A new book of some interest

[Ga.windbreak]

For those of us who love and revere Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, I found this new, at least to me, book about Him and his conversion and the part that Southern slaves played in that wonderful event.

http://www.cumberlandhouse.com/books/Stonewall-Jackson-The-Black-Man-s-Friend.html

I quote:
Furthermore, Richard G. Williams Jr. examines a paradox of Jackson's life: his conversion to Christianity was encouraged by Southern slaves.

[williamlayton]

This could be a good point of discussion but you can't read it.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

The description of the book is really tempting.

Based on that alone let's compare Jackson and Lee and the character that they demonstrated to that of Grant and Sherman.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if there had been no war and men such as Jackson and Lee had been able to continue to influence their counties and states?   What would have happened to slavery then?   I'm thinking that they would have moved in the direction of Wilberforce.

[williamlayton]

LC
If I were trolling, which I am not, I would ask why you bring that up since you maintain slavery was not an issue.
Now let's assume that someone other than me ask this question. What would be the reply?
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I have not forgotten. I am still formulating a question and reply too the importance of Stonewall having a Bible study for slaves.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

The description of the book is really tempting.

Based on that alone let's compare Jackson and Lee and the character that they demonstrated to that of Grant and Sherman.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if there had been no war and men such as Jackson and Lee had been able to continue to influence their counties and states?   What would have happened to slavery then?   I'm thinking that they would have moved in the direction of Wilberforce.

As a mode of labor, which is all that it was, was already on its last leg when the war came about. All that you have to do is look at the rest of the world to see the truth of it. Both Brazil and Cuba, without a war, stopped slavery in the 1870's. Farming in the South didn't disappear because of the war, we still grow Cotton, Tobacco, and Cane today. Plantation owners weren't in the farming business to maintain slavery but to make money. Show them a better and more profitable way and they surely would use it, wouldn't you?

As for men with the leadership of Jackson, Lee, and Davis; the Country always needs that type of leadership. I so wish we had it today as it is sorely needed IMHO. My boss always used to say that you never know just who you might influence by what you say so it behoves you to say only good and positive things, I happen to agree with that.

[williamlayton]

I had a sarcasm too add. I will let it lay.
It is not as clear too me that slavery was at an end. It is more clear that there was need of more elbow room for it too continue too flourish.
I agree that it was $$$ that drove the act of slavery.
Blessings

PS
I would not use Brazil as an example. They just freed 1000 in 2007.

[littlecanoe]

It is not as clear too me that slavery was at an end. It is more clear that there was need of more elbow room for it too continue too flourish.

WL,
I'm still struggling with the concept that slavery needed elbow room to continue to flourish.  Can you elaborate?

WL,  I just read your post that responded to my previous post.  Believe me, no hard feelings on my part.  We all believe what we believe and obviously, with conviction.  I don't have a problem with that.

In response to my previous post, my reference was to the Christian Character that both Lee and Jackson demonstrated in their relationship with slaves.  These men were obviously similar in thought to Wilberforce.  I was wondering if they would have been used by God, through civil means, to continue to change the state and relationship of the slaves.  Look at Davis' view.  He made the slaves under him his family and sought to educate them to prepare them or their children for freedom.

My implication was to juxtaposition these two men's character to the character of Grant and Sherman.  I don't see Christian humility in those two men.  If I'm wrong and presumptuous in that statement I'll apologize and learn.  It's just not evident as truth at this time.

As to slavery, the words of the men who fought for the south don't support the idea that slavery was the root.  Part of the issue?  Yes.  The root cause?  No, not from what I can tell.

[Ga.windbreak]

As to slavery, the words of the men who fought for the south don't support the idea that slavery was the root.  Part of the issue?  Yes.  The root cause?  No, not from what I can tell.

lc, slavery was part of the states right issue but here is where you have to really understand the true meaning of our fight for liberty. Only if we stayed in the Union could the slave owner be somewhat assured that his property would be returned. Do you think for one minute that a slave would be returned if the US were another country? If slavery were as bad the Northern press and Uncle Tom's Cabin would have us believe why were there only between 500-1000 runaways each year? Why on the North American Continent were there only 4 uprisings, in over 200 years, and only one of which was large scale (385 slaves involved in Florida) if things were so cruel? You compare that with the known uprisings in the Islands where 1000's of whites were slaughtered by the black slaves of that day. Look at Africa and the Zulu, why did those things not happen here, too? When Lincoln issued his illegal proclamation, all of the Southern men were fighting, why didn't the slaves just up and leave if things were so bad? No, there had to be a feeling of loyalty there somewhere, there is just no other answer.

I'm not saying slavery was a good thing nor am I trying to justify what happened, it was wrong. The truth of the matter though is that from the early 1600's to 1865, even though it was outlawed from 1808 on, it happened and is part of our history and we do a dishonor to every black person when we mistell the history of that era.

The truth is that if the slave owner and the South really wanted to keep slavery alive the very thing to do was to STAY in the Union, not leave it. The North broke the contract with the South and we were treated unequally so we did the proper thing, we left. I strongly suggest that you read the book of the review I just wrote, it will truly open your eyes.   

[Dee]

Good thought process on this one.
Just a thought. On Jackson's death bed did he not say? Let us cross the river and sit in the shade. I believe it was he, and I wondered always if the river in his minds' eye at the time was Jordan.

[SouthernByGrace]

You are correct, Dee, for the most part...
If you look at the quote beneath every post I make, you will find Jackson's final words, spoken on his death bed...
"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees..."
I, too, believe that the river he spoke of was the Jordan. Given his highly religious beliefs, it only makes sense.

P.S. I actually have this quote printed on my personal checks, which by the way portray Confederate battle scenes.
      You should see some of the looks I get sometimes when I write a check. Mostly surprise, but pleasantly so. Everybody       wants to know where I got them. I always respond, "Just know that I have 'em."

[Dee]

Well now that looks kinda fishy that I would come up with that while it was on all of your posts. That will tell you how much I miss, when I read posts. I had not noticed that before, although I admitt it looks suspect.
That make me feel somewhat stupid.

[SouthernByGrace]

Dee, that wasn't my intention. Far from it. Sorry if I implied that. I just wanted to point out that you were indeed correct, and to agree with you on the meaning of Jackson's final words. The phrase being at the bottom of all of my posts was probably subliminal in its nature. LOL.
You saw it there, you just didn't realize you saw it. Kinda like those commercials on TV. It's there, and you see it, you just don't know you see it.

[Dee]

There is Jackson standing like a stone wall. Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer . Follow Me!

Brigadier General Bernard Elliott Bee. The defense of Henry House Hill


You have lost your left arm, and I have lost my right.
Lee to Jackson on hearing of his soon to be fatal wound. 1863

[Dee]

Dee, that wasn't my intention. Far from it. Sorry if I implied that. I just wanted to point out that you were indeed correct, and to agree with you on the meaning of Jackson's final words. The phrase being at the bottom of all of my posts was probably subliminal in its nature. LOL.
You saw it there, you just didn't realize you saw it. Kinda like those commercials on TV. It's there, and you see it, you just don't know you see it.

No SBG, I didn't think for a minute you implied anything. I am almost 60, and things sometimes pass me by, without notice. That was what I was saying.
As far as the quote, I heard or read it some where else long ago. I just don't remember where.

[littlecanoe]

Ga wb, I really do want to read that book.  My life is kinda crazy right now.  Building a house, new job that has blossomed with more work than I can do.  Church start/plant.  Growing Family.  If you look up the definition of "too much on his plate"  You'll see my name and face in the definition!!! LOL.

Fellas I can't remember who R L Dabney was Chaplain for.  Lee or Jackson?

[Dee]

Stonewall Jackson

[littlecanoe]

Thanks Dee,

Based on Dabney being Jackson's Chaplain I'm quite sure of the meaning being the Jordan. 
I've read, or should say tried to read, some Dabney.  A mighty intelligent and articulate fella. 
It was kinda like reading C S Lewis.  Difficult and Deep reading but well worth the struggle.

[williamlayton]

Because the slave population was growing and there was money too be made selling them and owning them.
I wish I could ask why everybodys defends it then says it was not right.
Oh Well.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

There was just more than picking cotton and cleaning homes that made slavery very profitable. There was a tremendous labor market that slavery would have made far more profitable. It did so in the rest of the world and it was abolished in the rest of the world not because it was unprofitable.
It is/was just wrong and double standards don't count.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

WL,
You take a strong stand and have studied to come to your conclusions.  I respect that.  However, you knew a however was coming didn't you LOL.  However, I just can't accept the expansion of slavery as the primary goal of the south. 

Here is why it doesn't make sense to me.  Only a small majority of southerners owned slaves.  The common man would not have volunteered to fight in a war for this small majority of slave holders unless as a mercenary.  That wasn't the case. That minority of wealth didn't have the power to force the common man to fight the war.   There was no conscription as these men felt compelled to fight for their country/state.  The very words of the leaders, when considered with their known character, doesn't back up that point.

On the other hand, we have seen the true character of Lincoln, Grant and Sherman exposed through their words and actions.

I'll say again, God places any government in power and allows it to exist for His purpose.  While the north won that doesn't justify their cause as being just and right.

I'll apologize to the OP for taking off on a pig path there.  Maybe I can redeem this post by saying that the above ties in to the apparent subject matter of the book in that Jackson's thought was Reformed in a spiritual nature.  This would have placed him in understanding with the same principles that supported our Founding Fathers in their fight for freedom.  There is so much more to this story than a mere look at economic issues.

[Ga.windbreak]

lc you are not alone in going OT here. It seems, as Greybeard stated, there are those who would highjack a thread and then the polite among us go along to get along. All the while the true subject matter suffers. I seem to be just as guilty as you, if that is any consolation and I started this thread. In the future I will control my desire to reply to such remarks and add to the confusion. The person you replied to only wants to turn each thread into some mindless babal about slavery when, in fact, we have those threads avalable for his amusement. It seems he can talk of nothing else, for shame.

Stonewall Jackson was a man among men and a true Southern gentleman. It says much about his character that he would do the right thing with those who some, Lincoln among them, looked down at as inferior.

[williamlayton]

Slavery would have been valuable in the timber, cattle, mining and farming business's. I think I responded too a question and a statement I disagreed with.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

The other thing that needs to be restated and reinforced is that Jackson, Lee, and Davis were the true forward thinkers of their time and not the Northern radicals of that same period. True abolitionist, South and North, wanted the slaves freed in such a way that would give them a proper chance to succeed. The Northern power brokers didn't care whither they lived or died and that is proven by looking at their laws designed to keep the black man out of their states or at the bottom of the ladder.

[williamlayton]

Too a point I agree GW.
There were those who saw the fate of slavery, I agree.
There were those powerful enough too deny and demand this liberation not be done. There were contradictions in/within the South.
The unfortunate part is the power of the slavers was great and they were able too put the war into play before some things could have---possibly, I am not real keen on that possibility---been worked out.
I do understand that not all in the South were steeped in slavery, just enough wealthy/powerful/landed, too hold sway.
Blessings

[Dee]

And interesting site gentlemen in my opinion.

www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Stonewall_Jackson_Quotes.htm

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey Dee, that's a really good link. Is it just me, or did that picture of Stonewall Jackson as a young man look an awful lot like Jefferson Davis? That's who I thought it was until I read the caption under it. Maybe they were cousins and didn't know it. LOL

I gotta go back and read some more of that link. I'm like the little boy in that commercial for Purnell's Old Folks Country Sausage... It's gooood...

[ironfoot]

The description of the book is really tempting.

Based on that alone let's compare Jackson and Lee and the character that they demonstrated to that of Grant and Sherman.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if there had been no war and men such as Jackson and Lee had been able to continue to influence their counties and states?   What would have happened to slavery then?   I'm thinking that they would have moved in the direction of Wilberforce.

This article helps illistrate Lee's pro slavery views. If the south had won, slavery would have expanded and continued into the twentieth century.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070624/2lee.htm

Here is a quote:

"Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped."

[SouthernByGrace]

Ironfoot,
We actually have a whole thread devoted to this very book,
"Reading The Man: A portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters."
I posted a link there that is a video of the author describing the book and how she came to discover these documents.
I have included that link below.
I have this book and am almost finished reading it. This book in no way portrays Lee as having the view of expanding slavery. It was Abraham Lincoln who, in the FIRST proposal of the 13th Amendment, pushed for making slavery laws irrevocable, and then wanted to "colonize" the blacks. As we know, the SECOND 13th Amendment is the one we ended up with.
In a sense, if the war had never been fought, the 1st 13 Amendment, penned by Lincoln, would have guaranteed slavery would still exist today.
You should look at the video, which is very informative.
Then just reading the book is even more informative. It's worth your time to give it a look - see.

http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=4083

[Ga.windbreak]

The description of the book is really tempting.

Based on that alone let's compare Jackson and Lee and the character that they demonstrated to that of Grant and Sherman.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What if there had been no war and men such as Jackson and Lee had been able to continue to influence their counties and states?  What would have happened to slavery then?  I'm thinking that they would have moved in the direction of Wilberforce.

This article helps illustrate Lee's pro slavery views. If the south had won, slavery would have expanded and continued into the twentieth century.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070624/2lee.htm

Here is a quote:

"Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped."

ironfoot, I too have read the very things you have quoted about RE Lee and up until I read the following I didn't know just what to believe myself. Robert E. Lee is someone I've studied all my life and those remarks just didn't square with everything else I've read but until a few weeks ago had not heard or read anything said by his former slaves on this subject. The quote below is a good indication of the real truth because of the person it came from and it was stated after Lee's death.

"I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender."
William Mack Lee (Robert E. Lee's Black servant)

You, of course, may believe what you will but I think if I believe anyone it would be a person who had a personal knowledge of Lee's thoughts on slavery because he was one of Lee's slaves. Plus the very fact that Lee freed his slaves 15 years before he had to and knowing that by freeing them he lost the value of selling them. The facts, in my mind, just don't back up your quote.

To be fair I went back and read this article, which is I assume is a conversation with the Arthur of the book, "Reading the Man"

A couple of quotes which, seem to me if taken in context, would indicate the Arthur is trying to instill her 2008 PC values on Robert E. Lee's values of the 1850's and I quote:

These papers are filled with information about slavery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

Slavery has been going on since the beginning of time. To make a moral judgement of someone who lived 150 -200 years earlier is as wrong as what is being said that those of that time period was wrong. If we are to be judged then let us be judged by those who have lived among us and walked in our shoes.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.

As I see it this is another judgement call on her part. Lee had the right to do as he did so as to be able to give his children a better life. What is wrong with that? Now "as they expected" who and how many? Lee was confronted by several slaves and they lived in fear? The article leaves us without any answers to these questions.

Having not read this book yet I would want to read it for myself before saying that this conversation is an accurate statement of the Arthur's facts and feelings. As for expanding slavery, I'm sorry that I have to agree with SBG, there is nothing there to say that Lee wanted to expand slavery or not, in fact it is mute on that very point.