JANUARY 11, 1865:
Missouri abolishes slavery.
Realizing
that moral force will be needed to resolve the issue of emancipating and arming
slaves for the Confederacy, General Robert E. Lee writes a “private” letter to his
friend, Virginia State Senator Andrew Hunter, fully intending that Hunter will
make Lee’s opinions known. Although the text of the letter is not published
until 1885, its contents re-form the 1865 debate on Confederate emancipation.
Lee writes several other subsequent similar letters to other Confederate
leaders as well:
Headquarters Army of
Northern Virginia
January 11, 1865
Hon. Andrew Hunter
Richmond, Va.
Dear Sir:
I have received your
letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your
interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the
subject. I shall be most happy if I can
contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest
commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.
Considering the relation
of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity
and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the
white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would
deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to
avert a greater calamity to both. I
should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio
between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be
safe. But in view of the preparations of
our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle
or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the
capacity of our white population.
Should the war continue
under the existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our
country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the
able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South
was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect
of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for
their own people negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia,
and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would
gain a large accession to his strength.
His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy
slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in
subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his
conquest. Whatever may be the effect of
our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be
accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil
consequences to both races. I think,
therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies
and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the
effects which must be produced upon our social institutions. My opinion is that we should employ them
without delay. I believe that with
proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in
an eminent degree. Long habits of
obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our
country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation
for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their
fidelity.
There have been formidable
armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought
beyond their pay or the hope of plunder.
But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of
an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and
privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the
contest. Such an interest we can give
our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the
end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully
(whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the
South. To this might be added a bounty
for faithful service.
We should not expect
slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by
going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in
ours. The reasons that induce me to
recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the
measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best
means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be
to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general
emancipation. As that will be the result
of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed,
it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the
benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro
troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would,
in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength and enable us to relieve
our white population to some extent. I
think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the
hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great
measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden
of the war upon their own people. In
addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from
the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary
influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the
fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the
rest to abscond.
I can only say in
conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at
once. Every day's delay increases the
difficulty. Much time will be required
to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too
late.
Very respectfully, your
obedient servant,
R.E. Lee,
General
Within days, Lee’s
letter becomes the talk of the South:
Many non-slaveholding
Southern whites begin to rail against “the Planter class” in Letters To The
Editor. Even the privileged and the slaveholding begin to criticize those who
will not support Lee or support the Cause:
A Georgia Congressman
says of critics of the policy, "[Our people] give up their sons, husbands,
[and] brothers [ ] often without murmuring, to the army; but let one of their
negroes be taken, and what a howl you will hear."
“If the negroes are
armed and do their duty, you may confidently count on the South taking
possession of European sympathy in this quarrel,” one overseas correspondent
writes.
The Richmond Enquirer endorses Lee’s position, and other
newspaper editors in smaller towns agree. The editor of the Mobile Register writes, “Such
men cling to the Negro with the tenacity of death because, forsooth, he may be
worth a few hundred dollars to them.”
Captain
S.T. Foster C.S.A. writes, ". . . [M]en who have not only been taught from
their infancy that the institution of slavery was right; but men who actually
owned and held slaves up to this time --- have now changed in their opinions
regarding slavery, so as to be able to see the other side of the question --- to
see that for man to have property in man was wrong, and that the Declaration of
Independence meant more than they had ever been able to see before. That all
men are, and of right ought to be free has a meaning different from the
definition they had been taught from their infancy up ----and to see that the
institution (though perhaps wise) had been abused, and perhaps this terrible
war with its results, was brought upon us as a punishment. These ideas come not
from the Yanks or northern people but come from reflection, and reasoning among
ourselves.”
Although opposition to
the arming and emancipating of blacks has receded somewhat since the beginning
of the debate in November, the opposition is still very strong, very vocal, and
very influential:
Catherine Edmondston,
the wife of a Planter, exclaims that the arming of slaves would, “. . . destroy
at one blow the highest jewel in the crown.”
“If slavery is to be
abolished then I take no more interest in our fight,” warns General Clement H.
Stevens.
“All the abolitionists
are not in the North!” thunders North
Carolina Senator Josiah Turner, Jr.
“There is nothing in the
present aspect of our military affairs to justify the hazardous experiment,” Florida
Congressman Samuel St. George Rogers asserts.
“There was a time that
there was a danger that the Southern Confederacy would be overpowered . . . but
that time is passed,” The Richmond
Examiner opines in response to the debate.
“[T]his country without
slave labor would be completely worthless . . . If the negroes are freed [then]
the country . . . is not worth fighting for . . . We can only live & exist
by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to continue to fight to the
last," writes William Nugent C.S.A. to his wife at home.
"I do not think I
love my country well enough to fight with black soldiers," writes Private
Joseph Maides C.S.A. in a letter home.
"Independence without slavery, would be
valueless . . . the South without slavery would not be worth a mess of pottage,"
declares Caleb Cutwell of Texas.
Even after Appomattox,
some Southerners refuse to face reality. “Subjugation is an impossibility!” a Georgian writes in mid-April even as Joe
Johnston is surrendering.
And so, the debate, for
the moment, goes on.
