Paid Confederate agents promoted slavery

[Danny]

With all the supposed tightening of finances by the Confederacy by mid-war, it seems paying agents to defend slavery overseas came before shoes for the troops -- during a war claimed not to be about slavery! As with all modern books on the Civil War, take it with a grain of salt, it's not my view so please refrain from the personal stuff. I'm pretty sure it's ok to discuss new material written about our subject, CW era. This one excerpted here:

“It was no coincidence that a new society to study mankind was formed during the Civil War, and even less that the Confederacy had its paid agents inside. The Anthropological Society of London was founded in 1863, within weeks of Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation...

... The whipper-in for the new party...James Hunt...favored the issues critical to Knox and Types of Mankind; racial anatomy and ranking - and, with the war waging in America, the ‘Negro’s place’ was paramount. The majority of these self-styled ‘anthropologists’ shared... abhorrence of a common descent...the Society set itself the object to ‘record all deviations from the human standard’34. That standard was the white man...

...Not only did the Anthropologicals put Nott on their honorary fellowships rolls 35 ...but they had his friend Henry Hotze, a Confederate agent, permanently on the the Council...This pro-slavery advocate was actually paid to promote the South’s benevolent view of their ‘peculiar institution’. He had been recruited by the Confederate secret service and was bankrolled by the Confederate government in Richmond...Briefed to swing London opinion during the war, he put Nott and Glidden’s Types of Mankind and Indigenous Races into the Anthropologicals’ new library 36, paid Confederates inside the society (there were three on the Council alone)37, and swayed articles and pronouncements...printed and delivered thousands of sympathetic books and pamphlets, and fly-posted Confederate flags (joined to the British ensign) over street walls and railway stations.”

- pgs. 332, 333 excerpts from the chapter Cannibals and the Confederacy in London, in the 2009 book entitled Darwin’s Sacred Cause -How a hatred of slavery shaped Darwin’s views on human evolution. Adrian Desmond & James Moore. (Publisher info www.hmhbooks.com)

I apologize for trimming (the ... parts), but the entire page of copy is just too much to place here and trust anyone interested can see the entire page for themselves. I personally wasn't swayed by the authors' overall premise, but they did document their factoids so those are a valid topic for us.

Comments?

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

[Jubilo]

Dear Dan,
It seems the Confederacy failed any way so go practice your scales. You know this abolitionist talk hurts the Secesh feelings. This superiority issue has been going on since the Hebrews won the Canaan Campaign.
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[Crockett]

Another good read on the subject of slavery and race is Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery. Written by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank of the Hartford Courant. What started out as research into the role of slavery in Connecticut and the Courant's role in slavery, turned into research into the role played by all of the northern states. The authors say:

"WHAT WAS TRUE OF CONNECTICUT TURNED OUT TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY (their emphasis) true of the entire North. Most of what you'll read here was gleaned from older, often out-of-print texts, and from period newspapers. largely in Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts. We are journalists, not scholars, and want to share what surprised, and even shocked, the three of us. We have all grown up, attended schools, and worked in Northern states, from Maine to Maryland. We thought we knew our home. We thought we knew our country. We were wrong."

It's nice to see a book such as this, written by someone other than a southerner, for Southerners know all too well the sins of their past and, as usual, are often reminded of this. Oddly enough Nott had his northern counterpart in Philadelphia physician Samuel George Morton who had achieved international fame for his skull research that seemed to prove blacks were mentally inferior to whites. "Types of Mankind" was based on his work.

A great book for that well rounded education on slavery and race in America.

Joe Mode

[rpierson]

Delivered by newly elected/appointed C.S. Vice President, Alexander H. Stephens on Mar. 21, 1861. Read the whole thing here: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

or the cliff notes version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech


"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails."

Now, who exactly says the war was not fought over slavery? Not Alexander Stephens.

-Randall Pierson

[Old Cremona]

Now, who exactly says the war was not fought over slavery? Not Alexander Stephens.

-Randall Pierson

Oh, "Dan'l" knows all about Alexander Stephens and the Cornerstone speech. He's posted many times on that already.


-- during a war claimed not to be about slavery!

This is just the little de rigueur "Dan'l" jab you'll find in all his posts. It helps rile people up and get him more attention.

[Crockett]

From Wiki: "The longest portion of the speech outlined how this constitution eliminated the tariff and prohibited the central government from spending on internal improvements. The reasoning was on a States Rights argument with the Georgia Railroad as a first example. Stephens believed that the new country would have a clear delineation between federal and state responsibilities, and took the position similar to that of South Carolina during the nullification crisis that the federal government should not pay for internal improvements. Stephens believed that the new country would have a clear delineation between federal and state responsibilities, and took the position similar to that of South Carolina during the nullification crisis that the federal government should not pay for internal improvements."

From Wiki: "Stephens, in effect, accuses the North of slavemongering in its attempt to retain the border states for their tax revenues derived from slavery." (Another reason to read Complicity)

So if the war, in part, was about slavery I say so what. Most other nations had the pleasure of solving their question of slavery through gradual emancipation with compensation. Something Lincoln himself suggested. Though wrong, the view that blacks were inferior to whites was a broadly held belief in much of the world, not an idea invented in the south.

Joe Mode

[Crockett]

Chris,

Sorry, didn't mean to imply these were my own words, but did intend to site the reference, but forgot. Have corrected that oversight. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Yes, no one cares to discuss the legal standing of slavery. Also, if Hotze was a propagandist for the Confederacy, how much more so was Uncle Tom's Cabin and Stowe?

Joe Mode

[lukegilly13]

Chris,

no one cares to discuss the legal standing of slavery.


Actually, look into the social groups section of the forum. There is a crew of folks called the "secession debators" that are willing to discuss slavery at length in a period mannor. It makes for a neat event/living history.

[Crockett]

Luke,

Didn't necessarily mean here on the AC, but the public/media/centers for higher learning in general.

Joe Mode

[lukegilly13]

Joe,
Good point and you're correct in saying that. We think the same thing. I was using the post as a plug for our social group! We recently hosted an event at a University. We called it a secession rally and were recreating the town meeting to determine whether or not our city would support secession in Tennessee or would go with East Tennessee and split from the state. It was a great time for us but not too many people attended. The ones that did seemed to really get involved.

[lukegilly13]

I see this thread getting shut down anytime now if it turns into another "was the war over slavery" thread or a "lets bash the south" thread or even a "Daniel against the AC thread".
Getting back to the original post,

"With all the supposed tightening of finances by the Confederacy by mid-war, it seems paying agents to defend slavery overseas came before shoes for the troops -- during a war claimed not to be about slavery!"

Paying agents to defend slavery overseas......
Is it entirely uncommon to see a government try to pull support to their cause in the scrap to develop allies?
You are right that the confederacy did not have the necessary means to properly cloth their troops...but I think it would be better phrased as:
The confederacy had money to invest in developing allies abroad in an attempt to loosen the noose of the blockade and gain troop support (both physical and financial) from European countries and this was so expensive that they could not properly equip their troops.
Just my interp.

[Danny]

Dear Dan, It seems the Confederacy failed any way so go practice your scales. You know this abolitionist talk hurts the Secesh feelings. This superiority issue has been going on since the Hebrews won the Canaan Campaign.
all for the old flag, David Corbett

Dave - My understanding is every Secesh but a few were dead by the 1930s or so - no hurting their feelings.

I don't agree with the general premise of the book, but the factoid about what Confederate agents in London were paid to do is interesting nonetheless.

I feel the Abolitionists, John Brown in particular, were a vile lot of rabble-rousers and terrorists that disingenuously incited a war, but they of course are long dead as well.

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

[Danny]

Looks like a bunch of Adrian Desmond & James Moore's words in 2009 and nothing from the period in support...

The little numbers in the quote are cited to period sources listed in the back of the book.

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

[Danny]

...This is just the little de rigueur "Dan'l" jab you'll find in all his posts... It helps rile people up and get him more attention.

I didn't intend that; sorry that anyone would see it that way.

The rehash of the Stevens/slavery view is not helpful here -- another topic. As for this topic, it's interesting about what Confederate agents were doing and there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact.

Sometimes a discussion is just a discussion.

Dan Wykes

[GermanDraftee]

The little numbers in the quote are cited to period sources listed in the back of the book.

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

Danny,
Since you apparently have the book at hand (and we don't), would you be so kind as to list the sources cited by footnote numbers 34-37 of the text you quoted in the original post?

Thank you.

[GermanDraftee]

From a strictly CS historical perspective, I am more interested in the period, primary text (letters, reports, periodicals)from which those extrapolations were derived moreso than the exact pg# and LOC Catalogue number.

I prefer to drink my history from the source as the well is often tainted with the poison of the vaguely supported, agendized piece-for-profit catering to the full spectrum of demographics.

But hey, color me kooky.

I am hoping that the citations will tell us which original documents we might look for/at, if interested. It would, of course, be easier if the original post quoted directly from those documents, but I don't mind looking it up for myself. As for sources, all are tainted, to one degree or another, with agendas, target demographic considerations, exercises in "CYA" or other elements. That's why serious historians look for multiple and diverse sources and take everything they read with a grain of salt. If I am "preaching to the choir", I apologize. Chalk it up to my incliniation to assume that a guest, who might not be as knowledgeable and practiced, might someday peruse these threads. :omg_smile

[Danny]

Another good read on the subject ... Nott had his northern counterpart in Philadelphia physician Samuel George Morton who had achieved international fame for his skull research..."Types of Mankind" was based on his work. A great book for that well rounded education on slavery and race in America. Joe Mode

Will look it up. Thanks, Joe

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

[Danny]

...I was using the post as a plug for our social group! We recently hosted an event at a University. We called it a secession rally and were recreating the town meeting to determine whether or not our city would support secession in Tennessee...It was a great time for us...

Luke -

At that event, was it slavery or some other State's Right that was the main claim? If slavery, was scientific superiority brought up?

Were uniformed soldiers (you or others) present?

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

[lukegilly13]

Luke -

At that event, was it slavery or some other State's Right that was the main claim? If slavery, was scientific superiority brought up?

Were uniformed soldiers (you or others) present?

Dan Wykes
Fat Neck Mess

Well the event was a recreation of a town meeting in East Tennessee taking place in very early 1861 just before the state seceeded. East Tennessee was union dominate so the majority of the conversation was about the negative effects on our little part of the world if the state were to seceed. We did have a few guests from VA and Western Tennessee that were more rooted toward secession that touched on ones ability to make decisions for theirselves and not to be ruled by a distant government. We also had a Unionist slave owner from Kentucky who simply believed that Lincoln was not a threat to slavery that already existed...he argued that Lincoln was only opposed to the expansion of the institution. That said, the pro-secession arguments were geared more toward all aspects of state's rights (slavery included) since east TN had a very small population % of slave owners. Had the challenge of "human rights" been made in the debate I know that two of the speakers were prepared to support and two were prepared to defend. I would have to access the pre-event notes (if I can find them) to see if there were any sources supporting "scientific superiority" but I do not recall any from memory.

There were no soldiers present as the scenario was a pre-war town meeting where secession talk took center stage. We followed what is known about the original meeting as closely as possible...but as were so many things in Confederate history...the minutes were destroyed in a courthouse fire. We did have a couple of newspaper clippings describing the events of the evening however and were able to model what it may have looked and sounded like. The original meeting (if I recall correctly) was called in response to the meetings in Greenville, TN and Knoxville, TN with the agenda of discussing seperation from the state of Tennessee if it were to seceed.