New Defense of General McClellan

I have web-published the second edition of my article "Answering Some Criticisms of General George B. McClellan." It is a significantly revised and greatly expanded version of the first edition. In some ways it is almost a different article. This edition is about 30% longer than the first one. Here is the link:

http://miketgriffith.com/files/answers1.htm

And here is an excerpt from the new edition: 

For many people, McClellan’s alleged disrespect and insubordination toward Lincoln are a major reason they are inclined to believe the worst about him. However, the traditional version of McClellan’s relationship with Lincoln does not do justice to the facts.

Let us start with the famous alleged snub on the night of November 13. As the story goes, Lincoln, along with Secretary of State William Seward and presidential secretary John Hay, arrived at McClellan’s home that night to discuss strategy. McClellan’s porter informed Lincoln that McClellan was at a wedding that night and would not be home until later. Lincoln decided to wait. McClellan arrived an hour later but went straight upstairs, even though the porter told him that the guests were waiting. Half an hour later, Lincoln reminded the porter that they were still waiting to see the general. The porter went upstairs to check with McClellan and then returned and informed the group that McClellan had gone to bed for the night.

To those who have studied McClellan’s life, this account does not sound anything like the courteous and considerate Christian gentleman that McClellan’s friends and family described him as being. Moreover, those who are not inclined to assume the worst about McClellan can think of at least two ways to view this alleged incident that do not require McClellan to be seen as rude and disrespectful.

However, did the alleged snub really happen? Did Lincoln even go to McClellan’s house that night? Some might be surprised to learn that the one and only source for this story is John Hay, an avowed McClellan hater who was determined to smear McClellan. Neither Lincoln, nor McClellan, nor Seward ever said a word about this alleged event in any known writing or conversation.

West Virginia Entered the Union as a "Free State"?!

According to some Northern defenders in the Civil War Talk forum, the slave state of West Virginia entered the Union as a "free state." They argue this because they do not want to admit that Lincoln and his fellow Republicans displayed great hypocrisy in admitting a slave state to the Union six months after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, since the proclamation called for the unconditional and immediate emancipation of all slaves in Confederate territory.

These Northern defenders claim that since West Virginia had to agree to a gradual emancipation plan, called the Willey Amendment, before being admitted, the state was a "free state" when it joined the Union in June 1863.

It is true that the Willey Amendment decreed that all children born to slave parents after July 4, 1863, would be born free, and that no slaves could enter the state for permanent residence. However, the amendment also kept all slaves who were then over the age of 21 enslaved until they died; it kept all slaves under the age of 10 enslaved until they turned 21; and it kept all slaves between the ages of 10 and 21 enslaved until they turned 25.   

Why didn't Lincoln and the Republicans insist that the Emancipation Proclamation apply to West Virginia? The Radical Republicans called for the immediate emancipation of all slaves in Confederate territory, but they were willing to keep West Virginian slaves who were under  21 in bondage for four to 20 years, and to keep adult slaves in bondage for even longer in some cases.

By any logical, rational definition, West Virginia was a slave state when it joined the Union. When it entered the Union, over 18,000 slaves were being legally held within its borders, and all slaves under the age of 21 would remain enslaved for between four and 20 years, not to mention the fact that slaves over the age of 21 were not affected by the Willey Amendment and thus remained in bondage.

Here's the text of the Willey Amendment:

http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/willeyamendment.html

Fought Over Slavery?

The dominant view of the Civil War, at least among historians, is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. After all, if there had been no slavery, there would have been no war.  True, but that doesn't mean the war was fought over slavery. Similarly, if there had been no Kuwaiti oil fields, there would have been no Persian Gulf War in 1991, but of course that doesn't prove that that war was fought over oil fields--it was fought over Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Most historians also claim that Southern secession was all about slavery and that therefore the Civil War was fought over slavery. But, for one thing, leaving aside the fact that secession and the war were two different events, the claim that Southern secession was all about slavery is demonstrably incorrect. The four Upper South states rejected secession when it was based largely on slavery and the tariff. They felt that the Deep South states had valid complaints relating to slavery and the tariff, but they did not feel that those complaints justified secession. The Upper South states decided to leave the Union only after Lincoln made it clear that he was going to invade the South. Until then, pro-Union sentiment was strong and arguably gaining ground in the Upper South.

As for why the Deep South states seceded, the record is clear that there were two major reasons: slavery and the tariff, in that order. Slavery was the main reason the Deep South seceded, but the tariff was also a major reason, which is why four of the seven Deep South states mentioned or alluded to the tariff in some of their official secession documents. Southern newspapers printed numerous editorials on the tariff and cited the Republican-backed Morrill Tariff as a major reason to leave the Union.

And it should be pointed out that the debate over slavery was not over whether slavery should continue but over whether it should be allowed to expand into the western territories. Lincoln made it very clear that he had no interest in disturbing slavery where it already existed; he just didn't want it to spread beyond its current boundaries. Most Republicans held this view.

In fact, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have permanently prevented the federal government from abolishing slavery. Lincoln not only pushed for the amendment behind the scenes, but he mentioned his support for it in his first inaugural address.

It is interesting to consider that when Lincoln sent the armed federal naval convoy to Fort Sumter--the convoy that provoked the Confederacy to launch an attack on the fort--there were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy.

Moreover, when the war began, the U.S. Congress, by a huge majority, passed a resolution that avowed that the war was not being fought to end slavery but only to restore the Union. It was over a year later, and only after Union casualties began to greatly exceed expectations, that Lincoln decided to include abolition as a war objective.

Furthermore, by late 1864, most Confederate leaders, and apparently a substantial majority of Southern citizens, were prepared to end slavery in order to preserve Southern independence. In early 1865 the Confederacy began to move toward gradual emancipation. This shows that, when push came to shove, independence was more important to the South than the continuation of slavery.

So what was the Civil War fought over? Answer: Independence--Southern independence, to be exact. The South wanted to leave the Union and form an independent nation. The North invaded (over the opposition of many Northern citizens) in order to force the South to rejoin the Union. Independence was the central issue, the main point of contention. Everything else was secondary. If the South had not claimed independence, there would have been no war, and slavery would have continued for a few more decades and then died a natural death.

If the Confederacy had announced at its founding convention that in one month it would begin a program of gradual emancipation patterned after previous Northern emancipation programs, would Lincoln have abandoned Fort Sumter? Would the Republicans have agreed to accept the Confederate peace proposal? Would they have recognized the Confederacy?  Would they have at least been willing to peacefully coexist with the Confederacy? Any serious student of the war knows that the answer to these questions is no.That's because the central issue of the war was Southern independence, not slavery.

Open, Uncensored Discussion

As my blog description says, if you're tired of overly biased forums like Brooks Simpson's Crossroads blog, Al Mackey's Student of the American Civil War blog, and the CivilWarTalk forum, where the owners ban people who disagree with them or edit their replies, you've come to the right place.

I will not edit any comments. If a comment contains profanity or threats, I will delete it and warn the author not to repeat the behavior. I will not ban anyone from posting comments to this blog unless they repeatedly use profanity or make threats.

There are too many pro-Northern and pro-Southern forums where the owners will ban those who express views they don't like or will start editing their replies. Both sides are guilty of this. It is time for a place where reasonable, open-minded people from both sides can come and speak their minds without being banned or without having their replies edited. Again, as long as you refrain from profanity and threats, you can say whatever you want.

Defense of General George McClellan

General McClellan is one of the most misrepresented figures in American history. If we were to judge other Civil War generals by the same unreasonable standards by which McClellan has usually been judged, no general would emerge untarnished or credible. To understand the true nature of the Civil War, one must understand what was done to McClellan and why.

Last week I web-published an article titled Answering Some Criticisms of General George B. McClellan. It deals with many of the most common attacks on McClellan. Among other issues, it discusses McClellan's response to the finding of Lee's Special Order 191, the Battle of Antietam, the siege of Yorktown, the estimation of Confederate troop strength, the Seven Days Battle, the change of base to Harrison's Landing, and McClellan's response to the order to send his troops to General Pope.

I have web-published two other articles in defense of McClellan:

The Smearing of General George B. McClellan

McClellan's Early Defenders Speak: Voices from the Past in Defense of General George B. McClellan

I've also created a McClellan website:

George B. McClellan: Outstanding General, War Hero, Christian Gentleman