GDG- Re: Gettysburg Digest, Vol 37, Issue 22

Wed Jun 13 20:12:54 CDT 2007

I find that one of the Southern claims that is all to often accepted uncritically is, as is set forth in the letter, the claim that all the South wanted was to be left alone. If that had ever been true, that would have reduced the chances of a civil war over the future of slavery in the United States over slavery considerably, especially occurring when and how it did.  True, much of the white population in free states did not like slavery, but the reasons they didn't like slavery were varied and complex. Much of white free labor saw the use of slave labor as unfair competition.  Even of the Unionist leaders, vehement opposition to slavery far from automatically equated to positive feelings about blacks. Indeed, some slavery opponents saw the fact that slavery brought blacks into the country, especially in sizeable numbers, as being the principle sin of the Peculiar Institution and of slaveowners. (This is particularly true of some of the Blairs and Andrew Johnson).  The crisis incr
easingly came to a head when many whites in free states and in the territories, saw the slave states' demands for increasing protection for slavery, including blocking legislation such as the Homestead Act that slaveholders saw as threatening, as "Slave Power" encroaching upon and threatening the rights of whites.

Regards,

Margaret

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Laurence Schiller <lds307 at northwestern.edu> 

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> 
> 
> David - thank you for your thoughtful post. However, there are two 
> things here: first, the perceptions of people, which are impacted by 
> a great many things, and second, the hard interpretations of fact. As 
> is obvious by any current opinion poll, the perceptions of people 
> about the political state of this country vary greatly and none of us 
> disputes that. But, I completely disagree that we are looking at this 
> in hindsight. On the contrary, Margaret, Cash, I and others have 
> posted period information. It is not a 21st century interpretation to 
> quote what was meant by the Social Contract or Madison's, Lincoln's, 
> Jackson's and others comments on secession. Whatever Lee's 
> interpretation or the lady's you quote, the fact is that the Founders 
> did not intend secession to be legal. When writing a fair history, 
> we have to include this as well as the fact that many Southerner's 
> felt that they had been oppressed and that some held that secession 
> was legal. This has nothing to do with political correctness, 
> whatever that is supposed to mean, nor with modern perceptions of the 
> American nation-state. Lastly, I disagree with Robertson on this 
> point about Lee. A great many people in the South saw the nation over 
> the state and Lee's own writings show his distaste for secession. But 
> when push came to shove, he was not willing to fight against his 
> family - not Virginia per se. Unlike George Thomas, he didn't have 
> the moral courage to stand up for the oath he took to his nation. A 
> hard choice, I know but I don't think the deciding factor was that 
> Lee felt more Virginian than American. 
> 
> best, 
> 
> Laurie Schiller 
> 
> On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:40 AM, David W. Gaddy wrote: 
> 
> > Esteemed GDG Member Contributes: 
> > 
> > 
> > The current discussion of secession and dis-union shows how two 
> > different people look through different ends of the telescope. It 
> > is difficult not to use twenty-twenty hindsight (which we of course 
> > all deny doing), but I see too much evidence of perceptions based 
> > upon modern ideas of equality, political correctness, and the 
> > modern American nation-state that has emerged over the last 
> > century. Isn't it more helpful, from the standpoint of historical 
> > understanding, to try to see things from the viewpoints of the 
> > players THEN? (Last year I heard "Bud" Robertson, in a lecture in 
> > which he tried to convey Lee's perception of Virginia as "his 
> > nation," notwithstanding his love of the old flag, etc.--and Dr. R. 
> > commented dryly that, for the people of the Sixties, about the only 
> > thing that caused them to look to the federal government, rather 
> > than their state, was the Post Office!) I find it more helpful to 
> > realize that when "they" said that "all men are created equal" they 
> > could honestly and with a straight face proclaim that, whereas 
> > women, free Blacks and slaves, aborigines...and even non-property 
> > owners(?) were being excluded, leaving to a future time the 
> > realization of that principle. 
> > 
> > For example, in the Digest, Vol. 37 Issue 22, Gary wrote: 
> > 
> >> Subject: GDG- Disunion 
> >> Message: 9 
> >> 
> >> While there were attempts to dissolve peaceably, the firing on Fort 
> >> Sumter, a U. S. Army fortification and consequently representative of 
> >> the US Government, would seem to be an attempt to overthrow the 
> >> government, which is how Webster defines treason. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Gary McGinnis 
> > 
> > Were they thinking of "overthrowing" or of "throwing off"? Did they 
> > not think of Fort Sumter as "theirs" (at least in part, considering 
> > its history and their participation in the enterprise at the time) 
> > and its continued occupation an affront to what they viewed as 
> > their sovereignty? Are the efforts of the administration in 
> > Washington totally free of deception and trickery vis-a-vis Sumter, 
> > to be viewed as acceptable and correct because we live in and 
> > applaud the modern USA? Doesn't that interfere with the objectivity 
> > of our attempts to grasp the viewpoint of the contemporary in 1861? 
> > 
> > I have been reading a rather long letter of cApr 1862 from a 
> > widowed mother to her elder son, who is going off to war. I do not 
> > have permission to quote this, so I will not further identify it, 
> > but do want to use it as a convenient contemporary voice. "I give 
> > up my son, without reluctance, indeed, I may say with joy, to enter 
> > the army of his country. The war in which we are unfortunately 
> > involved, has been forced upon us. We have asked for nothing but to 
> > be let lone. We are contending for the great fundamental principle 
> > of the American Revolution: that all authority is derived from the 
> > consent of the governed. The attempt on the part of the Federal 
> > Government to coerce, not, as it is falsely pretended, a factious 
> > party, but free and independent States, governed by unprecedented 
> > majorities, is utterly subversive of republican government. The 
> > question to be settled by this consent[sic: contest?] is, whether 
> > the Confederate States shall be permitted to govern themselves, or 
> > whether they shall be governed by States whose political views, and 
> > social institutions, are widely different from our own. To the 
> > South, nothing remains but absolute subjugation and debasement, or 
> > victory. In such a strife, I cheerfully offer my son, the cherished 
> > jewel of my heart, on my country's altar; if I had ten sons, I 
> > would resign them all with equal pleasure. I trust that my son will 
> > act the man. Fighting, as he is, for independence, home, honor, 
> > everything dear to the heart of a freeman, he would be unworthy of 
> > the soil that gave him birth, the land of patriots and heroes [he 
> > was a Virginian]--the father whose name he bears ands the mother 
> > who nursed him, if he should not prove himself to be loyal and 
> > brave. ... Obey the commands of your superiors, be courteous to 
> > your equals, and be kind to the distressed, even to your enemies, 
> > so far as you may be without strengthening the cause in which they 
> > are engaged." We do not have to agree with her views today; we can 
> > respect them and their implications. Her son, by the way, died at 
> > G'bg, an infantry company commander at 21. 
> > 
> > Dave Gaddy 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > You may unsubscribe by going to http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/ 
> > listinfo/gettysburg 
> > 
> > You can add yourself to the GDG map at: http://www.frappr.com/ 
> > gettysburgdiscussiongroup 
> > 
> > View archived posts from May 2004 - present at http:// 
> > mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/ 
> > 
> 
> Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller 
> lds307 at northwestern.edu 
> 
> Maitre d'Armes 
> Head Fencing Coach Department of History 
> Northwestern University 
> Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference 
> Midwest VP, US Fencing Coaches' Association 
> Vice-Chair USFA Illinois Division 
> Lds307 at northwestern.edu 
> 847-491-4654 
> FAX 847-467-1406 
> Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/ 
> Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/ 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
> You may unsubscribe by going to 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg 
> 
> You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
> http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup 
> 
> View archived posts from May 2004 - present at 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/ 