Q &A August July 15, 2017
The following are another ten frequently asked questions (FAQ) from readers of my books and the blogs. Some were in the form of statements expressing either support or disagreement with some point I had made, others were questions as follow-up or clarifications to my position, and others raised new issues.
1. What was the concept of the “militarization” of the South and did that lead to the Civil War? First, the “militarization” of the South refers to the fact that many Southern aristocratic families valued a military education as a noble and desirable profession for young men. An appointment to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point was highly prized. In fact, the very formation of the Citadel in South Carolina in 1839 and the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1842 were directly a result of more demand in the South for a premier military education that could be met by West Point alone. I believe the fact that so many of its senior politicians, influential leaders and wealthy family patriarchs had a military background probably contributed the South’s willingness to first threaten and then be willing to fight a Civil War. However, I do not believe it was a significant cause of the War compared to the issues of slavery, economics, and the independence of individual states. Certainly, in the early stages of the War, the South had an advantage with their large contingent of experienced (and very competent) military officers.
2. You wrote about Confederate women who were spies; what about ladies who spied for the Union? In my Blog on February 28, 2015, I mentioned that there were women who were Union spies but focused the earlier article on those who served the Confederacy. In some ways, the Union spies had a more risky situation since they were mainly behind enemy lines. I have studied the accomplishments of several female spies for the Union, but there are three whose story fascinates me. In each case, these women supported the Union but their real cause was their opposition to slavery. First, there was Harriett Tubman, a former slave, who was sometimes called the “conductor” of the under-ground railroad, and was personally responsible for guiding over 300 escaped slaves through South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia to freedom in the North. She would send messages to Union officials with the escapees that disclosed Confederate troop strength and locations. In one case, she acted as a scout for a Union raid on a Confederate compound housing several hundred slave laborers and Union prisoners. Second, Mary Elizabeth Bowser (whose name may have been Richards) was a born a slave of John Van Lew, a prominent merchant in Richmond Virginia. Fortunately for Mary Elizabeth, when Mr. Van Lew died, his heirs signed manumission papers granting all of his slaves their freedom. Mary, who had been taught to read and write, became an invaluable spy actually working for a while in the Confederate White House in Richmond. Third, is Elizabeth Van Lew, daughter of John Van Lew and the person most responsible for freeing the family’s slaves, including Mary Bowser. Elizabeth Van Lew was well known in Richmond as an anti-secessionist and an abolitionist. Although, Elizabeth agreed she opposed slavery, she denied the label of “abolitionist” because “they are fanatics and accomplish nothing.” On the other hand, Elizabeth accomplished a lot! She was originally granted permission by Confederate authorities in Richmond to help care for Union prisoners. However, she quickly established an intelligence network to pass information back through enemy lines and she was instrumental in several successful Union raids around Richmond. In 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant praised her contributions to his campaigns in Virginia. As you can imagine, Elizabeth Van Pew was a social outcast in Richmond after the War. These three women have been inducted into the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. Elizabeth Van Lew will be the subject of a more detailed blog later this year.
3. Did Lincoln intentionally “bait” the Confederate forces to fire on Fort Sumter in April 1861? He did not need to. South Carolina militia, aligned with Confederate forces, had already taken over several strategic installations around Charleston Harbor and had fired upon, but not hit Union ships. Remaining Union forces retreated to the unfinished Fort Sumter and the Confederate government could not let them remain there. The only alternate step Lincoln could have taken would have been to abandon Fort Sumter and pull the men and ships out of Charleston Harbor; which some of his cabinet members urged. In my view however, the War would have simply started elsewhere because Lincoln believed the secession by the Southern States was unconstitutional and the Confederate seizure of Federal facilities and ships was illegal. If the initial attack had not occurred at Fort Sumter, Confederate forces would have pressed an engagement at another Union installation in the South, perhaps at Norfolk, Virginia. Or, Lincoln may have even initiated the conflict by ordering an incursion into Southern territory at another point such as Arlington. In any event, the die was cast and both sides were prepared to fight a Civil War in 1861 to settle the issue of secession once and for all.
4. I just read an article that claimed the states that seceded did NOT mention slavery as a cause in their declarations. Is that true? Partly. Of the eleven states which issued a declaration to secede, three made no specific mention of the right to hold slaves, but all except Texas mentioned their “domestic institutions” a then common euphemism for slavery. However, South Carolina, the first to declare and most others, clearly stated why they would secede and form a sovereign nation and I will let their words speak for them. The following is a direct quote from the Secession Declaration (in part). “The fourteen (northern) states have for years failed to uphold their constitutional obligations which provide as follows: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping to another state, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due. But, an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations. Thus, the constituted compact (the U.S. Constitution) has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding states, and the consequence follows is that South Carolina is released from her obligations. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this government (was) instituted have been defeated by the actions of non-slaveholding states. Those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the property of our domestic institutions. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes, and those who remain, have been incited to servile insurrection.” The declaration goes on to state that the election of Abraham Lincoln is proof that the north intends to further interfere with South Carolina’s right to hold slaves. Seems clear to me that slavery was the underlying issue!
5. Why won’t you (meaning me) acknowledge that the Civil War was fought by the South as a “States’ Rights” issue and was not about slavery? My answer was, and is, “poppycock!” (see prior question). Of course a war of that magnitude always has several nuanced causes but slavery was at the heart of every significant difference between North and South. The most significant “States’ rights” issue was the right of states to maintain a bondage system. The Southern leaders had determined in 1860 that they needed to secede to eliminate the risk of further Federal interference with their so-called “domestic institution” in the future. There had already been attempts by the U.S. Congress to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and states. This fear by Southern leaders persisted, although there had been no practical attempt by Federal laws to challenge slavery in the states where it was permitted by the U.S. Constitution. There were, however, several northern states which passed individual laws hampering the rights of slaveholders to retrieve their “property” in those states. Until two years after the Civil War started, Abraham Lincoln had not proposed any legislation or a Constitutional Amendment to end slavery. The Southern leaders also accepted the probability that Federal Authorities, from President Lincoln on down, would try to reverse secession and their seizure of Federal facilities; so they anticipated the likelihood that Civil War would result. In fact, Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, “We will start, and finish the War!” Most Southern leaders thought, however, that the North would quickly tire of the cost of Civil War in lives lost and the massive expenditures which always accompany any war. They expected the Confederacy would prevail and the United States of America (what was left of it) would acquiesce to a two nation solution that recognized the Confederate States of America. They simply underestimated Lincoln’s resolve.
6. Were Confederate agents complicit in Lincoln’s assassination? Most reputable historians do not believe senior Confederate officials were aware of the assassination plot; however it is possible that some weapons stockpiled by John Wilkes Booth and John Surratt may have been provided by lower level Southern agents without knowledge of a specific plan. It is important to recall that the initial plan was to kidnap Lincoln and that plan may have had a wider connection.
7. Why do you (meaning me) persist in perpetuating the “Lincoln Myth” that he was a good man, and a good President? I only add this question because it keeps coming up from the so-called “New Confederates”. My answer is “Because he was” and no amount of “neo-confederate” rationalizations will change that!
8. Did Lincoln receive any votes from Southern citizens or electors in the 1860 election? No! In fact, nine Southern states did not even print ballots with Abraham Lincoln as a choice for President or provide any electors who pledged support to him. Hard to get votes if you are not on a ballot!
9. Very few soldiers who fought for the Confederacy owned slaves so they must have been fighting for other cause. (Not really a question but I responded). I do agree that most of the Confederate forces were poor southern boys and others who did not own slaves. My opinion is that those people believed they were defending against an invasion of their home-land by the Federal Government and they were fighting the “War of Northern Aggression.” Confederate leaders and local newspapers used that term almost immediately, and nearly exclusively, after the war began, as a rallying cry for their troops. It certainly sounded better than “The war to defend our right to own slaves.” By the way, the term “War of Northern Aggression” is still widely used by some of Southern heritage.
10. If Seward or Chase had won the 1860 Presidential election, would there have been Civil War? What if Steven A. Douglas, a Democrat and southern sympathizer, had won? I usually do not spend much time on hypothetical or speculative questions but this was asked so many times that it deserves a response. I believe the War would have resulted at some point under any of those three alternative candidates, but it might have started in a different time and place. Seward and Chase thought that Charleston Harbor (Fort Sumter) should be abandoned and Federal forces re-enforced in and around Virginia. At some point any U.S. President would have directed Union troops to re-take facilities in Virginia confiscated by Confederate forces. Perhaps the first shots would have been fired at Norfolk. Steven A. Douglas was sympathetic to the “state’s rights” issues of the Southern states and had repeatedly sought compromise to avoid war. But, he adamantly opposed secession and at a minimum would have directed Northern attacks to reclaim Federal installations which had been seized by Confederate forces. After the attack on Fort Sumter, Douglas offered to help raise funds for the Union Army and told Lincoln, “I have had many friends in the South who now must at some level still be my friend, but we will also know we are enemies.”
Contact the author at gadorris2@gmail.com