As many of you know, upon the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, numerous citizens in the Southern States decided to commit treason in defense of slavery rather than abide by the democratic process. The citizens purported to have the Southern States secede – but large numbers of individuals in the Southern States (notably black people) were not consulted about whether those Southern states should remain part of the United States.
In any event, despite their boastful assertions about the relative martial prowess as between northerners and southerners, the Southern rebels were to learn that war wasn’t a game but is, rather, a contest of raw power, and they had less of it. Lincoln kept the country together, Sherman made the traitors howl, and Grant ground them down. Lots of Americans died in the process. But, in the end, Hamilton won.
On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House.
Dressed in an immaculate uniform, Lee waited for Grant to arrive. Grant, whose headache had ended when he received Lee’s note, arrived at the courthouse in a mud-spattered uniform—a government-issue sack coat with trousers tucked into muddy boots, no sidearms, and with only his tarnished shoulder straps showing his rank.
Grant’s terms were generous. Lee’s men would not be prosecuted for treason. The southern soldiers kept their horses and the officers kept their sidearms.
I write harshly about the Southerners on this blog – to some degree because they were horribly wrong. But, a great deal of history features all nature of atrocity and, yet, I’m able to write about it without venom. What gets me going on this subject is the present day revisionism where apologists try to say that what the Southerners were doing wasn’t treason and/or that their actions were not about slavery. The latter is especially galling in light of the fact that the articles of secession written at the time were very explicit about slavery being the driving impulse. The U.S. still suffers from pathologies created by the South’s “peculiar institution.” And slapping a bandage over a festering wound is not going to do any long term good.
Today, people who love the U.S. and who recognize slavery as abominable — from both North and South — should be thankful that the North won and the South lost.
Grant’s memoir is a great and fascinating read. I’ve always found this quote somewhat poignant:
“I would not have the anniversaries of our victories celebrated, nor those of our defeats made fast days and spent in humiliation and prayer; but I would like to see truthful history written. Such history will do full credit to the courage, endurance and soldierly ability of the American citizen, no matter what section of the country he hailed from, or in what ranks he fought. The justice of the cause which in the end prevailed, will, I doubt not, come to be acknowledged by every citizen of the land, in time. For the present, and so long as there are living witnesses of the great war of sections, there will be people who will not be consoled for the loss of a cause which they believed to be holy. As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man.”
If General Grant had known that we still would be litigating these issues 150 years later, I suspect his terms of surrender might have been a bit less generous. Starting at the top, of course, with the man who happily spent years collecting a salary from the United States Army until the point at which his country needed him most. You’re better at the “without venom” part than I am.
They never got their mind right about the Civil War:
How I miss when AMC actually showed the great classics like that and Big Hand for a Little Lady.
I am also troubled by the revisionist history pedaled by southern apologists. The war was tangentially about state’s rights, the right to enslave blacks. Alexander Stephen’s Cornerstone Speech makes the intent of the rebellion abundantly clear, that hateful “Peculiar Institution.”
The South: “They only won because they were stronger than us.” What did they think war was? See:
Dog, thank you for sharing. It has been oft said that the treasoners lost the battle but won the war. I believe, given the standards of the time, that all members of the Confederate cabinet and the Confederate legislature should have been hung as traitors, and Lee and all southern generals should have been hung as well.
Terrific piece in the New York Times.
The southerners of the day acted a lot like conservatives act today. No surprise I guess.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/lee-surrendered-but-his-lieutenants-kept-fighting/
Instead we named military bases after them.
And those names remain to this day.
That needs to be changed.
Doug, you’re a straight shooter and I appreciate that. However, I think overwhelming consensus of historians is that the cause of the Civil War was fought over both the secession issue and slavery, that the war started out primarily as being about the secession and later became more about the issue of slavery. That isn’t historical revisionism….that is the historical view of the Civil War that has dominated every since I’ve been alive.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that Lincoln spoke in favor of the Corwin amendment to the United States Constitution at his first inaugural. That Amendment stated:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State”
Here is what Lincoln said during his inauguration speech:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service….holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”
The notion that Lincoln wouldn’t have jumped at the chance to give up on slavery abolition to keep the union together, is undercut by his express support for making slavery a permanent institution. Thus, the view that the Civil War started out being about keeping the union together and only later became about slavery certainly seems supported by the historical record.
The southerners committed treason and attempted to overthrow the United States in their region over slavery. You’re right that Lincoln’s motivation for suppressing that treason had more to do with preserving the union and, at least initially, not as much to do with slavery. But the South was absolutely motivated by slavery.
Just read Alexander Stephen’s Cornerstone speech. For the South, the one state right they wished to retain was slavery. But Stephen’s speech also gives a good compare and contrast with the US Constitution. I have taught several classes on the Constitution at community colleges. We always spend some time on the Confederate Constitution. Stephen’s speech aids that discussion. But it also clearly demonstrates the reason for succession.
The “states rights” argument pretty much goes out the window when you see how much energy the future secessionists spent caterwauling about the Fugitive Slave Act not being adequately enforced in the North.
The “states rights” argument goes out the window when you read South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession (Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union). Spoiler alert – it was about slavery and “states rights” to same. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp)
wow. Good. Wish I had seen it on the 9th. Would have put it on my FB page. Perfect.