy with everything," he said -- and even his African American allies quibbled with some of the new language.

Opposition was strongest from the heritage groups. "We're going to be there every year on this, I promise you," Bowling said. "This is an outright betrayal of all Confederate soldiers in Virginia."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 21, 2001.

Z,

If you look into probate records & estate files you may be suprised by the slave aspect in your family history.

-- flora (***@__._), March 21, 2001.

Buddy,

It depends on who's doing the telling and who gets to define "soldier." If you include the supporting forces (cooks, laborers, servants, etc.), the number swells to over 300,000. THEN the question becomes, how many of these blacks were slaves who were ORDERED to serve, and how many did so willingly? There's no way to tell, which is why the best estimates are between 30-100,000 who actually served in combat units.

Another problem is in defining the terms "black" and "colored." As these terms were used in that day, the Cherokees were certainly considered "colored," and yet, they seceded and fought alongside the Confederacy. In fact, Gen. Stand Watie's Cherokees were the last standing army in the field to surrender to Union Forces, quite some weeks after Lee and Johnson did so in VA and NC.

The biggest opponent of the idea of blacks serving the Confederacy, in my opinion, is Asa Gordon, a retired astrophysicist who, also in my opinion, is guilty of the very "revisionism" that he claims of Confederate historians. Show the man evidence of blacks in the Confederate military and he almost foams at the mouth in denial.

For example, Gordon insists that there are few contemporary accounts of blacks in the Confederate military in letters written by soldiers to their families. He is just plain, flat WRONG about that. I have seen letters written by my own ancestors mentioning this very thing, and overall, there are HUNDREDS of such references. Gordon is either too biased to be taken seriously or willfully blind.

If you want to know why there aren't more "official" records, sheesh; this was the Confederacy, after all. Many records have been lost, and the Rebs didn't exactly keep the best of records to start with.[g]

Even more telling is that some of the records from right after the war have been CHANGED (sometimes by Union soldiers, and I'll let you guess the reasons). In many cases, black Confederates would list "soldier" on their pension forms; that word would be marked out and replaced with "servant" or "cook" or something like that.

If you want an example/proof of that, look at the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg held in 1913 (this one has been widely reported; it's all over the Web and no one seriously disputes it). There was to be a reunion of Union and Confederate veterans at this event; the people in charge made accomodations for black Union veterans, but were completely unprepared for the number of black Confederates who showed up.

The white Confederates at the event recognized and welcomed their old comrades, gave them one of their tents, and (quoting) “saw to their every need”.

Buddy, if you go to SCV enactments and reunions, there are almost alway some blacks at these events, all of whom claim to have ancestors who fought with the Confederacy.

I couldn't find any direct links for you, but one guy who's done a great deal of research on this is himself an Afro-American: Edward Smith of American University (right up there in DC; contact him. He welcomes questions).

Here are few examples from Smith and from other materials that I've read about it:

1. No less an emancipator than Frederick Douglass said in a letter to Lincoln that "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the…rebels.”

2. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, wrote in an official report in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

And so on. Talk to Dr. Smith.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 21, 2001.

Stephen,

I won't argue the point about Blacks in the Confederacy, there undoubtedly were some, but I would doubt the numbers were very large. Considering the education level of Blacks back then, I'd tend to doubt that they really knew what was happening and/or they were forced to participate.

As for Stonewall Jackson having 3000 Blacks with him in Frederick, considering Jackson's record in other matters I'd be quite surprised if these men weren't forced to march.

Two books I have read recently both discount accounts of large numbers of blacks in the Confederacy. They are...

The Civil War : A Narrative : Fort Sumter to Perryville, Fredericksburg to Meridian, Red River to Appomattox (3 Vol. Set) by Shelby Foote

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394749138/o/qid=985210048/sr=8 -1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/107-7368290-5283755

and

Battle Cry of Freedom : The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345359429/ref=sim_books/107-73 68290-5283755

Thanks for the info. on Dr. Smith. I'll check it out.

Even if Blacks were fighting for the Confederacy, it doesn't matter. The causes they were fighting for were still wrong, in my opinion.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 21, 2001.

Flora:

I have been forced to check the records; then, there weren't that many slaves in Mass and NY. None appear. You know, I am not all that excited about what my ancestors did. What is done is done.

Buddy:

As for Stonewall Jackson having 3000 Blacks with him in Frederick, considering Jackson's record in other matters I'd be quite surprised if these men weren't forced to march.

Is it possible that I was too subtle in referring to my relatives? Seems to be so. When I get time, I will go through the letters and find the answer. That could take some time. It is amazing the quality of paper that was used back then. We have original letters from Jefferson that are like new. Must have been low acid paper.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

Sure is alot of booting around here.

-- (boot@this.ha), March 21, 2001.

By-the-by Buddy:

We intend to turn this stuff over to University Museums just like all of the stuff that we took to Harvard [more to come]. Letters will certainly will be easier to carry through airport security than the 24 k gold medallion struck by Paul "the original night rider".

Giving things is not that easy. They must be evaluated and then appraised, at your expense. You need the written appraisal when you turn them over.

I have learned mucho.

Cheers,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2001.

Buddy,

Another thought. Unless you're talking about a different Shelby Foote, I don't see how you could have read his three volumes and come away with your attitude, which is basically that the South was fighting to protect slavery and that anyone who defends the Confederacy is wrong to do so.

But I'll see your books and raise you a few: Black Southerners in Gray. Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies (edited by J. McGlone). I suppose the cover illustration is a fake.[g]

Do you know how revisionist history works? Take Christopher Columbus for a good example. He was neither saint nor a monster; he did some good things, some bad things and some dumb things. When I was in school, we learned that he was that great guy who came to the New World. These histories focused on the Good Things about Columbus.

Enter: revisionism. Nowdays, as likely as not, you'll find histories that prefer to emphasize the terrible things that the Spaniards and Portugese did to the natives in the New World, etc., etc. and blame a good deal of it on Columbus.

See? Which is correct? Neither, not in whole.

The same is true of the South. Writing off the entire effort as nothing but slave-lovers trying to hold on to their antiquated institution is a vast oversimplification. Making the Rebels out to be nothing but pure-hearted patriots is just as incorrect.

The truth lies in the middle.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 21, 2001.

Time for another quote; this time, no suspense: it's Robert E. Lee, a few years before the war. http://www.civilwarho me.com/leepierce.htm Remembering what we said above about "context" (re: Lincoln's remarks), Lee's comments aren't that far out of line. A careful study of the history of the Confederacy will show that many Southerners believed as Lee did; that slavery was wrong and had outlived its day, but they were perplexed at just HOW to end the thing smoothly and peacefully, while integrating millions of blacks into society (and especially the workforce). The South's REAL concern about slavery wasn't that it should be preserved forever; it was that it COULDN'T be changed overnight without causing chaos. Southerners were terrified of Abolitionists, NOT necessarily because they wanted slavery to last for a thousand more years, but because abolitionists tended to be no-nonsense, no-compromise Free-'Em-NOW-No-Matter-WHAT types of folks. Anyway. Here are Lee's comments (formatting and emphasis mine in bold):

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. [Was Bobbie Lee a prophet, or what? - Stephen; now for the emphasized part ...]

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist!

While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . .

Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Now, of course, to us nowdays, this is terribly patronizing, insulting and little better than being FOR slavery. (Same as with Lincoln.) But taken in the context of the day, it shows the attitude of MANY Southerners, certainly the more progressive ones. But I'll also make this point: slaves on the large plantations had it BAD. And yes, the large plantation owners had little desire to end slavery, certainly not anytime soon. But the average Southerner felt differently, and correspondence from the day proves this. In sum: they knew that slavery needed to be ended, but they didn't know HOW to do it. And yes, one of their greatest sins was that they didn't try a LOT harder to FIND a way to do it. But there you go. Buddy said we shouldn't "oversimplify" this. Oh, I agree in spades. That's the WHOLE problem with the modern, revisionist view of history that just wants to dismiss the whole thing as a War About Slavery, period.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 21, 2001.

Oh goodness. I'm sorry I don't have enough time to explain my views as well as I would like.

What both Foote's and McPherson's books say is that the Confederate government did not allow the arming of blacks officially until almost the end of the war.

In general, I have no problem honoring the men who fought. Where I draw the line is in honoring the institution they fought for. Too often those who want to honor Confederate dead by flying the battle flag without regard to the bad feelings that flag brings to others argue that they didn't fight for slavery, or that there were blacks fighting for that flag. So what. They did fight for independence from the USA to preserve their "institutions," they did fight because they didn't agree with the choice for president that was determined by a constitutional election, they did fight to establish themselves a new nation with slavery as one of its cornerstones.

I cannot disagree that many Southerners felt as you have described. However, the leaders of the rebellion, as evidenced by their speeches and official articles of secession and the like, were defending slavery as their right.

I think the folowing excerpts will speak for themselves.

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#SouthCarolina

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

[Committee signatures]

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/quotes.html

Selected Quotations from 1830-1865

Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union." Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.] Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.] Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery." Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing." Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller. Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864. Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).] From the Confederate Constitution: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government." From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.) From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).) Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.] On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.] A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.] Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?" Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.] During the 1830's occurred the Gag Rule controversy in Congress, during which Southern politicians tried to block even the presentation of petitions on the subject of slavery. The following quotes come from speeches made in the House and Senate during this time, taken from William Miller's book, Arguing About Slavery: John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail." James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth." Hammond again, from later in the same speech: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood." Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men." From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html.]

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 22, 2001.

I'm just trying to help out. Selected Quotations from 1830-1865

Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.]

Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."

Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 106.]

Senator Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia: "There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 56.]

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism."

Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller.

Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864.

Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina: "The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." [The Glory of God, the Defence of the South (1861), cited in Eugene Genovese's Consuming Fire (1998).]

From the Confederate Constitution: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."

From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)

From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).)

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government: "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." [Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

On the formation of black regiments in the Confederate army, by promising the troops their freedom: Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"

Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell: "If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]

During the 1830's occurred the Gag Rule controversy in Congress, during which Southern politicians tried to block even the presentation of petitions on the subject of slavery. The following quotes come from speeches made in the House and Senate during this time, taken from William Miller's book, Arguing About Slavery:

John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."

James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."

Hammond again, from later in the same speech: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."

Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."

From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html.]

-- Tarzan the Ape Editor (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.editor), March 22, 2001.

Tarzan,

You left out Senator Wigfall, who thought that blacks were basically little more than clever monkeys. In fact, you left out a lot of people, North and South, who felt that slavery was a Divine Institution that should perpetuated an infinitum (or worse).

Doesn't disprove my basic assertion, which is that many in the South had decided by the 1830's and 40's that slavery was on the way out. They were perplexed over HOW to do it. Other nations which had managed it had nowhere near the number of, or dependence on, slaves as the South. (One third of the population!!!

In fact, some of the quotes you posted above merely underscore what *I* said: that they were terrified of the Abolitionists because they wanted slavery gone, not NOW, but RIGHT now. They were urging a more gradual approach.

I could post dozens of quotes to "prove" my assertion, but since there was no such thing as opinion polling back then, that "proof" would be subjective. I'll just leave the thing with the usual disclaimer that it's not as simple as it appears at first glance.

From what I've seen, the groups that most wanted to perpetuate slavery were (a)the huge plantation owners and (b) dirt-poor whites who were afraid of economic competition.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 24, 2001.

You left out Senator Wigfall, who thought that blacks were basically little more than clever monkeys. In fact, you left out a lot of people, North and South, who felt that slavery was a Divine Institution that should perpetuated an infinitum (or worse).

I didn't actually leave anyone out, Buddy did. I just cleaned up and reposted his original post so that we could actually read it.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingignthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 24, 2001.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with any points above---just a little perspective.

1)- The Christian church was originally a cult. Where was it a cult? Among the slaves in the Roman Empire.

2)- Abolitionists were motivated by Christian morality. It took a Christian nation to abolish slavery.

3)- Christians led the way in Civil Rights in the 50s and 60s (granted, many other Christians demurred).

4)- slavery has persisted to this day in some non-Christian nations, especially some Islamic nations and atheistic nations (ie, Communist China and, until recently, Communist USSR).

I make these points only to counter the notion that slavery was solely a Christian invention and kept alive solely by Christian values.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 24, 2001.

By my reading, southerners were no less Christian and no more evil than northerners. But slavery was a highly profitable institution in the southern economy, but had little application in the north. I know that technological developments would eventually have made slavery economically noncompetitive. And I think at that time, southerners would themselves have "discovered" it to be morally repugnant.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 24, 2001.

Lars,

Point very well made and taken.

In fact, some of the writings that I've run across from that day indicated that there WAS a growing concern amongst many Southern Christians about slavery. When the blacks began "getting saved" and starting churches of their own, some Southern theologians started saying openly, "hey, wait a minute ..."

It's a lot easier to declare someone "subhuman" and hold him in bondage when he isn't praying to the same God and saying the same things about "asking Jesus into his heart."

Perfect example: Stonewall Jackson. When he realized that many slaves were experiencing the same "conversion" that he had, he began teaching a Sunday School to the blacks near his home in Virginia. Sure, he (like Lee) believed that blacks weren't ready to join society, vote, etc., etc., but he is on record as having said that they were God's children, that they had rights and deserved good treatment and care.

The Politically Correct Revisionist Line is that Jackson fought to defend slavery, period, so therefore he was a monster and that's it, end of discussion. It's a shame.

I guess my biggest complaint is that the 10-second sound byte conclusion that the "war was about slavery" PREVENTS a detailed look at the most profound event in this nation's history.

For example, the harsh regime imposed by Republicans right after the war, in direct defiance of Lincoln's wish for "malice toward none," had all sorts of ramifications. For one thing, it's the reason why few native Southerners would ever have considered voting for a Republican until after WWII. :)

(When I was a kid, my grandfather flatly stated to me that, if he couldn't support the Democrat, he just wouldn't vote.[g])

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 24, 2001.

Flint,

One of the lessons of history, constantly forgotten and repeated endlessly, is that, in a growing economy, slavery is NOT profitable. Yes, many Southerners didn't realize this, but there were those (again, like Lee) who did. If the South was to cease being a mere agrarian economy and join the Industrial Revolution, major changes would need to be made.

The importation of slaves had ended some time before -- and just for the record, the first state to end such imports was Virginia. The market had become primarily the trading of native-born ("bred") slaves (that's how N. B. Forrest became a millionaire before the war).

But the perception that slaves represented an unfair economic advantage was another of the root causes of the war.

John Gordon, former CSA general who wrote a very detailed history of the war and its causes (selected readings are available at the site linked to above), points to the natural tension between the industrialized North and the mostly-agrarian South. While that's probably an oversimplification, too, there IS some truth to it.

The South's economy at the time was based on rice and cotton exports to Europe (especially to England and France). But the South was changing; it was growing faster than the North in both population and economy. Gordon maintains (with some justification) that Northern industrialists (by far the biggest political contributors) regarded the South as a direct threat.

(ESPECIALLY if the South had been able to use slave labor in its factories. Don't forget that perception thingie ...[g])

(An aside: as a fellow Alabaman, have you ever pondered what might have been had, say, Birmingham been founded, and had begun processing Red Mountain iron ore, in the 1820's rather than the 1870's?)

The war WAS about slavery ... but not in the way that most people mean it today. Gordon insists that Southerners, during Reconstruction, had reason to complain that the North had wanted to "break" them for economic reasons. Getting rid of slavery was just the bigger part of it.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 24, 2001.

This thread has gotten too long and I'm repeating myself now. For those who give a flip, my final thoughts are in A Final Tap At The Anthill: Why I'm Glad, Overall, That The Confederacy LOST.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 24, 2001.

The Politically Correct Revisionist Line is that Jackson fought to defend slavery, period, so therefore he was a monster and that's it, end of discussion. It's a shame.

I don't know about the "politically correct revisionist line", but I just think that Jackson was a monster period, with or without the "defending slavery" part. The man was insane, even his soldiers thought so.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 26, 2001.