Frederick Douglass published the New National Era newspaper in Washington beginning in 1870. When Robert E. Lee died on October 12, 1870, his passing was met with many laudatory eulogies in the newspapers. Douglass, who understood the power of the memory of the Civil War, would have none of this Lost Cause sentimentalism. Here is the editorial that appeared in his paper.
New National Era
Washington D. C.
November 10, 1870
Douglass concludes:
Two months later, Douglass wrote of Lee that “He was a traitor and can be made nothing else.” [New National Era January 19, 1871]
Read: Frederick Douglass and the Attempt to Ban the Chinese.
Follow Reconstruction Blog on Social Media:
I can sympathize with the tragic choice with which fate confronted Lee between serving his family and his home state versus the oath he had sworn to his country. However, no public honor is due a man who fought to preserve slavery and who helped to lead a rebellion that claimed the lives of 700,000 countrymen and nearly tore the imperfect democracy that Lincoln called “last best hope of Earth” asunder.. The best that can be said if Lee is that he refrained from participating in the post-war Lost Cause myth building and secession apologetics engaged in by many of his former colleagues – and that, at least, was commendable.
You say he led a rebellion but that is because Lincoln and the Union refused to recognise the rights of States to secret. The CSA was a separate country as per it’s legal founding and look how Jeff Davis did not face trial after as the Union knew it would open up the light to that fact if it went to court. Lee fought for the CSA and saw it as his Country,
There was no right to secede. You simply seceded, which was an act of rebellion. No right existed. There is no separate country unless you win, an you didn’t, so there never was a separate country, you just rebeled and the Union put down an ill-conceived rebellion. Davis wanted a show trial, right when the country should be healing, which was very selfish on his part. Lee led a rebellion that was put down.
West Virginia.
West Virginia returned to the US even though the rest of Virginia remained in rebellion against the rest of the US. It was the rest of Virginia that remained part of The Great Southern Rebellion. The rest of Virginia kept trying to secede. West Virginia recognized the mistake and stopped further secession attempts.
Well stated!
I never understood why anyone saw anything positive about Fred Douglas, another over rated negro of his time. There was nothing great about him or the Abolitionist movement- they were the main cause of war
The war’s cause was the holding of African Americans as slaves.
Wrong sir! Historically inaccurate and incorrect!
“If we bring the Confederate leaders to trial, it will condemn the North…. FOR BY THE CONSTITUTION, SECESSION IS NOT REBELLION…… we cannot convict them for treason.”
Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase
1868.
I have ZERO respect for people like you Karl R. who have absolutely no true and factual historical knowledge of not only this conflict, but of the basic principles of our founding fathers, that come on here and flap your gums like your some sort of an expert on Lincoln’s war of Northern Agression, (like myself who has studied early American history for 33 years now)
With a dead president in the White House, assassinated by a vengeful Virginian, you could bet your ass that every effort was made to bring charges of treason to Davis, Lee, and others, but after several Northern lawyers came to Justice Chase, and profoundly advised trial efforts to cease immediately, it was because they new that not only would they lose the treason argument, but it would also prove Lincoln’s invasion to LEGALLY seceded states to be illegal itself! (that’s why Chase said “…it would condemn the North”) Davis demanded his trial because he knew the exoneration it would bring!
So go ahead and keep spouting the inaccurate nonsense if you wish, just know that you do so being 100% wrong!
(And it’s just not me who disagrees with you via actual facts, but hundreds of historical scholars who have already got long written hundreds of works on Lee would likewise disagree with you!)
Had it not been for Grant and other Union generals interceding, Lee and Davis would most likely have faced charges of treason. Grant told Andrew Johnson that he had promised Lee that no political charges would be brought against him.
You are grossly misinformed. Your own subject of worship and veneration, R.E Lee freely acknowledged that secession was illegal.
“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble,4 & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. ”
https://leefamilyarchive.org/reference/essays/rachal/index.html
You haven’t a leg to stand on.
What is the source of that quote? I’ve seen it before but nobody can give the primary source.
It’s supposedly from Chase, but in his written decision in Texas v White he calls secession treason.
The quote is fake.
It’s you who is wrong, sir. That is a spurious attribution. You are free to authenticate that alleged quote of Chase’s, if you can. Others have tried. Not only is its source mysteriously elusive, it flies in the face of much of what Chase wrote about the legality of secession.
Davis, along with every other former Confederate, was pardoned by Buchanan’s final declaration of amnesty and pardon on Christmas 1868, an act he executed as he was leaving the stage. At the time, Davis stood under indictment for treason and his lawyers were preparing his defense.
Most historical scholars disagree with YOU, Randi B. (Oh, and check your anatomy. Gums don’t flap when you are typing on a keyboard (well maybe yours do…). As proven by the actions of the U.S. during The Great Southern Rebellion, secession was, and is, illegal. That was the original reason Lincoln had to do what he did. Ultimately, Lincoln came to do it to mainly free the slaves (you are not now going to try to deny that the US had slaves, now are you?). Slavery was by far the biggest cause if The Great Southern Rebellion. The issue was at the root of just about every other issue claimed by the South and by lost causers to be causes of The Great Southern Rebellion. Don’t forget it was former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forest who was the main founder of the KKK, aiding in the delay in the healing of our country by decades at least. The Jim Crow laws also emerged then, probably written by Nathan Bedford Forrest’s KKK. Only now are we finally finishing cleanup of the filth that were the Jim Crow laws.
The right to secede was a recognized right. New England had considered secession DURING THE WAR OF 1812 and it was never questioned. President Buchanan asked his Attorney General Jeremiah Black to find him a constitutional way to stop the Cotton States from seceding and force them back into the Union. Black told him that it was not possible to do so and that efforts to use force to coerce any state was treason. After the war, Judge Salmon Chase warned against brining Jefferson Davis to trial because if that were done it would prove that the government and the North were the traitors as there was a constitutional right to secession found in the Constitution and recognized as such. Remember, the war was instituted not because of secession but because of the so-called attack on Fort Sumter, a false flag operation planned by Lincoln with the cooperation of his military before the man ever took office.
`THIS is the manner of Southern Sophistry that today still permeates the Southern Party, the Party of Slavery, that has extended its tentacles, boney and cold, from a confederate grave, to further torment the scions of Joshua Chamberlain in Maine! The Heirs of Robert Gould Shaw in Boston! The posterity of George Armstrong Custer in Michigan! The legacy of Ulysses S. Grant in Ohio! All mocked by the Hubris! The Sophistic Conceit! of a grasping, selfish, self-obsessed Plantation and Mercantile class South of The Mason-Dixon Line, who sought to ply their Trade, of human misery, of moral desolation, of trafficking in human flesh! And to extend this vile DEVILS CONTRACT throughout the Western Territories, and to ply said DEVIL’S TRADE right up unto the northern border with CANADA, and to continue to flaunt such pestilent debauchery right under the BRITISH BAYONETS and CANNON bristling along the 49th parallel! And even to extend this debauched trade to the Western Red Indians, even though said natives enjoyed the protection of the British Crown and had been granted Sanctuary by The Great White Mother! In British North America! and to thereby risk incurring the wrath of the British Army, and a strong whiff of the Grapeshot of The Royal Navy!
Stirring stuff, but completely wrong.; The 49th parallel was sparsely defended, and there was zero chance of slavery ever spreading to it. As in the Revolutionary War, there was a right of succession, which the South exercised and lost.
Stirring stuff, but completely wrong. The 49th parallel was sparsely defended, and there was zero chance of slavery ever spreading to it. As in the Revolutionary War, there was a right of succession, which the South exercised and lost.
The Cause that General Lee fought for was NOT Slavery but as a Officer in the United States Army he chose servitude to the State of Virginia. In other words his homeland. He was a military man not an ideologue. In his age Americans didn’t think of a “Union” as home but the immediate land they were born unto, that was their familiar home.
Most of the confederate states issued declarations declaring their reasons (spoiler alert: it stats with an ‘S’) in their own words for seceeding. These are easily available online.
And how do you reconciled the 1/2 million slaves directly held in the North, including Delaware and New Jersey, much less the million slaves held as collateral by Northern Banks? Immediate uncompensated emancipation meant bankruptcy for most Plantations, starvation for Slaves, and the seizure of Southern resources by Massachusetts Mills who provided the North with their #1 revenue source, textiles, made from slave picked cotton. The North won and achieved there goals by bankrupting the South, starving a million Freedmen to death and seizing Southern cotton lands. If you think North invaded for any altruistic impluses you are delusional. The North invaded for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors.
“as an Officer in the United States Army he chose servitude to the State of Virginia. In other words his homeland.”
In other words, after decades of service (and a free college education), Lee abandoned his country in favor of his state.
Lee resigned his commission, While the ostensible reason for secession was the protection of States Rights, it is clear from the secession documents in the various states that the right they were most concerned about was slavery.
While many still claim that there was a right to secede, I have seen no Constitutional reference that would uphold those rights. Indeed, the first words of the Constitution are “We the people of the United States of America . . .”
The best argument that I have heard is that the right existed under the Articles of Confederation and that right was not given up under the Constitution. I think that is wrong but there is at least some fig leaf there.
All powers not granted to the federal government were retained by the states. That is the tenth amendment (obviously not verbatim). The right to secede was not taken away, therefore it was retained. That being said, I’m not a Lost Cause type of person but the North really had no legal justification for forcing any state to remain in the Union. Then again, when has any government ever needed a legal justification for starting a war? To a certain extent, is not the whole point of a war the idea that, for some reason, the laws are not functioning between the combatants?
Wasn’t it the Confederacy that started the war?
“All powers not granted to the federal government were retained by the states. That is the tenth amendment (obviously not verbatim).”
“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.***” That *is* verbatim. Why do states’ rights enthusiasts seem to read only half of the amendment? States don’t have rights. States have powers. The *people* have rights.
“The right to secede was not taken away, therefore it was retained.”
Faulty logic. To make your premise valid, first you’d have to show that secession was an enumerated power delegated to a state by its people–not one usurped from the people–and was not constitutionally prohibited. Over the seventy-plus years of judicial review prior to the war, the Supreme Court clarified distributed sovereignty and respective powers in a number of landmark cases with respect to the Guarantee Clause and the Supremacy Clause. They left little room for constitutional secession. Thus secession took the only form possible, save consent from the other states: as an original act of revolution. Unfortunately for the aspiring nationbuilders, their secession immediately took on the exact form of insurrection for which the US Constitution is prescriptive for suppressing.
Confederates used the “ecomimic” argument as one of the reasons for secession, ignoring that slavery was part and partial of the “economy” based upon an ideology of white supremacy; an idea that was evident int he 19th century and before – in the North and South. Escaping the ideology can only been accomplished using smoke and mirrors..
Slavery could and did indeed converge into the Confederate argument of economics/tariffs towards Southern secession, etc. But slavery and economics/independence could and did simultaneously diverge to be significant and separate issues in their own right.
One example of the latter would be Davy Crockett’s call to abolish West Point, citing that it represented a financial drain on the common taxpayer, who would have little to no hope to attend there, (w/o significant political pull which was often enjoyed primarily by the upper classes, landed families and politically connected), and he questioned the viability of the introduced European system.
If one argues that slavery was inseparable from any and all economic factors, this forces a number of other admissions, one of the foremost being, ‘how could the North, knowing exactly what it was getting intertwined with and what slavery entailed, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, have ever agreed to form a country with the South? If their economies would be intertwined into one, and if the economy of slavery was inseparable from any considerations to the economy, then that means the North was absolutely as guilty of White supremacy.
It was collaboration and complicity.
But, if we accept that the above statement has a measure of validity to it, we can also look at the factual settings of the times and see that indeed, economics and tariffs could separate from slavery to be considered separate issues, or at least, issues with contextual divergence.
IF the North was willing to concede all the rights to slavery, and guarantee them for all time to come that history had produced up to 1860-61, if these were to be made inviolable for practically all time to come, and that assurance WAS given by the North, (that was the explicit pledge over and over again given by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party), then if the Southerners were guaranteed all the rights they had ever known to slavery, (however distasteful we may rightly see them now from contemporary times), then what is left to consider but federalism/economic factors with regards secession?
This is how economic factors could indeed diverge from slavery; if slavery is guaranteed, what is left to consider?
An excellent question to examine is, ‘did the Southerners BELIEVE that the North would honour this pledge?’ Even if one can argue, ‘no, they clearly didn’t’, that forces another question to consider-
‘Does that mean that the Northerners willingness to forever guarantee all the rights to human bondage and ownership that were already granted, ought this be allowed to ‘lapse’ or diminish from active historical scholarship?’
In other words, is it right to forget or ‘go quiet’ on how at war’s outset, by seeking to restore the Union as it had been, the North was fighting for slavery?
Confederates didn’t use economic arguments for secession much in the period leading up to, and also during, the Civil War; the Confederates were extremely open about fighting for slavery. While letters and accounts from individual Confederate soldiers list other reasons besides slavery for fighting, including the mere fact that they were conscripted, I know of no account from a Confederate soldier stating that he fought because he opposed tariffs. The Nullification Crisis over tariffs had long ended, the tariffs were extremely minor sources of tension compared to slavery, and the reason the South opposed the tariffs in the first place was because of slavery. During the Civil War, some of the pro-Confederate British propagandists like Lord Acton were the ones pushing the narrative that tariffs caused the conflict because abolitionist sympathy was incredibly strong among the bulk of Britain’s population. It wasn’t until after the Civil War that Confederate sympathizers started to claim that tariffs caused the conflict. Overall, claiming that tariffs caused the Civil War is as absurd as claiming that smoking in public buildings caused World War 2.
I’m going to put some things to you which, based on the content of your statements there, I don’t feel you have considered fully.
I have seen a great deal of evidence before and during the war that tariffs/economics were an important war factor to the Confederates’ position. Slavery and tariffs/economics could and certainly did converge at times; however, these could and did also diverge into being distinct factors in their own right.
As far as evidence of them goes, I can point to a great deal of Jefferson Davis’ corro amongst his pre-war papers; within the infamous Cornerstone Speech itself, Alexander Stephens cited tariffs three times as a war factor; Raphael Semmes, commander of the CSS Alabama, wrote fervently of tariffs as the primary war cause in 1861 and in 1859, Alexander Tillloch Galt, the minister of Canadian colonial finance (and the figure who was critical in negotiating free trade between the colony and the Republic in the Reciprocity Treaty), opined in 1859 that if the USA continued its then-levels of taxation, it would have difficulty keeping its citzens. Galt was also against slavery and a Father of Canadian Confederation.
I could go on but that’s enough in there to set the point; there is far more evidence than what you claim to prove the counter-point. It was a well-established base of argument long before the war and during it. Am I saying that the traditional Lost Cause arguments about them are 100% correct? No. They are not w/o a measure of validity, either, in this regard.
Now to slavery; no one is claiming that it had nothing to do with the war. Robert E. Lee was one such figure who was adamant from before the war, all the way to the end, that he WAS NOT fighting for slavery. And you omit that the Confederates were willing to abolish the practice, such as the near-clinched 1862 Emancipation Treaty between the South, Britain and France and the latter Duncan F. Kenner Mission.
And another thing you omit is that the Union was fighting for slavery; from the start of the war to the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation as policy, by seeking to restore the Union as it had been, the North was fighting to reconvene all the rights to slavery that had already been granted and was willing to guarantee these for all time to come.
And at that, from the Confederate perspective, one can argue if the North was willing to reconvene all these rights for perpetuity, that is to say, what the South had in terms of slavery it could keep forever, then what other factor is there to consider but the economics?
If you feel that Lord Acton was the only person in Britain ‘pushing for the Confederates’, then I would encourage you to research further.
For example, while the 1863 Manchester Cotton Strikers refused to handle slave produced cotton (which is often presented in history to ‘defuse’ the reality that this body of workers had already handled slave produced cotton for generations up to that point), this is cited as evidence that the ‘British Working Class’ was 100% pro-Union.
That argument is such evidence as examining the local newspapers of Leicester, which is near Manchester and every iota as much a textiles area dependent on American cotton. These papers are fully of pro-Southern copy.
After the war, it is fully true that the Lost Cause augmented the tariffs’ aspect and diminished the slavery aspect. At same time, the Battle Hymn promulgated that there had been nothing but slavery as a war cause and that this had been all the South’s fault, attempting to ‘go quiet’ on the fact the North had been fully aware of the meaning of the 3/5 and Fugitive Slave tenets in the constitution which joined it with the South in one nation.
All of America was responsible for American slavery as Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln each told 16 years apart.
Well we can’t also forget his services he gave to Spanish American war. Where he really distinguish himself, and proved his military geniusness.
It was the Mexican-American war (1846-1848), not the Spanish-American war (1898) when Lee, like Grant, Meade and many others who would later become prominent commanders in the Civil War, learned a great deal about campaigning from Generals Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, as both seem to have been highly skilled. We get a sense from Grant’s memoirs of what he learned from each commander. General Scott did single out Lee for praise and would become something of a mentor to him.
Late in life Grant would be critical of the Mexican American War, seeing it as an unjust attack on a weak country by a stronger one. He might have said the same thing about the Spanish-American War had he lived to see it. Little is known about any opinion Lee might have had in later years, as he did not write memoirs.
Grant also conceded in his Memoirs, on pages 54 and 56, that the point of the 1846-48 Mexican American War was to conquer new American lands to create new American slave states out of, thereby, expanding and protecting the institution of slavery.
As Frederick Douglass made the point in the 8 June 1849 ‘Liberator’, about America, her constitution and the MA War, no Americans whosoever the question, could disavow that they had a connection to slavery that they could not disavow themselves from.
Grant’s argument regarding the conquest of California is incredibly weak because John Fremont, the leader of the conquest, was about as fierce an abolitionist as anyone in history. Incidentally, the Conquest of California and the Southwest did a lot of good for Mexico in the long run too because it pushed out Santa Anna, and paved the way for Benito Juarez to run Mexico. It also put America in a position to expel France from Mexico.
Virginia was not under threat of attack when Lee left for the CSA, against the USA. His surrender helped blunt guerrilla asymmetrical warfare, but he DID express and support lost cause propaganda.
The records of Lee meeting with Blair and Scott in 1861, in addition to all the other evidence, make it perfectly clear that all knew an inter-American military conflict was coming. This had been foreseen as early as 1787 by Alexander Hamilton in his contributions in ‘The Federalist Papers’, Nos. 8-10.
And are you saying that the Lost Cause thesis had no basis in fact when it pertained to American federalism? Such as when he said before Congress in 1866 that as a citizen of Virginia, that state’s decision to secede carried his loyalties with him and determined his course?
Now, are you saying that there is no validity whatsoever to the ‘states rights’ model of the American constitution and federalism? That all such arguments by the Lost Cause are a post-war fabrication?
If you want to argue that the ‘Union paramount’ view of American federalism as espoused by George Washington, Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln has more objective weight, then that’s one thing.
But if you’re going to argue that the ‘states rights’ model of same as espoused by Thomas Jefferson, John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis had just as much evidence to support it, such as in 1774, the First Continental Congress explicitly stated that they desired to construct a country along the lines of Switzerland in the late 1700s, wherein, ‘the cantons were paramount to the republic which bound them’.
https://digitalarchive.tpl.ca/objects/344690/a-letter-to-the-inhabitants-of-the-province-of-quebec-extra#
Note: Please read above to say, ‘if you are going to say the states rights model of American federalism as espoused by Jefferson, etc, etc, is a post-war fabrication, then that argument can’t be successfully carried. This school had just as much weight to support it…’
It was plain as could be that Virginia would be invaded by the US Forces when he decamped from the Union Army.
The Lost Cause is not a ‘myth’; it is a historiography and a theses, exactly like the ‘Australian Legend’ and ‘New Britainia’ schools of thought about Australian history, or how Settler Colonialism claims same towards the history of Aboriginal and Colonised peoples’ history.
There is a variable measure of merit to at least a fair number of the tenets of the Lost Cause theses. The theses also has particular in-set errs and limits to how much history it can satisfactorily explain.
Where Lee opined Lost Cause explanations of history, such as how Virginia claimed the ‘typical’ Southern regional stance of American federalism/states rights, was no different in substance than what Maine had done during the Aroostook War (and never suffered any consequences for in any cacpacity).
Lincoln was the direct cause cause of the war, and not Robert E Lee! Lincoln started the war by trying to reinforce Ft Sumter, in order to collect cotton taxes iaw the Morrel Act, and to preserve the union in order to collect those taxes. If you were an honorable man, you would quote Abe Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greenly 1862 in which he stated he is fighting the war not to free slaves, but to preserve the union. (The South provided 80% of the income for the union)
Lee would be the first to agree with your comments
Lee would be the first to agree with your comments
The US Government led by President Ford and a Democratic Congress, restored Lee’s citizenship in 1975. It’s feit a accompli.
Douglass wrote that he had seen many free black men in the CSA army, both working as laborers and carrying firearms. Douglass was very confused. His criticism of one of the greatest men of America cannot be forgiven.
It is surprising how many people still cling to the myths of the Lost Cause. Sad really.
And it is surprising how many people (like yourself) still cling to the idea that the Federal government was created to overrule everything, and have unquestioned authority in all matters, and to whatever its desires my be, forgetting the Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of government and prevent overreach and tyranny, instilling the rights of nullification, and secession if need be, when that overreach was made.
VERY sad really!
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery! I am rejoiced that slavery was abolished!
The reputation of individuals is of minor importance compared to the opinions posterity may form of the motives of the people of the South, in their late struggle for the maintenance of the basic principles of the Constitution. Therefore, I hope a true history will be written, and justice done them.”
Robert E Lee – 1867
He never said that “he had seen” any such thing. After 1st Bull Run (Manassas), he wrote “It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still.” The only possible source for this statement was a newspaper story which was reprinted by many papers, as far away as London. In the story, a captured rebel general, Pryor, , “confirms previous reports of a regiment of negro [sic.] troops in the rebel forces, but says it is difficult to get them in proper discipline in battle array”, to his yankee captor, Pvt. George Hasbrouck (Co. E 2nd Wisconsin). There is nothing to corroborate the Pryor’s statement from any other source, rebel or federal. It was was a rebel general pulling the leg of of a gullible private. The newspapers ran with the rumor, as they often did, and Douglass used it to advocate for the federal enlistment of African Americans.
Dougless is an idiot Lee was just a good America as he was he fought for his homeland the South. Dougless is just looking for fane as always and yes I live in Rochester NY where there is plenty of news print on him
Douglass was an idiot looking for fane and Lee was a good America. These two opinions go together well.
If you’re going to be a racist, at least learn to spell. [Insult deleted]
Just remember: when the United States gained independence, all 13 states had slavery. If you are seriously interested in the history of slavery in the North, here is a reference from Project Gutenberg. It was a bood written in the `800s and details the legal history of slavery in each of the 13 colonies.
As much as many strive to invent another reason for the war slavery was a cruel and inhumane and anything but Christian.It had to end!
Lincoln led Republicans controlled both houses of the 37th Congress. One of their select committees was the “Committee on Emancipation and Colonization.” The following resolution from that committee explains exactly what motivated Northern “anti-slavery.” Anti-slavery meant nothing more than “anti-black;” and to rid the country of an “inferior race” to prevent amalgamation. It was this kind of immoral racism that led to Southern secession in the first place. Is it any wonder that the MISSISSIPPI Declaration of Secession laments that the North “seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.” If this is why the South was “pro-slavery,” in order to protect their black neighbors from Northern racism, what else are we not being told about the cause of secession and war?
37th Congess.
No. 148. REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION,In the House of Resentatives, July 16, 1862:
“It is useless, now, to enter upon any philosophical inquiry whether nature has or has not made the negro inferior to the Caucasian. The belief is indelibly fixed upon the public mind that such inequality does exist. There are irreconcilable differences between the two races which separate them,
as with a wall of fire. The home for the African must not be within the limits of the present territory of the Union. The Anglo- American looks upon every acre of our present domain as intended for him, and not for the negro. A home, therefore, must be sought for the African beyond our own limits and in those warmer regions to which his constitution is better adapted than to our own climate,and which doubtless the Almighty intended the colored races should inhabit and cultivate.
Much of the objection to emancipation arises from the opposition of a large portion of our people to the intermixture of the races, and from the association of white and black labor. The committee would do nothing to favor such a policy; apart from the antipathy which nature has ordained, the presence of a race among us who cannot, and ought not to be admitted to our social and political privileges, will be a perpetual source of injury and inquietude to both. This is a question of color, and is unaffected by the relation of master and slave.
The introduction of the negro, whether bond or free, into the same field of labor with the white man, is the opprobrium of the latter… We wish to disabuse our laboring countrymen, and the whole Caucasian race who may seek a home here, of this error… The committee conclude that the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celt, or Scandinavian, require that the whole country should be held and occupied by those races.”
General Lee exclaimed:”The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution of slavery, and are quite willing to see it abolished. UNLESS SOME HUMANE COURSE, BASED ON WISDOM AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IS ADOPTED, you do them great injustice in setting them free.”
CSA Governor Henry W Allen Jan 1865
“To the English philanthropist who professes to feel so much for the slave, I would say, come and see the sad and cruel workings the scheme.–Come and see the negro in the hands of his Yankee liberators. See the utter degradation–the ragged want–the squalid poverty. These false, pretended friends treat him with criminal neglect. William H. Wilder, He says the negroes have died like sheep with the rot. In the Parish of Iberville, out of six hundred and ten slaves, three hundred and ten have perished. Tiger Island, at Berwicks Bay, is one solid grave yard. At New Orleans, Thibodaux, Donaldsonville, Plaquemine, Baton Rouge, Port Hudson, Morganza, Vidalia, Young’s Point and Goodrich’s Landing, the acres of the silent dead will ever be the monuments of Yankee cruelty to these unhappy wretches. Under published orders from General Banks, The men on plantations were to be paid from six to eight dollars per month, In these orders the poor creatures after being promised this miserable pittance, were bound by every catch and saving clause that a lawyer could invent. For every disobedience their wages were docked. For every absence from labor they were again docked. In the hands of the grasping Yankee overseer, the oppressed slave has been forced to toil free of cost to his new master. I saw a half-starved slave who had escaped from one of the Yankee plantations, he said “that he had worked hard for the Yankees for six long months–that they had ‘dockered’ him all the time, and had never paid him one cent!” The negro has only changed masters, and very much for the worse! And now, without present reward or hope for the future, he is dying in misery and want. Look at this picture ye negro worshippers, and weep, if you have tears to shed over the poor down-trodden murdered children of Africa.”
Cant agree more with you Diane…! most southerners went to church weekly to here the word of god…and acted like they were in god graces . Come Monday they would here a slave girl/boy getting whipped to nearly death for getting caught reading a bible. And the woman / men that went to church did nothing. Nothing. Some of the inhumane conditions were just that inhumane and had no hint of compassion or care for even a pregnant woman. ….
Thank u 4 that assessment
African-American
I am so sorry that people do not know the difference between here and hear.
you are correct Terry …
This advocation by Frederick Douglass was intended by him to ‘speak for all Black Americans’. He did not.
His contemporary, Thomas Morris Chester, was a like Abolitionist, Black American from the North, (Pennsylvania). Chester had many, many achievements to his name, but foremost, as the only Black American reporter for a major newspaper on either side in the war, he wrote arguably the greatest testament to the heroism of Robert E. Lee of any of the General’s contemporaries. He witnessed the arrival of The Gray Fox back into Richmond following Appomattox and surrender. The Black Pioneer’s copy reads-
‘Philadelphia Press’, 16 April 1865-
‘Arrival of Lee & Staff – His Reception
The excitement of yesterday was the arrival here of General Lee and his staff, about three o’clock P.M. The chieftain looked fatigued and rode along at a jaded gait. The general with affable dignity received the marks of respect which were manifested by those who happened along the pavement. Several efforts were made to cheer him, which failed, until within a short distance of his residence, previous to which his admirers satisfied themselves with quietly waving their hats and hands, when they were more successful. At his mansion, on Franklin street, where he alighted from his horse, he immediately uncovered his head, thinly covered with silver hairs, as he had done in acknowledgement of the veneration of the people along the streets. There was a general rush of the small crowd to shake hands with him.
During these manifestations not a word was spoken, and when the ceremony was through, the General bowed and ascended his steps. The silence was then broken by a few voices calling for a speech, to which he paid no attention. The General then passed into his house, and the crowd dispersed. The military authorities here will extend every consideration to Lee. Orders will be promulgated affording him and his staff such protection and accommodation as their circumstances may require.’
Martin Delany also diverged from the opinion of Douglass in the post-war, officially forging a political alliance among Black and White voters with former-Confederate General Wade Hampton, in South Carolina.
It is not legitimate, despite the arguments of his biographer, David Blight, to view Douglass as the ‘sole perspective’ to view Black American history through. Douglass, along with Ulysses S. Grant, was a heroic figure of the period and his written holdings are vital to review in gaining an understanding of the history and historiography of the war and America. But in this, he and Grant were critical in forming the Northern equivalent of the Lost Cause school, the False Story.
Douglass employed the methodological technique of ‘going quiet’ on historical aspects/questions/topics/evidences, etc, that challenged the narrative he helped to found, such as, not engaging with the fact that his arguments about the causes and legacy of the Civil War/War Between The States reflected exactly the same as his earlier calls upon the 1846-48 Mexican American War.
As well, I would welcome a discussion on Douglass’ stance that the Confederates had committed ‘treason’.
As well, I would welcome a discussion to examine the accuracy of Douglass’ opinion that Lee and the Confederates had committed ‘treason’.
Disagreeable and distasteful as Douglass in his time, or we in ours, may make of the Confederate cause, it can not be successfully argued that they were guilty of treason.
I think Lincoln himself saw the distinction to be made here when he chose not to pursue conflict until the Confederates fired upon Fort Sumter. That took all discussion of the legality of secession off the table, and laid the justification for conflict squarely on insurrection. No matter the reason, it is not any person or state’s right to take up arms against the United States. Lincoln had a keen political and legal mind and a knack for maneuvering.
Then I would have to ask you, how can you reconcile the view, as you put it, that no one has the right to take up arms against the USA with the fact of the three precedents, or at least two out of three; South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis and Maine in the Aroostook War? (The third involves the New Englanders in the War of 1812, but that well perhaps is more a situation of ‘enabling others directly’ to bear arms against the USA).
In the South Carolina situation, the President and Union States government was directly/explicitly informed that if federal legislation was attempted to be enforced, then South Carolina state forces would resist by all and any means necessary, even if it should literally involve fighting and killing US troops/navy. SC forces were openly mobilised for this purpose.
And in the end…not a single SC individual ever faced any legal consequences for this whatsoever. None. A precedent was set.
I’m the Aroostook War, Maine mobilised state militia and invaded what is now New Brunswick to erect fortifications of the state in disputed territory and took NB and British colonial governmental figures hostage and back into custody in Maine. On the floor of Congress, Maine reps stated they had a right as a sovereign state to invade and conquer foreign territory and add it to their state borders. The Governor of Maine wrote the President that this would occur in spite of any potentially raised constitutional disputes if Maine’s demands were not met.
Now…for any state of the Union becomes involved in war, then all states of the Union are impelled into a state of war.
Maine took these actions of initiation of war with a foreign country, (as the British Parliament in London openly cited), and this occurred complete out of the hands of the federal government, (Maine explicitly stated they didn’t need this).
Maine, by its actions, thereby made war occur upon all the other states of the Union! They made war upon them.
That’s the very definition of constitutional treason…!
And again, no Maine person ever faced any legal consequences of any kind. President Van Buren condoned these actions.
Another precedent was set.
This has to be applied to the Confederates; they fall in a well-established pattern of precedent.
JO, I agree. The states had believed they retained the power to secede because the country’s founding documents had not prohibited it and had deliberately given the states more powers. The attack on Fort Sumter began the war. Lincoln seized on that mistake as an opportunity for the Commander in Chief to defend his troops by conquering the attacking force to the point of surrender. The South predominantly wanted states’ rights, chiefly the right of slavery. Losing slaves without compensation would be financially devastating. The South was very religious and the Bible did not prohibit slavery, but told Christians to treat slaves well, even like a brother, and to release them every 50 years. Sinful nature led many people to take advantage of the mastery for ego and financial gain. Up above proof is offered that Northern political leaders were racist too, often suggesting negroes be re-colonized or repatriated in a free country in Africa. Some of the other prominent American leaders who felt this way were Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln. So neither side was perfect. The Bible even says for all have sinned. It would have been great if our politicians would have added to the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves in 1807 with a clause or subsequent law to declare a year of jubilee to free all slaves in 50 years. Early on, that would probably have been very agreeable as probably everybody who owned slaves then would consider they would be dead or otherwise no longer needing slaves and willing to pay a nurse of any color. Future slave owners would calculate values paid based on 50 years from the enactment of that act prohibiting the importation of slaves, declaring them all free on 1 Jan 1858. Then the government would not feel obligated to pay restitution unless certain states or territories voted to be pro-abolitionist and speed up that date of freedom. Then the whole Civil War would have been avoided. But alas, that sinful nature for pride and greed was too strong on all sides. So if I could go back in time, I would encourage politicians then to make such arrangements. Without that happening, I would not pick out any one of the prior leaders as being racist as most of them seemed to carry that same trait. I do not side with Frederick Douglass either though because a quote above from Lee proves Douglass wrong in his hateful assumption. I instead infer that Lee saw the continued racism and North vs. South hatred long after the war was over and can understand how depressing that can be.
Slavery, and a desire to expand the institution of slavery, was definitely the cause of the Southern secession and the Civil War. The Confederates’ motivations for wanting slavery are widely misunderstood. Most of the Confederate leaders weren’t concerned about the economy without slavery, but rather saw slavery as a core part of their identity and social status. The Confederates were very much a Medieval people in many ways and believed that the best culture was a culture where independent warriors ruled over agricultural workers, and they saw chattel slavery as the way to keep that culture economically viable. This extreme Medievalism permeates Confederate and neo-Confederate/Lost-Cause writings even when they downplay slavery. The Medievalism shows up in other ways too: Samuel Cartwright was one of the most respected physicians of the Confederacy and was staunchly pro-Slavery and also very much opposed to the germ theory of disease.
While the legal status of secession was unclear prior to Texas v. White, the question became moot as far as the Civil War is concerned because the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter and invaded the North to kidnap and enslave citizens of Northern states. Lincoln wanted to use peaceful means to avoid the Civil War, but the Confederates attacked. The Confederates’ invasions and raids of the North were also exceptionally brutal in places like Chambersburg.
All of that being said, I think there’s a big difference between supporting a misguided hero cult and humanizing individuals based on the circumstances of the traditional culture they were raised in.
The causes for the Civil War/War Between The States certainly do have a definite connection to slavery and the issue of race, but this is so on both sides.
If you argue such as you do of the Confederates, what is missing from your argument?
That in seeking to put the Union back together as it had been, the Northerners were 100% willing to reconvene all the rights to slavery that had already been given and enshrine them for all time to come. The heroic admission in Abraham Lincoln’s 2nd Inngrl. Address is he conceded this point.
And no; your argument simply refuses to admit the evidence that challenges you, such as that Robert E. Lee, and other Confederates like him such as Maxcy Gregg, James Longstreet, Jeb Stuart, etc, etc, were not fighting for slavery in any context. If you argue that they were due to the fact the Confederacy embraced slavery, you are then trying to omit the fact that the Union was to for the reason above and that since the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 with the 3/5 and Fugitive Slave tenets within it, Lee, Grant, Longstreet, Sherman, etc, etc, were all fighting for slavery ever since they had accepted their commissions as US military officers, regardless their personal sentiments.
There were a wide variety of reasons that Confederates fought the war, is what the evidence tells us.
Your Medieval analogy is not convincing; the North embraced simply an alternative means to action White supremacy and what does it say of them that they were willing to form one country with the South and the slavery it used, not to mention, giving slavery national sanction?
This ‘great American silence’, (playing off the phrase coined by W.EH. Stanner), and embracing the dishonest methodology known as, ‘The Circle in the Sand’, (coined by another Australian historian, Patricia Grimshaw), of only presenting very select pieces of evidence and the putting of very carefully crafted questions, alone, to it, is a hallmark of the False Story historiography, which grew out of the ‘Devil Theory’ of the war, as originally explained by Howard K. Beale, (“What Historians Have Said about the Causes of the Civil War,” in Theory and Practice in Historical Study; A Report of the Committee on Historiography. Social Science Research Council Bulletin 54 (1946): 53–102.)
A key indication that you embrace a False Storyite historiographical perspective can be articulated, ‘what information is missing from your argument wherein you cite Texas v. White?’, and, ‘Why would you not put out that information to aptly demonstrate your argument can put at least a satisfactory reply to the challenge such information would put to your thesis?’
What is key to challenging that the Confederates committed treason by firing on Ft. Sumter is the fact that there were three precedents in 50 years in which all prima facie elements of the Constitutional offence of treason were met and not a single person/group ever faced any legal consequences of any kind for their actions in doing so. The New Englanders in the War of 1812, South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis and Maine in the Aroostook War…
If none of these groups, etc, never faced any consequences for treason whatsoever, and they didn’t, then the same must be allotted the Confederates, period. That obliges no one to ‘like’ or find their war cause noble, etc. If one will hold the Confederates guilty of treason, then one must just as publicly and vociferously hold all these three prior groups as guilty of treason.
And frankly, your presentation of the Confederates as having originated or alone have forcibly impressed Black Americans into slavery is the ultimate indicator that you are deliberately avoiding a holistic critical reflection, forcing me to ponder, ‘do you really oppose this practice in history, or only when groups/persons you dislike have done it?’
If the answer is you oppose it fully and are prepared to put a measure of fair and balanced criticism to it as wrong, then join me in also criticising how the US Constitution, due to the Fugitive Slave tenet, compelled all federal office holders, such as Commissioned military officers and Presidents to do all in their power to place presumed escaped slaves back into bondage, the legal onus being upon the Black Americans in question to prove themselves as Free Persons of Colour in law.
It is true that Jackson and Lee’s armies did this on their Northern Campaigns. It is also true that the ANV wrote out passes exempting Black Americans from seizure on these and that a high number of Black Americans so taken were returned to Union lines from the South when investigation proved them to be legally Free Persons of Colour.
This is simply gaining and explaining all pertinent information that is relevant to the historical topic. No one is denying the highest empathy for this horrific period of history…exactly as it is to point out that Sherman wrote to his brother from Florida in 1842 with glee of ‘hunting down’ and forcibly impressing Black Americans into slavery as a regular military exercise of the US Army; that after capturing Fort Donelson in February 1862, Grant restored 12 slaves in the fort to Confederate owners, despite the options the First Confiscation Act presented; and as how Abraham Lincoln actioned the forcible impressment of Black Americans into slavery when he countermanded the emancipation orders of Generals’ Fremont, Hunter and Butler, (some slaves in Missouri had already been given their manumission papers).
Slavery was an all American activity and institution. And certainly Confederate raids were brutal, as were those of the Union. Violence was all-embracing in the conflict and both sides engaged in this, as both sides engaged in attempted peaceable means, too.
This is seeply stupid and deranged.
Vladimir Estragon, did Godot show?
It is sad that Douglass was unable to attempt to forgive, at least he did not in the public eye. While he did pay homage to Confederates to some extent at various writings or speeches, he was not able to apparently come to some form of respect towards General Lee.
But it is also important that, as with any aspect of history, Douglass’ opinions ought not to be accepted at face value and considered comprehensive; not all Black Americans felt as he did about the General and his opinion that drew delight in slavery is particularly not apt.
I will present a few examples to prove each point.
-Thomas Morris Chester, the only Black American reporter for a major newspaper on either side in the war, wrote perhaps the greatest testament of Lee’s heroism of any of their living contemporaries. His article about the arrival of Robert E. Lee into Richmond following the Appomattox surrender is landmark.
‘Philadelphia Press’, 16 April 1865:
‘Arrival of Lee & Staff – His Reception
The excitement of yesterday was the arrival here of General Lee and his staff, about three o’clock P.M. The chieftain looked fatigued and rode along at a jaded gait. The general with affable dignity received the marks of respect which were manifested by those who happened along the pavement. Several efforts were made to cheer him, which failed, until within a short distance of his residence, previous to which his admirers satisfied themselves with quietly waving their hats and hands, when they were more successful. At his mansion, on Franklin street, where he alighted from his horse, he immediately uncovered his head, thinly covered with silver hairs, as he had done in acknowledgement of the veneration of the people along the streets. There was a general rush of the small crowd to shake hands with him.
During these manifestations not a word was spoken, and when the ceremony was through, the General bowed and ascended his steps. The silence was then broken by a few voices calling for a speech, to which he paid no attention. The General then passed into his house, and the crowd dispersed. The military authorities here will extend every consideration to Lee. Orders will be promulgated affording him and his staff such protection and accommodation as their circumstances may require.’
-Mifflin Wistar Gibbs was an Abolitionist, an advocate of Black colonisation and one of the first Black Americans elected to government in North America, winning a seat in the colonial legislature of Vancouver Island in 1866, after migrating there from the US. He later returned to America and took up a Reconstruction post in Arkansas.
In his biography, ‘Shadow and Light: An Autobiography with Reminiscences of the Last and Present Century’, he inferenced great respect for Lee’s willingness to surrender and end the conflict-
“General Grant’s campaign ended in the surrender of General Lee, and Peace, with its golden pinion, alighted on our national staff.” (page 79).
-The 16 August 1867, ‘Georgia Telegraph’, noted that when General Lee arrived at the White Sulphur Springs resort in West Virginia on the 24th of July of same year, Black Americans had joined the throngs which swarmed from all quarters with their White counterparts to cheer him upon his arrival on horseback at the lodge.
-Jim Parks, whom was related to both Amanda Parks one of the two slaves allegedly whipped with Wesley Norris, did not corroborate the latter’s account. The press story announcing his death was re-printed all over the world and within it, (all hagiography lasered away), it is clear he had a very positive impression of the General and the Lee family. See New Zealand Evening Post, 5 October 1929.
(https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19291005.2.155.4.1?items_per_page=10&query=jim+parks%2c+negro&snippet=true)
-Rosbell Burke [one of the slaves Lee had inherited from his mother and freed. Burke and her family then migrated on their own desire to Liberia, taking part in Black Colonisation, like Thomas Morris Chester and Martin Delany].
Burke – Lee’s wife, (dated sometime between 1853-59)
“My Dear Madam…I could not let this opportunity pass without writing you a few lines to inform you something in regard to myself and family…You could hardly believe how cool it is in Africa — it is equal to the coolest October nights and mornings in America; we can hardly keep warm in bed at night…I have thought and dreamt much about you lately. I hope you have got over your rheumatism, and the many troubles of which you spoke in your last letter…Please remember me particularly to all of your children, and to Mr. Lee. I often think of them all…”
I will put a few examples that show the Emancipationist views that Lee possessed, which challenge a ‘at face value’ acceptance of Douglass’ critique-
-21 December 1862, General Lee – his wife [on emancipation] “I desire to do what is right & best for the people.”
-29 December 1862, Lee secures the manumission of all of his Father in Law’s Arlington slaves tied to the latter’s estate, in an official deed of emancipation.
-11 November 1863, General Lee – his wife [regarding slaves of his father in law’s estate not yet manumitted due to legal complications] “As regards the people at the White House & Romancoke I directed Mr. Collins1 as soon as he Could get in the small crop this fall, to obtain from the County Courts their free papers & to emancipate them.”
-24 January 1864, General Lee – his wife [ibid topic] “As regards the people at Romancoke, I much prefer their receiving their free papers & seeking their fortune. It has got to be done & it was in accordance with your father’s will. I am unable to attend to them & I am afraid they will suffer or come to some harm. I do not see why they can not be freed & hire themselves out as others do, & think it might be accomplished. I am afraid there is some desire on the part of the community to continue them in slavery, which I must resist.
****Reply to Mike Hunt: ‘I never understood why anyone saw anything positive about Fred Douglas, another over rated negro of his time. There was nothing great about him or the Abolitionist movement- they were the main cause of war.’****
Sir, if you were not a ‘historical fan’ of Frederick Douglass, so to speak, that’s one thing.
But I do not appreciate you describing him in terms of, ‘another over rated negro’ in any context of time or space.
These sentiments are wrong that you voice! As wrong as it would be to describe Benito Juarez, Susie King Taylor, Stonewall Jackson, etc, in terms as applicable to the prejudiced sense you intend and apply.
People are people are people and deserve respect!
Salmon P. Chase who was the chief justice of the supreme court and appointed by Lincoln said, IF YOU BRING THESE LEADERS TO TRIAL, IT WILL CONDEMN THE NORTH, FOR BY THE CONSTITUTION, SECESSION IS NOT REBELLION. HIS( JEFFERSON DAVIS)CAPTURE WAS A MISTAKE. HIS TRIAL WILL BE A GREATER ONE. WE CANNOT CONVICT HIM OF TREASON.
Ok guys-
‘Gums flapping’ is language designed to get personal.
Take a second, re-frame your arguments in scholarly language and push the argument, not the personal.