Another thing that most people are unaware of is that it was not a war between 11 southern states and the rest of the nation. It was a war between secessionists and loyalists.
Another thing that most people are unaware of is that it was not a war between 11 southern states and the rest of the nation. It was a war between secessionists and loyalists.
Posted: Mon 01 Jun 2009 11:50 Post subject: Re: Lee's views on slavery
cjohns48233305 wrote:
What were Lee's views on slavery? ive heard so many things from different people i dont know what to think.
We may never know from his words. Lee routinely told audiences what he thought they wanted to hear. To those who opposed slavery, he said that he opposed it. To those who supported it, he said that he supported it.
Before the war, for northern newspapers questioning his opposition to slavery he wrote, "Slavery is an unmitigated moral and political evil a greater evil to the white man than the black man."
In January, 1865, for southern newspapers questioning his loyalty to slavery he wrote that slavery was the "best [relationship] that can exist between the ... races." He went on to explain that slavery was the negro's natural condition and that he (Lee) had always held that position.
Six months later, when called to testify before a U.S. Congress committee investigation war crimes, he testified under oath, "I have always been in favor of emancipation." He went on, still under oath, that he had always held the position that slavery was evil and had never supported it.
From his actions? Lee's biographers have studied the man's actions throught his life. Most have concluded that he supported and took personal enjoyment from slavery. He was one of the few slaveowners who insisted on taking off his coat and personally whipping his misbehaving slaves, rather than letting his overseers do it. A few have concluded that he sincerely had no moral positon on slavery one way or the other. (What is your moral position towards vanilla ice-cream, for example?)
Bear in mind that you are asking about a man who was not considered a role model to anyone during or immediately after the war. It was only after he died that the Lost Cause Myth (LCM) enshrined him as the embodiment of honor. Actually, there were two LCMs.
The essence of LCM-1 (1865-1890) was the assertion that: The South was right, secession legal, Southern soldiers chivalrous and her generals skillful. In the holy war against foreign mercenaries and mongrel races, Lee was Christ, Gettysburg was Gesthemane, and Longstreet was Judas. During this period, Lee’s memory became the embodiment of resistance to oppression. In this myth, Lee was the champion of slavery because slavery was Right and Good.
The Lee legend changed gradually during the transition to LCM-2 (1876-1900). At that time American society sought to heal itself and reconcile North with South. Two forces drove this need: First, people on both sides of the M-D line were inspired by the Centennial celebrations. Second, the country perceived a threat from outside. America gradually slid into imperialism and foreign wars via the noblest of Christian motives (to lift our little brown brothers overseas from their dust of savagery and ignorance by teaching them the three R’s and the big C). This, of course, brought conflict with Spain, who wanted to take up the White Man’s Burden and uplift her little brown brothers in her own way.
It was during this period that American politicians, writers, historians, and religious leaders, North and South jointly re-built the Lee image. His pro-union and anti-slavery statements were brought to the fore, and his pro-slavery, anti-union statements discretely forgotten. Consequently, Lee's image changed, from the embodiment of Southern purity against Northern evil, into the incarnation of national reconciliation, healing, and the highest principles of compassion, humanity, and loyalty. In this myth, Lee opposed slavery because slavery was Wrong and Evil.
The short answer to your question is, "It depends on which myth you ask."
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 01 Jun 2009 13:55; edited 3 times in total
It's safe to say that I would have never, ever learned about these facts hd I chosen never to participate in this forum. Frank I hope you are providing these PSAs wherever you go, especially to Southern youth who most assuredly have NO CLUE about what really happened. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had about the CSA over the years (with Southerners making an honor-based defense of treason) would have ended in less than 2 minutes.
Oh well, better late than never.
fwsweet wrote:
Consequently, Lee's image changed, from the embodiment of Southern purity against Northern evil, into the incarnation of national reconciliation, healing, and the highest principles of compassion, humanity, and loyalty. In this myth, Lee opposed slavery because slavery was Wrong and Evil.
Given the rise of Jim Crow, it's interesting that the South would feel the need to engage in this sort of sanitation. I still hear this defense of the "War of Northern Aggression" from people who insist that the war was fought by noble men who were forced to defend their homeland on principle and were privately torn on the issue of slavery. Well, I supposed in this they truly did win the war.
Frank I hope you are providing these PSAs wherever you go ...
What is a PSA? Yes, informing people of the facts of America's past is what drives Mary Lee and me. But we have learned the hard way to be subtle about it. People cannot handle more than one or two new facts all at once.
I recall one of the first school shows we put on, about 10 years ago. It was for 6th graders. We always tell a little background about each song when we sing it. We sang "Oh Them Golden Slippers" and the kids and teachers all joined in. Then we explained that it was written in the 1880s by the most financially successful minstrel show songwriter of all time, an African American named James Bland. Bland was also one of the very few A-A professionals who foresaw (accurately) that race-relations were going to collapse in the coming decades, and so he moved to England and continued publishing American music from there.
We always welcome questions, and a 6th-grade A-A girl raised her hand to ask why White folks became so mean to Black folks at that time (she had seen the movie "Rosewood" a few days earlier on DVD at home with her parents). Mary Lee and I answered that the war had been a terrible, traumatic experience for the nation, that it had to find someone to blame in order to reconcile itself, and that A-As were chosen even though they were not at fault. The teachers were horrified, The parents complained. We caught hell from the school principal, and they never invited us back.
Nowadays we are more subtle. Listen to the first verse of Bonnie Blue Flag: "We are a band of brothers and native to the soil / we're fighting for the property we won by honest toil." Inevitably, when we finish the song some youngster asks, "what was the property that they were fighting for?" We just stare. Then the kids all look at each other and say, "Ooooh!"
sagascend wrote:
Well, I supposed in this they truly did win the war.
Yes. That is a popular research topic. The cliche is that the victors write the history. But in this case, it was the defeated who wrote the history that is still taught. The best of several scholarly books on this odd phenomenon is Stetson Kennedy, After Appomattox: How the South Won the War (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1995).
That Cavalry link i posted earlier where they part of Sherman group you talked about earlier?
Yes, the First Alabama Cavalry.
cjohns48233305 wrote:
What was Gesthemane?
Literally, it is Greek for "olive press." Historically, it is where Jesus suffered in prayer and doubt over his coming death, and where Judas betrayed him. Metaphorically, the LCM-1 portrayed Lee (Christ), as suffering in prayer and doubt at Gettysburg (Gesthemane), until Longstreet (Judas) betrayed him. They were really into religious metaphor back then.
(with Southerners making an honor-based defense of treason)
Were there not other secessionist movements in the U.S.? Specifically, weren't there folks in the north who wanted to secede from the U.S. or the south?
What is a PSA? Yes, informing people of the facts of America's past is what drives Mary Lee and me. But we have learned the hard way to be subtle about it. People cannot handle more than one or two new facts all at once.
I recall one of the first school shows we put on, about 10 years ago. It was for 6th graders. We always tell a little background about each song when we sing it. We sang "Oh Them Golden Slippers" and the kids and teachers all joined in. Then we explained that it was written in the 1880s by the most financially successful minstrel show songwriter of all time, an African American named James Bland. Bland was also one of the very few A-A professionals who foresaw (accurately) that race-relations were going to collapse in the coming decades, and so he moved to England and continued publishing American music from there.
We always welcome questions, and a 6th-grade A-A girl raised her hand to ask why White folks became so mean to Black folks at that time (she had seen the movie "Rosewood" a few days earlier on DVD at home with her parents). Mary Lee and I answered that the war had been a terrible, traumatic experience for the nation, that it had to find someone to blame in order to reconcile itself, and that A-As were chosen even though they were not at fault. The teachers were horrified, The parents complained. We caught hell from the school principal, and they never invited us back.
Nowadays we are more subtle. Listen to the first verse of Bonnie Blue Flag: "We are a band of brothers and native to the soil / we're fighting for the property we won by honest toil." Inevitably, when we finish the song some youngster asks, "what was the property that they were fighting for?" We just stare. Then the kids all look at each other and say, "Ooooh!"
Yes. That is a popular research topic. The cliche is that the victors write the history. But in this case, it was the defeated who wrote the history that is still taught. The best of several scholarly books on this odd phenomenon is Stetson Kennedy, After Appomattox: How the South Won the War (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1995).
PSA = Public Service Announcement, like those produced by the networks (i.e. "The more you know..." on NBC).
It's quite remarkable that the position of the defeated gained such prominence. I suppose the stakes after Reconstruction were that high.
Have you ever thought about publishing a U.S. history textbook or writing children's books on this and similar subjects?
(with Southerners making an honor-based defense of treason)
Were there not other secessionist movements in the U.S.? Specifically, weren't there folks in the north who wanted to secede from the U.S. or the south?
I'm not sure. The only one I can think of is the (literal Republican)movement in Texas to secede from the union.
I've never encountered a Northerner who has made such a defense of the South. I have encountered many who would argue that slavery (abolishing or keeping it) had very little to do with why the Civil War was fought.
Were there not other secessionist movements in the U.S.? Specifically, weren't there folks in the north who wanted to secede from the U.S. or the south?
I know of a couple. One, that I only vaguely remember, was in a New England state (it may have been CT) during the war of 1812. I do not recall the issue, but the way the war of 1812 is taught today is weird anyway.
The one that I do recall was in Mass. in 1853 or 54, when the Fugitive Slave Act was being enforced. Southern slave-catchers had kidnapped a well-liked A-A Boston family who had lived there for many generations. The federal magistrate had ruled that since the Bostonians could not prove that none of their matrilineal ancestors had ever run away from slavery, then they were still legally slaves by heredity. A mob stopped the slavecatchers before they could take the family away. The slave catchers called for reinforcements to drive back the mob. Boston police were called out to drive back the slave catchers, and federal troops were called out to uphold the law and protected the slavecatchers as they took their captives into slavery. There was much grumbling and letters-to-the-editor about it, and some Bostonians spoke of secession, but it never went anywhere.
On the other hand, there were many northerners who were happy to let the slave states go their own way. When Congressman Horatio Seymour (D-NY) heard that seven southern states had seceded, his first words were "good riddance!" (Incidentally, he ran for president against Grant in 1868 and lost.)
Posted: Tue 02 Jun 2009 00:09 Post subject: Civil War
fwsweet wrote:
G-Man wrote:
Were there not other secessionist movements in the U.S.? Specifically, weren't there folks in the north who wanted to secede from the U.S. or the south?
I know of a couple. One, that I only vaguely remember, was in a New England state (it may have been CT) during the war of 1812. I do not recall the issue, but the way the war of 1812 is taught today is weird anyway.
The one that I do recall was in Mass. in 1853 or 54, when the Fugitive Slave Act was being enforced. Southern slave-catchers had kidnapped a well-liked A-A Boston family who had lived there for many generations. The federal magistrate had ruled that since the Bostonians could not prove that none of their matrilineal ancestors had ever run away from slavery, then they were still legally slaves by heredity. A mob stopped the slavecatchers before they could take the family away. The slave catchers called for reinforcements to drive back the mob. Boston police were called out to drive back the slave catchers, and federal troops were called out to uphold the law and protected the slavecatchers as they took their captives into slavery. There was much grumbling and letters-to-the-editor about it, and some Bostonians spoke of secession, but it never went anywhere.
On the other hand, there were many northerners who were happy to let the slave states go their own way. When Congressman Horatio Seymour (D-NY) heard that seven southern states had seceded, his first words were "good riddance!" (Incidentally, he ran for president against Grant in 1868 and lost.)
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
