Mr. Bearden--
Thank you. Your note addressed admirably precisely the
issues for which I requested your thoughts. Thanks for
taking the time to provide them.
An additional request for you, on a more personal level.
You seem to have a certain contempt for history professors--
in posts to non-academics on this list, you have made a
number of dismissive remarks about people who do what I do.
I am not sure whether those remarks are addressed to me or
not, but if they are, I would appreciate very much a more
direct response to whatever it is I have written which
offends your sensibilities.
As it stands, your indirectness makes it hard to know how
best to respond. For example, what have I written which
leads you to believe that I am "throwing stones at people
who lived almost 150 years ago?" I am not sure just what I
have written that leads you to that conclusion. After all,
my argument all along is that the southern politicians
stated their reasons for secession with some clarity, and
that we should take those statements at face value--that is,
we should not dismiss them, but rather should assume that
they meant what they said. How could I be more respectful
of their integrity than that?
I don't think slavery was the sole reason for the war
either. That said, remove slavery from the equation and it
is hard to imagine, for example, that the tariff policies of
the nation would have developed as they did, or that the
critical constitutional issues which South Carolina,
Georgia, and other states cited to justify secession would
have had quite the same force (Georgia cited the
Lockean/Jeffersonian right to revolution to justify
secession--but the greivance they had in mind was
northern "obstruction" of the fugitive slave clause). So
while clearly there were other issues, it is hard to imagine
them emerging as a source of southern identity or greivance
without slavery. In this sense, it seems to me, it is fair
to say that slavery was the fundamental underlying cause of
the war.
Warm regards,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:42:00 EST
>From: Billy Bearden <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: VA-HIST Digest - 10 Mar 2004 to 11 Mar 2004
(#2004-33)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
> I believe that slavery was a contributing factor at the
beginning. And not
>the threat of removal, but the effort on the Union to stop
the extention of
>slavery, where the south wanted each state to decide. I
cannot sit here in the
>21st century and throw stones at a people who lived almost
150 years ago. They
>lived in a society based on slavery, which was common
throughout history and
>still continues today, but irregardless, slavery was a way
of life for some
>back then.
>
> I believe that slavery didn't become a major political
issue until 1863, 2
>years into the war. Even then the Emancipation Proclamation
only served to
>stave off France & England, when tied to the Gettysburg &
Anteitam victories of
>the north. It was a worthless document, as it freed no
slaves where Lincoln
>had authority , but held no weight where Lincoln had no
control. Heck , slavery
>didn't end until months after the end of the war...
>
> I study the history of the war, the Sons of Confederate
Veterans , and their
>forebears, the United Confederate Veterans. The flag - even
up until 1952 in
>Norfolk Virginia when the final Confederate Grand Reunion
was held with 3 very
>old and feeble Confederate Veterans, was the symbol of
bravery & valor. Those
>great old men would meet and parade and celebrate with the
flags they used in
>battles. Many shared reunions with the Grand Army of the
Republic were
>cordial. The handshake at the angle in Gettysburg for one.
>
> I reckon you are aware of the original 13th amendment?
The one where
>slavery would as an amendment never be touched. If this was
the only reason for
>secession, why would the south leave? Certainly tariiffs
and the issue of states
>versus the Feds were at the forefront in 1860. If slavery
abolition was the
>sole reason, why did 4 northern states continue with
slavery during the war? Why
>was West Virginia admitted as a slave state? Why didn't
Virginia seceed at
>first - but waited until after Lincoln called for 75,000
troops to invade the
>cotton states? No, slavery was not the sole reason.
>
> I also read actual letters from the soldiers. I have yet
to read where some
>soldier wrote his poor mother and told her he was proud to
fight to keep
>blacks in bondage. Even General Patrick Cleburne stated
slavery was not the issue
>why they were fighting just months before his death in
Tennessee.
>
> I hope this is what you were looking for.
>Thanks & God Bless
>Bill Bearden
>Georgia
>
>
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see
the instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
