I've never viewed taosjohn as a "lost causer" and didn't read the aforementioned posts that way either. He's never denied that slavery was the primary cause of the war. His point, here, is only that in Lee's mind (and in the minds of a significant number of his contemporaries) he didn't view himself as a traitor because is allegiance was first to Virginia. Is he granting Lee absolution by arguing that point? I didn't read it that way. If I were to take issue with anything he wrote it would be to the extent he seems to imply that Lee's mindset (state before country) was the prevailing one or majority view at the time (and even in that regard I might be reading what he wrote too broadly). I've read a handful of books and academic articles that dispute this and posit that the idea of the U.S. as a nation rather than just a collection of states under a central government had actually started taking hold much earlier, in fact, even in the minds of many of the FFs.
Both were slave owners, fighting against what they believed was oppression by a tyrannical government, something that I disagree in both counts actually (that they were fighting oppressive governments). As a matter of fact, the slaves that Lee owned were thru his marriage to a decedent of Washington, did Washington free his slaves when he died, I can't remember, or were Lees slaves decedents of the Salves that George Washington owned. Now of course the main reason for the civil was was slavery, no matter how much southerners want to white wash that, it is all over the declarations of independence on how the fight was in a big part to preserve the institution of slavery.
Calm down. This isn't a personal attack, I'm merely participating in the historical argument you yourself were participating in. I specifically quoted, and replied to, this: "I was going based on population of the nation I'm 1860 and that the majority of the population lived in "free states" (yes, racists existed in the North, but slavery was not official policy...except the "border" states)." Pointing out that there were free states and slave states in 1860 is not a sufficient metric for gauging support for or against slavery. There were both free and slave states in 1820 but public opinion on slavery was not nearly as sectionally-delineated or polarized then.
Your own links make it clear that the number who served was tiny; that last link says the total was probably under 200.
Yes, and that is what Taosjohn said and Charlie jumped on his shit. Taos was right, that is all my links are showing. Now, we can argue about them really being volunteers or not, I can see the argument that people may make that to call them volunteers is not 100% correct. Actually Taos, I can disagree with "at the front for the confederacy". Most that served were at the back, and the few that were training towards the end of the war, it is no guarantee that they would have been sent to the front, just like it took a while before the Union allowed their black regiments to fight in the front.
Well, taos made a factual claim that was technically correct but I'm not so sure about his larger rhetorical point. Which was charlies' argument.
Sure if Taos was trying to argue that slaves were happily and in numbers joining the confederacy I could see Charlies point. But Charlie posted this as a reply. Taos was not pushing any revisionist history of any canard about slaves IMO, that is why I posted the links I did. IMO Taos is usually pretty good on his history, the old man may forget or mis-remember a thing or two, but he is usually not bad.
Does he resent that is not "Agent Orange"? Can't he see the idiocy/irony of him wanting it to be AO? Of course he can't...
But look at what he said. He said that the *majority of the national population* felt that way. To conclude that, you'd have to conclude that not just a majority, but a *large* majority, of citizens in the North felt that way. I'm interested in hearing the evidence for that assertion.
For one thing, the northern population was considerably larger than the southern population. Not so sure you need much more than solid majority Secondly, I'd wager that roughly 40% of the population of the South agreed with that statement.
It wouldn't seem that way to me, unless your next statement is also true: Really? Please continue! (seriously)
Sure...I just read this..... Lee did disapprove of slavery; he thought it had a bad effect on white people.
Seems like everyone is assuming "larger rhetorical" points that I'm not making and doing my best to make clear that I'm not making? The larger rhetorical point that I think I'm trying to make is that to declare that Lee was a traitor and the North was committed to ending slavery in 1861 is to treat as simple and easy a great deal that was fuzzy and complicated at the time, for a convenience and sense of righteousness today. This topic has come up every couple of years as long as I've been around here, and one of the arguments that is always made by somebody is that "when you join the army you are sworn in to vows that make joining another treasonous"-- so I thought I'd look at the actual oaths that Lee et al had been sworn in by. Come to find out, the modern clear cut oaths we know today are modelled after ones created by Edwin Stanton when he became War Secretary in 1862-- precisely because he felt the old ones didn't adequately bind officers to the Union. Now, as I read the West Point oath, any junior officers who had served less than eight years and "went south"-- and there were a lot of them-- did actually go back on their word. But the others,, there's plenty of wiggle room IMO. And it seems to me worth considering that most of these guys had never lived in a culture devoid of black slavery-- the British and European renunciation of it was the aberration from their point of view, and the nation as a whole was convinced that it knew better-- indeed had a divine mission to know better-- than the old world on everything . Confederate envoys appear to have been rather surprised that New Mexicans were not eager to share in the advantages of slavery.. ."Manifest destiny" is as strong a prop for error as it is for truth. As for the black "volunteers," they also had never lived in a world where black slavery did not prevail; and Stockholm Syndrome is a real thing. you know. The surprise to me is not that there were some who identified with their "owners" objectives, but that there were so very few of them. If we can find Patty Hearst's decisions comprehensible, why not Uncle Tom and Aunt Pittypat's? As for Yoss's point, I simply don't know-- it is obvious that a great many people felt their primary loyalty was to their state, and it is apparent that there were a lot fewer in 1860 than in 1810, and it is apparent that there were rather more in the Army than in the Navy; but whether it was forty percent or down to twenty percent or what I do not see any way to tell at this point-- or rather, one could design research projects which might find out- but they also might not... Certainly the nullification argument did not die in Jackson's time--obviously-- and it was still cropping up during Viet Nam and is alive in the sovereign citizen's movement now. What percentage felt that way in 1860 I do not know, and obviously pragmatic motivations for succession were as common as legalistic ones-- but I do know it was more than a few.
I'm assuming "the national population" includes the slaves themselves. (Although I think the actual total in the whole South would have actually been lower; 40% of the population of the Confederate states were slaves, but none of the border states were anywhere close to that.
Nothing you say here is wrong but you have to know that the idea of the "Black Confederate" is a long-standing trope of neo-Confederate apologists. I can't blame Charlie for wanting to swat that one down right away. As for your observation that many slaves likely identified with the interests of the white master class--I assume you're familiar with Genovese's arguments on the centrality of paternalism to slavery and the slave experience? Secessionism was a constant specter in the US from the founding. Secession of the southern states over slavery was a constant fear/threat/possibility from before the nullification crisis. You're absolutely correct.
Now look what you've done! Proposed:Not only was the Civil War about slavery,but so was the Revolution,as Americans involved in slavery feared the Crown would abolish it eventually.
Maybe, but not as big on the revolution. The American declaration of independence does not mention Slavery, many confederate states declarations have mentions of slavery or private property (slaves being part of that). The closest as far as I know the American declaration got to slavery was a passage that Jefferson wrote that seems to indicate opposition to the institution (at least the business of bringing slaves over), but it was deleted before the final draft. http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h33.html
I saw a video that shows a wall of Ford's Theatre showing what happened at different times of the day Lincoln was assassinated. Has anybody been to Ford's Theatre? Here are two long books. The first one is about the events leading to the Civil War, and the second one is about the Civil War. Both books are told from the point of view of many speakers, which makes it somewhat like a play, but speakers go for pages at a time so it is nothing like a play or conversation where most statements are a few lines or as short as a couple of words. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/approaching-fury-stephen-b-oates/1100616082?ean=9780803269316 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-whirlwind-of-war-stephen-b-oates/1110855861?ean=9780803269309
One of my friends e-mailed me a United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) newsletter from her cousin. I don't support Confederate pride, but if anybody wants their side of the story, post or private message me your e-mail address and I will e-mail it to you.
160 years ago, a Presidential election didn't come out the way the white men in the south wanted, so they started a violent revolution. This might be a good place for somebody to make a snarky remark about history not repeating itself but it does rhyme.
This time the southern white men should fear no threat of losing their slaves, but they may fear the real possibility that a non-white female will be President within 4 years.