Excellent piece. Your folks were in the Montgomery area? Mind if I ask which regiment? (I had people in th 8th Alabama, recruited in Montgomery; my ggf, who lost a leg at Gettysburg, is buried there.
Hello, Enoch. This is J.R. Dunmore, I am the Editor-In-Chief of Virginia Gentry Magazine, and so am the one who answers all of the comments on the articles. This article was written by Meade Randolph, I will contact him to see if he is willing to divulge some of his family history. If so, I will get back to you here below this comment.
Yes. The intensive governmental and economic centralization we've undertaken over the past five decades has been a great error. One of the greatest errors in history and it hasn't just hurt America and Americans, its done extreme damage to human civilization as a whole
Being around my mother’s family in Roanoke/Boones Mill was the best experience a child could get, even with all the Franklin Co. Shine being passed around and people going nuts.
I'd be interested in evidence that secession was not about the percieved threat to slavery. I agree with much of your perspective on hijacked history and the current threat to sustainable culture but with all the talk about states rights and tariffs, the debate was over the future of slavery and the states, SC predominantly, understood that.
Hello, Jason. This is J.R. Dunmore, I am the Editor-In-Chief of Virginia Gentry Magazine, as such I am the one who replies to all of the comments. If you are interested in learning more about the causes of the war, I would recommend reading Matthew Miller’s article “The Other Causes.” You can find it here: https://virginiagentry.substack.com/p/the-other-causes
If that doesn’t satisfy your curiosity, I will speak to the author about his recommended reading list for this topic, he eats, sleeps, and breathes this stuff. Have a great day. — J.R. Dunmore
It is no secret that there are always many issues in a dispute even though a single issue may be the spark or primary issue causing a rupture. Slavery and the spread 9f slavery was that issue. It is no surprise that some states, Virginia as the author notes, would choose to distance itself from that issue. Jefferson, after all was ashamed of the institution and wished it could be ended.
It is of note that Douglas does not bring up tariffs or similar issues in the debates if those were searing issues of the day. It is also well known that as much as Lincoln may have decried slavery his first allegiance was to Union, as was the Founders who, all but two, opposed slavery and forbade its extension in the territories, and yet could not eliminate it.
While I hold much in common with the author, it seems to me that the revisionist tendency to downplay the cause of slavery badly dilutes an otherwise critical argument.
The simplest proof is the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution. Supported by Buchanan and Lincoln in late 1860, the Corwin Amendment says, '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.' This amendment, which unambiguously prevents the federal government from abolishing or interfering with slavery, was ratified by Kentucky, Rhode Island, Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois. In other words, it was Union States, and Lincoln, saying that in order to maintain the union they were willing to guarantee perpetual slavery. The South refused because secession was not about slavery.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue or casus belli by the South because on this issue they were unambiguously on the right side in constitutional terms. Even Lincoln agreed that the text of the Constitution left the question of slavery up to the states rather than the federal government. Simply look up Corwin Amendment the facts are not in dispute. They are merely hidden.
There were a lot of reasons for the war. Slavery was indisputably top of the list, but not for the reasons most Northerners think.
There were abolitionists, North and South that were against it for moral reasons, but morality had nothing to do with the North's fervor to abolish it; it was all about power and money.
The South was the economic engine of the country in the 18th and 19th centuries. The North resented the power we had and wanted to cut us off at the knees. To do that, they needed to end slavery.
Never forget; Abraham Lincoln (ptooie) wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa, and swore they'd never be acquitted equal rights. Northerners hated blacks and treated them way worse than Southerners who grew up with them.
"all about" is never all about. Had the South been the stronger economy, it would have won the war. The South was essentially a colony of the North. Nuance is important in understanding history.
The South was an agrarian economy; the North was industrial. In the 1800's, the main exports of the US was cotton and tobacco; strictly Southern products. In 1860, Charleston Harbor was the largest port in the United States.
No one was buying US made industrial products overseas; they were inferior to European products (but they were learning fast). Hence, the engine of the country was located in the South.
There was much animosity brewing between North and South for decades before the war. The North was supporting an intrusive federal government, and the Southern states saw themselves (rightly so) as sovereign states in voluntary union to promote defense and interstate commerce. We resented unfair taxation and tariffs (see Ordinance of Nullification).
The South had precious few foundries, and no heavy industry to speak of. We were wholly dependent on imported and captured arms. We were outnumbered and out supplied, but made up for it with superior leadership and a highly motivated army.
IMHO the war was lost when Thomas Jackson died. Had he been present at Gettysburg, the Union Army would have been pursued, and not allowed to entrench. And it they had, there is no way Jackson would have allowed Gen. Pickett to make his disasterous charge into the very heart of Union firepower.
I don't disagree with your recount of history other than perhaps your leaning in favor of the Southern economy. There has always, and remains, a conflict between federalism and confederacy. Either extreme is disasterous and either is subject to abuse. As the Founders clearly understood, slavery was going to be the issue which would be the supreme test of this new nation and form of government. A government which could not eliminate slavery, and the philosophy which supported it, could not long endure. The institution was eliminated but the philosophy remains firmly embedded in the Democrat party and will be the next great test of liberal democracy as a form of government.
Industrialization would have ended slavery within 30-50 years. Strictly measured against economic viability and ROI, it would have ended even sooner. The extended period would have been necessary to reform the Southern aristocracy.
I agree that Democrats view blacks with a plantation mentality in that they buy and sell their loyalty, but with the exception of the talented tenth, American blacks can hardly be called slaves to anything but their own carnal instincts.
There are a thousand counter narratives to history; all of them equally valid and all of them not history, interesting though they may be. The fact remains that slavery is the reason there was a war. There was no other reason that would have ignited hostilities on more than a local scale.
I'm with ya brother. I love Virginia, and weep for what has happened to the Old Dominion. But remember; we're all in this together, just like our ancestors were.
Excellent piece. Your folks were in the Montgomery area? Mind if I ask which regiment? (I had people in th 8th Alabama, recruited in Montgomery; my ggf, who lost a leg at Gettysburg, is buried there.
Hello, Enoch. This is J.R. Dunmore, I am the Editor-In-Chief of Virginia Gentry Magazine, and so am the one who answers all of the comments on the articles. This article was written by Meade Randolph, I will contact him to see if he is willing to divulge some of his family history. If so, I will get back to you here below this comment.
Yes. The intensive governmental and economic centralization we've undertaken over the past five decades has been a great error. One of the greatest errors in history and it hasn't just hurt America and Americans, its done extreme damage to human civilization as a whole
Being around my mother’s family in Roanoke/Boones Mill was the best experience a child could get, even with all the Franklin Co. Shine being passed around and people going nuts.
I'd be interested in evidence that secession was not about the percieved threat to slavery. I agree with much of your perspective on hijacked history and the current threat to sustainable culture but with all the talk about states rights and tariffs, the debate was over the future of slavery and the states, SC predominantly, understood that.
Hello, Jason. This is J.R. Dunmore, I am the Editor-In-Chief of Virginia Gentry Magazine, as such I am the one who replies to all of the comments. If you are interested in learning more about the causes of the war, I would recommend reading Matthew Miller’s article “The Other Causes.” You can find it here: https://virginiagentry.substack.com/p/the-other-causes
If that doesn’t satisfy your curiosity, I will speak to the author about his recommended reading list for this topic, he eats, sleeps, and breathes this stuff. Have a great day. — J.R. Dunmore
It is no secret that there are always many issues in a dispute even though a single issue may be the spark or primary issue causing a rupture. Slavery and the spread 9f slavery was that issue. It is no surprise that some states, Virginia as the author notes, would choose to distance itself from that issue. Jefferson, after all was ashamed of the institution and wished it could be ended.
It is of note that Douglas does not bring up tariffs or similar issues in the debates if those were searing issues of the day. It is also well known that as much as Lincoln may have decried slavery his first allegiance was to Union, as was the Founders who, all but two, opposed slavery and forbade its extension in the territories, and yet could not eliminate it.
While I hold much in common with the author, it seems to me that the revisionist tendency to downplay the cause of slavery badly dilutes an otherwise critical argument.
The simplest proof is the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution. Supported by Buchanan and Lincoln in late 1860, the Corwin Amendment says, '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.' This amendment, which unambiguously prevents the federal government from abolishing or interfering with slavery, was ratified by Kentucky, Rhode Island, Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois. In other words, it was Union States, and Lincoln, saying that in order to maintain the union they were willing to guarantee perpetual slavery. The South refused because secession was not about slavery.
Slavery was used as a wedge issue or casus belli by the South because on this issue they were unambiguously on the right side in constitutional terms. Even Lincoln agreed that the text of the Constitution left the question of slavery up to the states rather than the federal government. Simply look up Corwin Amendment the facts are not in dispute. They are merely hidden.
There were a lot of reasons for the war. Slavery was indisputably top of the list, but not for the reasons most Northerners think.
There were abolitionists, North and South that were against it for moral reasons, but morality had nothing to do with the North's fervor to abolish it; it was all about power and money.
The South was the economic engine of the country in the 18th and 19th centuries. The North resented the power we had and wanted to cut us off at the knees. To do that, they needed to end slavery.
Never forget; Abraham Lincoln (ptooie) wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa, and swore they'd never be acquitted equal rights. Northerners hated blacks and treated them way worse than Southerners who grew up with them.
"all about" is never all about. Had the South been the stronger economy, it would have won the war. The South was essentially a colony of the North. Nuance is important in understanding history.
The South was an agrarian economy; the North was industrial. In the 1800's, the main exports of the US was cotton and tobacco; strictly Southern products. In 1860, Charleston Harbor was the largest port in the United States.
No one was buying US made industrial products overseas; they were inferior to European products (but they were learning fast). Hence, the engine of the country was located in the South.
There was much animosity brewing between North and South for decades before the war. The North was supporting an intrusive federal government, and the Southern states saw themselves (rightly so) as sovereign states in voluntary union to promote defense and interstate commerce. We resented unfair taxation and tariffs (see Ordinance of Nullification).
The South had precious few foundries, and no heavy industry to speak of. We were wholly dependent on imported and captured arms. We were outnumbered and out supplied, but made up for it with superior leadership and a highly motivated army.
IMHO the war was lost when Thomas Jackson died. Had he been present at Gettysburg, the Union Army would have been pursued, and not allowed to entrench. And it they had, there is no way Jackson would have allowed Gen. Pickett to make his disasterous charge into the very heart of Union firepower.
I don't disagree with your recount of history other than perhaps your leaning in favor of the Southern economy. There has always, and remains, a conflict between federalism and confederacy. Either extreme is disasterous and either is subject to abuse. As the Founders clearly understood, slavery was going to be the issue which would be the supreme test of this new nation and form of government. A government which could not eliminate slavery, and the philosophy which supported it, could not long endure. The institution was eliminated but the philosophy remains firmly embedded in the Democrat party and will be the next great test of liberal democracy as a form of government.
Industrialization would have ended slavery within 30-50 years. Strictly measured against economic viability and ROI, it would have ended even sooner. The extended period would have been necessary to reform the Southern aristocracy.
I agree that Democrats view blacks with a plantation mentality in that they buy and sell their loyalty, but with the exception of the talented tenth, American blacks can hardly be called slaves to anything but their own carnal instincts.
There are a thousand counter narratives to history; all of them equally valid and all of them not history, interesting though they may be. The fact remains that slavery is the reason there was a war. There was no other reason that would have ignited hostilities on more than a local scale.
I'm with ya brother. I love Virginia, and weep for what has happened to the Old Dominion. But remember; we're all in this together, just like our ancestors were.
https://substack.com/@cryptoclastic/p-140704719