The Civil War: A Louisiana Perspective | 1991

good evening and welcome to this Louisiana Civil War Roundtable my name is bill Arsenault and I'll be the moderator of tonight's roundtable discussion we hope you have just viewed as we have the first segment of the critically acclaimed series the Civil War Louisiana Public Broadcasting thought it would be entirely appropriate to assemble a group of individuals with both professional and general interests in the Civil War tonight we want to focus very generally on two areas the causes of the Civil War which was the primary topic of this evening segment and the civil war in Louisiana permit me to introduce to you now the members of our very distinguished panel dr. James Foster his professor of southern history at Louisiana State University Gaines is a student of the new south and the history of the new south and also reconstruction and he will aside from talking about whatever he wishes to talk about well primer primarily focused on the aftermath of the Civil War dr. Larry Hewitt of southeastern Louisiana University a man with the distinguished publication record in the field of the Civil War and its many battles particularly the Battle of Port Hudson which was of strategic importance to Louisiana and of course to the Confederacy mr. ron kennedy the commander of the louisiana division Sons of Confederate Veterans mr. Kennedy has devoted a lifetime of interest in this in the study of the Civil War and brings a unique perspective to this panel dr. Marriott elaborate own a professor of history at Northwestern State University a very distinguished historian of our state of Louisiana and of course the period of the Civil War and reconstruction and finally a dr. Luther Stewart a practicing physician here in Baton Rouge a man who also has spent a great deal of time and interest in studying the civil war as we developed this panel we felt that it was important to have not only professional historians but laypeople as well and the reason why we felt this was important was because of the impact that the series from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting the civil war really had on our country it brought the civil war from the classroom into the living room from the halls of colleges and universities to Main Street it really had a profound impact on this country in many many ways and it reminded us of how important this titanic struggle was to us and to our future as I think as Shelby Foote said everything we are today can trace its roots to the Civil War but let's talk about what we've just seen this is highly acclaimed a series dr. Lou Burton what sir what are your views well bill I certainly think it is an outstanding media production but as a historian I feel that perhaps within time limits and within limits of production expense and so forth that perhaps a very causes of the Civil War might have been brought in for example the protective tariffs even though a little earlier but certainly was a dividing force between north and south the Missouri Compromise for example again another example another fication under President Jackson uh certainly turned to you know many of the southerners away from his Democratic Party and I realized there is a limitation of time and as I said also of a production expense and certainly I'm not denying that slavery is certainly one of the major factors leading to the civil war but many of these came earlier and many of these if you read the contemporary writings or hear the contemporary speakers were quite important I noticed in tonight's series they made mention of a sectional division in the Constitutional Convention I'm sure that reference was to the three-fifths compromise there was enough south compromise but there was also a big small state compromise perhaps more so than 1787 then it was a north-south compromise some suppose what I'm saying is I believe there were many many causes of the Civil War among which was slavery and it did become more important as you move on into the 1840s and 50s but I still feel how that some of these other controversies arisen earlier perhaps is uh I believe it was Sheryl shelby foote said perhaps they could have still compromised and they lost the possibility of compromise so you're saying that perhaps between the crescendo of events that was leading our country almost inescapably and inevitably well more well certainly I wouldn't I wouldn't say necessarily in that sense I think it possibly could have been stopped but I do not i do believe by the 1850s it was it was too late and as this series show tonight in the 1850s you have the Brooks Sumner affair you have the Kansas Bleeding Kansas you have John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry you begin to have the serious violent events thing but again I believe that most of this had a much longer background than that as long as you have the older leaders of Calhoun and clay and some others that seem to be able to compromise by the early 1850s you're losing those leaders you're getting instead Jeff Davis and getting Steven a Douglas getting a newer younger leadership perhaps too inexperienced to compromise perhaps too late anybody else want to follow up on them well you know with the expenditure of what approximately five million dollars certainly it's it's obviously a very well put together from a technical point of view the musical score is wonderful you know we all enjoy music throughout which seem to be mostly southern but my concern is that it seemed to dwell upon one issue a very myopic view of history and again the war for Southern independence is I prefer to call it it was not a civil war it was not a contest between two factions trying to take control of the central government the Union did not dissolve when the southern states CC established themselves as an independent nation it was still very very viable between those states that freely of their own shoes and chose to remain and so I feel that the monies expended really did a great job showing one view but the southern people the southern heritage was sort of slighted and not sort of it was in fact slighted that the move towards this session as a film showed it starts secession and then immediately we go into the war almost but it doesn't say that hey in 1786 there was a near breaking point when the northern New England states and the northern states wanted to cede the Mississippi River to Spain and then again in 1790 when the northern states primarily wanted to use the federal treasury to pay off northern state debts and a Treasury I may add that was primarily supplied by tariffs paid by our southern ports again in 1814 the Federalists met at Hartford Connecticut to an high convention in order to try to see if possibly the New England states should secede from the union and here in Louisiana we all should know about the famous Massachusetts representative I believe it was Quincy who in Congress declared that before he would allow or for the New England states should allow the mixed-race Krios of Louisiana to come into the Union that the New England states would see seed so secession as a as a doctrine was you know a part of our history and it was a given it was something that was accepted as a legitimate thing government was really entered into by the sovereign states and it was believed even by the New England states who first threatened secession that our state has a right to secede again this you know for five million dollars I think I could have found room to explain a little bit on that term and at least give the southern heritage and the southern people a little bit of a feeling for their heritage why our people were willing to sacrifice uh Chad enormous sacrifice well I agree with you that secession had been a a reoccurring theme in American history since the revolution but of course this was the first time that a state did cc'd was when South Carolina took that that very important state found it necessary and and that the other states refused to compromise but again the right existed and whether or not we choose to exercise the right there's no invalidate the right the right still existed well actually war is about two things I don't think we can find causes in certainly we probably within this panel can't agree on causes but if you look at causation you have to explain the timing and things like that and it seems to me there are two two issues that come together in the war one is the question Ron has raised about secession it's not an established right it's it's a right in dispute and I think many constitutional scholars and historians looking back to 1787 saying that's what's the Constitution didn't really answer that question right so that it's not an established right it's a light that's in contention and in one level that's what the war is about but the other question is why did the South choose to exercise that questionable right and that it seems to me goes back to slavery I have trouble with the way the first episode handles causation I think I have more doubts about the way it handles northern motivation than I do southern motivation in other words certainly the long history of the dissipate dispute between the sections that Marietta and Ron both talked about are important in understanding this increasing sectional hostility but when you get to the crucial decade of the 1850s the issue of slavery in the territories and it's an interesting question because its foot said it's not we compromise failure and I think ultimately the tariff is it's a very compromise will issue you can argue whether you want to take it up you know 5% or 10% or down 5% or 10% the existence of slavery isn't and I think that's why ultimately that was not compromisable at that point the key I think the problem I have with the show is Northern causation the war did not start in the north his award in slavery became one it's at the heart of the conflict between the sections but the question of northern motivation I think is it's simplified there which makes even the second half of this episode under hard to understand what the first part talking about how the north in many ways marched off - in slavery you don't understand why the north is so reluctant to free the slaves to use black troops when the the second half comes up and I think that's important because the answer there is in many ways very similar to the answer and part of why the South was so determined to preserve slavery and that's the the whole issue of race in American society and that explains why the outcome of all reconstruction in many ways happens the way it does because the northern commitment to equality is brief it comes late but whether where does the preservation of the Union come in as a northern color I think that's the main reason the North marches off in 18 1961 not to in slavery at that point and law and order I mean if you were a northerner it's it's an attack on the flag Fort Sumter was fired on it was a federal garrison federal flag and that becomes very much an issue of loyalty to the nation blowing order like a saying regardless session I believe Shelby Foote had something when they indicated that the sum of the southerners and I would agree with him certainly the South Carolina delegates would not have signed the Constitution had they not thought they could get out of the Union in 1789 also the question of the causes I throw something out it is theirs seldom touched upon and it's been addressed here to some extent that is a lack of ability to compromise and I would contend that many of the politicians in by the 18th did not wish to compromise people like Jefferson Davis the air of Jhansi Calhoun and other southerners but also some northerners because in 1860 what happens is a major shift of political power and the Democratic Party in the southerners who had had so much say in the government are out of going to be out of power and Lincoln comes into office in the Republicans many former Whigs who had like Lincoln being unable to win election are Seward who won election but really had little saying the government would now come in and they neither signed Warren to compromise those that had power did not wish to give it up and those who had struggled so long to gain and Crow with the national government wanted to see their programs implemented and I think there was a determined determination on both sides willing not to compromise 56 or 1828 or the other times we've had a real change in power I would say because of Lincoln's election and that was something that the politicians I mean truly the national leaders or the leaders of the south of Washington perhaps would be a better way to describe them could bring to the attention of the southern citizens as a whole that Lincoln of course was elected as a minority president was not on the ballot in Louisiana what we've Richard Nixon was a minority president as I recall gains I think perhaps part of the answer to your question would be that through the compromise of 1850 or up until the compromise of 1850 you had the old leadership that Larry was referring to and they did compromise in 1850 and it did include part of it included the expansion of slavery into newer areas but but that older leadership started losing out and a new younger leadership and I agree with Larry who were not willing or perhaps able to compromise began to take over certainly I think it I think it's David Potter maybe I'm wrong that who says that the compromise of 1850 wasn't really compromised it was an armistice in other words the old generation managed to put off the confrontation but ultimately they didn't solve any of the problems indeed with the Fugitive Slave Act they escalated the problems in terms of understanding northern motivation the Fugitive Slave Act may be the most important a flashpoint in the 1850s for this increasing northern hostility and since a power league is talking to that so I mean it I guess I have trouble with the generational notion though I mean I completely agree with Larry that there are a lot of people determined to carry through their programs in power I mean the Republicans feel in Washington that they absolutely cannot compromise on the slavery in the territory issue anymore and I think that's that's true but that ultimately gets back to this this problem of what do you do with the future of the nation over slavery let me ask dr. Stewart a question but first slavery would we have had a civil war in your opinion well I being an amateur I have a little bit more freedom than these professors and I think Ron and I can say a little say some things and not necessarily run into a lot of criticism from esteemed colleagues I would have to disagree with him immensely on the cause of civil war and I would tend to lean a little bit more with games professor Gaines Foster and that in my reading of civil war I think that we've overlooked the racial conflict that was really involved you have a situation where you're actually trying to make beasts and brutes out of men and human beings and I think we overlooked this conflict in the Civil War because the Civil War was based on denying the humanity to four million people and anytime you have I think the greatest of all the evils if you want to go back to Socrates and the Greeks and even though they had slavery is that you cannot reduce another human being to property and this is exactly what the whole conflict was about in my view if you go back to people who were writing at the time not necessarily historians looking back but people who were involved in the conflict and we're writing about it at the time you find that America ignored these warnings not once but ultimately manifold times George Washington I think Thomas Jefferson said you will have to solve the issue of slavery if you do not solve this issue of slavery this issue of slavery will destroy the country he said it George Washington said it I think Andrew Jackson tried to deal with it when they had a tariff problem in Charleston South Carolina in 1829 1833 where he said they using this tariff as a means for demand and secession next it would be slavery so slavery was an essential issue it was ignored in my view throughout the whole process I think this series was an attempt to move from southern mythology into the room of reality but in my view which as an amateur historian it did not move far enough the real issue of the Civil War was and probably is now the issue of the racial conflicts that exist in this country you know it's interesting that that we can talk about the quote Civil War as a war for Southern independence and talks of racial conflict and it's almost as if this is a southern discussion we're having because you know all the evil belongs down south is the unsaid inference there are but in truth when you look at the manner in which the northern people handle the slave ways how did they emancipate their slaves how did they rid themselves of slavery was it by sudden you know freedom to all their slaves or was it by a gradual method that allowed them to remove these black people from their society sell them down south liquidate their investment and also clean up their society I remind you of the law in Massachusetts passed in 1788 that declared that any Indian Malad or a Negro that's that came within the Commonwealth and this was two years after their emancipation that came within their Commonwealth would be publicly whipped after 30 days if they do not leave so this the problem that I have is that you drag the racial issue in and you try to paint the southerners and the villains the universal villains of American history and that's not quite the case there's there's Fault enough to go around so if we're gonna talk about slavery to south let's talk about who went to Africa and kidnapped these black people and brought them to America and sold them for a handsome pocket and then when they marched down to Louisiana to liberate them the money was still jingling in their pockets and yet they are the ones that's painted by this series as being the righteous liberators of humanity and the Southerners or point or painted as if we were fighting to keep me in bondage my great-grandfather fought for the Confederacy and he owned no slaves I mean it is uncle who died at Shiloh so you know the idea that we're going to use this racial issue we're going to use it then let's talk about the entire issue north as well as south and you'll find that there's sin enough to go around if we're going to punish and make a society pay then this tell the whole truth well I suspect all of us have had all of us are southerners to some degree and we've all had all have relatives that fought and died in the Civil War but you bring up a collateral point that I think we need to touch on and that's that's the economic aspects of this because slaves were property as you pointed out there was a gradual emancipation in the north where either they were able there was a market for their property in other words what you're saying and that's very important what about this this economic factor what about this issue of property and and the slave how important was this to the South excuse me for interrupting I will I would have to say that to really deal with the Civil War without dealing with the slave issue is going to be to really avoid a major obstacle and I think as Rana has pointed out there were sins on both sides of the mason-dixon line I think when you look at the whole history of development in this country certainly when you go back into the colonial era you will find slavery but virtually existing in all of the colonies all of the original 13 colonies but the point that has happened is that the North managed to eliminate slavery especially after the American Revolution and it's interesting that some people some historians say that civil war was the second American Revolution where the mistake they made was not dealing with the slave issue at that time and that is they want to be free from England yet they were still holding people in bondage denying them humanity and treating them as property and not as human beings and I think that you have to maintain a perspective of that in terms of dealing with what the Civil War was actually thought about I agree that it was on both sides but the South was actually the group and it was called the they were called the Confederacy a slave holding States not just the Confederacy of southern states it was the Confederacy of slave holding States and you had to be a slave state and have slavery legalized in order to be a part of the Confederacy at that time and it's interesting that he says that his parents never owned slaves I have grandparents who great-grandparents who were slaves and the only thing I can tell you the issue like that is that if you avoid the real conflict of slavery then you're really talking about a war that is just nothing with bowels and the battles have no meaning so Luther and answer to my question you would say had slavery not existed in the 1860s that would not have been a civil war correct I'm bond the two issues of slavery economics for a motive moment if slavery was economically profitable in the north in the 1820s 30s words were heavy I would contend that slavery would have continued to exist in the north it had reached a point where it was unprofitable and amended I would contend that had slavery becoming profitable in the south that the owners would have emancipated their slaves when it was costing them money and in economics plays a major role in this issue there was enough sin to go around with New England shippers who provided slaves for a profit to southerners and southerners who made a profit off the labor of the slaves and it is an economic issue there was the belief by many in 1860 that slaves were incapable of nothing more than agricultural laboring this was not I think has been successfully proven to be an untruth not only by their performance in our society today but even working in some southern industries in New Orleans in particular in 1860 and had slavery continued to exist in the north and it had been realized that slaves could operate machinery in the factories would northerners have turned to more and more slaves to work in those factories I would say they would well I think the point is that the reason of college colonies were established with slave labor Virginia all of the colonies have slave labor and I think that initially it would have been I mean Dunmore and some of the earlier government said they could not have survived as colonists without the advantage of slavery it was a tremendous and horrendous institution because the mortality of the people who were victimized was extremely and just to give an example and I agree that economics was a factor involved but it was not the only factor because if you look at Britain Britain ended slavery in the West Indies in 1833 and they Ament are they remarried their owners without fighting a war Lincoln offered the southerners the same thing and they refused I think it really boil down to an issue of whether or not you could whether or not a former slave owner would be able to tolerate as is equal someone whom he had oppressed and suppressed for three or four hundred years we get back we're trying to drag the issue back to a racial argument but again you know how was the the Irish immigrants in the sweatshops of New England treated I mean you know if you say you've got to have slavery in order to have a civil war why did the Irish fight the English well the Scot is a definition of slavery I think if an Irish if you're working for yourself and you have the benefit of pay you have the option of going or leaving wherever you want to but when you deny the humanity of a person and say that this person is a beast or brood or inhuman and it's not capable of self development or self-determination then you've got a different issue a person who works in a slave shop has some sweatshop has a right to expect some control of his work or his wages but a slave does not it was endless toy let's not get into a different answer nobody's defending slavery a system we are trying to force some factories that there were other causes of the war more important colleges and primarily it was in my opinion a cultural clash a clash that was recognized quite early even in the house of parliament it was a Bert said in his a conciliation to the colonies speech during the Revolutionary War that the people of the South are much more tuned and much more aggressive about their determination for freedom and independence than those of the north there was a cultural there was a difference between the two northern societies in the southern Society it was a natural schism and I think that the differences between the northern people and the southern people far more than their likenesses is what led to the war for Southern independence it wasn't a war brother against brother it was a war of culture against culture gains were slavery the primary cause of the Civil War I'm I'm uncomfortable with picking primary causes I would agree with your opening question yes if there hadn't been slavery I don't see where the war would have come from I think again you have to you have to talk about the process through which it came and I think slavery and the debate over slavery in the territories and the hostilities between the reeds that grew out of that what's behind the war and I don't see any way around that I mean if you look at the cultures in many ways the amazing thing is is how similar the cultures were they they use with the difference in draw that Ron and I both have essentially the same language they had they worship the same guy evangelical Protestantism was growing in both sections the fundamental difference is slavery and and what each side made of Eddie now I think Luther's right in that you have to talk about not just slavery but race because that solves one of Ron's problems because I agree with him completely if you include race as a part of culture then we're all in agreement because what I would say is they shared the racism in other words I completely agree with Rhonda somehow southern and southern white people are not inherently more racist in northern white people I mean one of the things I think more than economic interests that made possible abolition in the North as rapidly as it came was the percentage of the population in other words you can't race you can almost trace abolition so patient by state by percentage of the blacks in the population the problem was much less economic than imagining a biracial society that's what the North had it easier because it had to imagine a biracial society with one or two percent of its population Alabama South Carolina was imagining a biracial society with 50 or 52 percent of its population so that so that race really is at heart of it behind even the issue of slavery and I think to take that out of the war in the causes of the war is to is to remove a crucial issue I mean in the simplest of terms on July in July of 1776 and something we still celebrate all the time the nation's said all men are created equal and have the right to life liberty and property ultimately the war becomes whether it started that way or not the war becomes over that issue whether or not we can make that promise real in American society and in many ways the only way we figured out to even start that process was to kill six hundred twenty thousand people the process of doing but I mean ultimately I think that's what the war goes back to let's uh let me try to move a little bit from the causes to I was I was impressed by the fact that Abraham Lincoln and his inaugural address referred to a potential civil war but when he used it with a small C because if memory serves in and correct me on this you you pros here the Civil War as we refer to it and as we view our interview or viewing this this series was not what the people called it in the 1860s the south I believe referred to it as the war for Southern independence the North referred to it I think as the war for secession war the war for secession and later the War of the rebellion when does the Civil War as a nomenclature for this for this conflict when does it come into our culture into our life I know the southern side better in the south it's there there the War Between the States which is what I grew up on it only comes in in the 80s and 90s as they try to take away the the revolutionary import of the war and so by the 80s and 90s you're using War Between the States and the South though some people even in the 1890s in the South are using the civil war and that certainly is is true by the 20s 30s and 40s I'm not sure when the official American United States documents on the on this on the war or the official records of the war the rebellion here which were printed I think in the 1880s well so clearly we were not talking no civil war then well the reasons the southerners want the War Between the States is they're still getting called the War of the rebellion and they really mean it's interesting how changed now now we have the lehigh rebels and southerners are quite happy to be called rebels in the 1880s and 90s that was a terrible terrible insult to be called a rebel because that suggested what you had done was elite and in treasons it's interesting even at the time of the celebration of the centennial in the 1960s there was a fair amount of controversy raised by several of the southern senators and representative wanting the term war for Southern independence or at least the compromise term war between the states yet the north still being in a numerical majority managed to put us in our place in his civil war well let's let's turn a little bit now to the civil war in Louisiana and you can't really talk about the civil war in Louisiana without focusing in on the Battle of Port Hudson which was I guess the the biggest in terms of the size of the battle and its strategic importance that took place within the borders of our state perhaps not Larry what do you agree with that I would argue not I would say the fall of New Orleans a book has been written about that which was possible I think inappropriately but in any case entitled the night the war was lost and I think it is in a manner that it's overlooked that the diplomatic impact that the loss of New Orleans had on the chancel I didn't know what I said was the most important battle that was not a battle that lost New Orleans well the southern enables other nurses there was a estanque record then from that standpoint I would contend that for us and was the most important land engagement for terms of its impact and immediate and direct impact upon the war in Louisiana I'd like to hear more about this theory about the night the war was lost in the loss of the city of Queen City of the south at that time when New Orleans Falls in April of 1862 the wars just in in his first year and because of the European heritage of the city the foreign diplomats who resided in New Orleans New Orleans was the only true city in the south larger than the next five cities combined the only true commercial center its largest port that the south would lose it and almost without putting up much of a fight shocked a lot of people in Europe and I think caused enough hesitation on the part of European politicians to postpone or at least take a few steps back from their position in favour of recognizing the Confederacy and middlee all of them did not in Europe but there was a big push for it and the loss of New Orleans was enough to move that back until again a second loss in by robert e lee's army at Sharpsburg Maryland in September of 62 followed by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and it was enough to finish it off but the loss of New Orleans even though there actually there was no shots fired between the opposing military forces at the city itself was of tremendous significance the second major campaign in Louisiana was Port Hudson Port Hudson is finally coming into its own light and I think is significant for a lot of reasons and I urge everyone to go up and visit the port US and state commemorative area which was recently opened the museum there but it was the last Confederate stronghold on the Mississippi River it was if you will Louisiana's glory for the viewers who've seen the recent Hollywood release of the movie glory black soldiers fighting the regular in the United States Army participated in an inmate in an assault for the first time at ports in two months before the engagement depicted in the movie glory took place at battery Wagner South Carolina but it was not fortunate enough to be selected by Hollywood to be made famous there was a longest true siege in all of American military history one of the myths people have is that they ate rats at Vicksburg which cannot be documented they did at Port Hudson and rats were better than mule meat which also a to Port Arthur did they fix him in any particular way that I don't know since they were Louisiana perhaps we had a special sauce I think I literally think they they roasted meals as much as he would cook that in entire county I would like to ask her Professor Hewitt its it seems that the North really extended its major victories through naval action in other words that South Carolina Sea Islands and certainly New Orleans I think even Paducah and and some of the forts in Kentucky they will Nashville Tennessee was taking down Tennessee River yes but I think the initial bowels that the north was winning was really backed up by a naval force they would lay in the skirmish and that was my impression but I never I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the experts if that would more or less coincide because initially their valves were backed with some type of naval support and then they had it off and on throughout the war but it did seem like initially New Orleans fell by naval and I think that some of the South Carolina sea islands and they were always supported by the the Navy New Orleans I would say you're a very perceptive amateur dr. Stewart there is a small but growing school of thought among civil war story ins that in a sense the Confederacy never had a chance because of the Union naval superiority particularly on the western rivers not so much and what they enabled the Union armies to accomplish but after the Union Army had gained the territory the navies alone virtually prevented the Confederates from making any serious inroads back into those areas Vicksburg question you spoke to the native guards which I served so admirably at Port Hudson is there any relationship with that unit the u.s. native guards the black troops that and the sea s native guards one and the same for the most part you mean there were black soldiers that were preparing to fight for the Confederacy it's a the first Louisiana native guards has as far as I know a unique history it was a regular militia unit in the Louisiana militia before the war it was composed of free blacks of New Orleans many of them wealthy well-educated including the not only the company come officers but even the field officers they drilled with the Louisiana militia they were transferred to the Confederate Army when the Confederate Army evacuated New Orleans they went to camp more they had never been issued guns and the decision was finally made in May of 1862 at Camp more that the southern people just could not tolerate seen guns in the hands of blacks beat whatever their former status was and so the unit went back to New Orleans and offered their services to general Benjamin Butler who was depicted in the show this evening and so they were not the this first group of black soldiers were not former slaves but the they a the third Louisiana native guards was also participated in the assault that poured us and was composed of former slaves but it's a it's a very unique regiment all the NCOs I've been told and asked well I wanted to ask a pro on this the Louisiana native guard us had been trained by the Confederate States during the militia or the large percentage possibly not all of them but interested no no this this unit went in as a unit privates NCOs company officers and even the field officers went into the unit fought with Jackson and about in the walls their descendant indeed and they were the same unit that fought with valor New Orleans so they had gone back to this they actually had lost their social status it's the Battle of New Orleans because of the northern agitation over the issue of slavery their rights curtail more and more until it was not deemed appropriate well if you're armed that if Port Hudson was the most important battle land battle between opposing armies in Louisiana and it was a Confederate defeat you're gonna tell me it was a surrender know that Confederate surrender or you know I mean we won the Battle of Port Hudson the Confederacy won the battle opponents well several earlier stories have contended that former graduate of LSU who taught at Tulane I did a book on the board Hudson sometimes you if you've a small force and think I'm in this terms 7,000 Confederates tied up 40,000 Union soldiers for 49 days now if you keep those soldiers from going somewhere else and accomplishing something you even though you lose your entire garrison you might indeed well achieve a victory granted granted that but let's let's look at the ultimate outcome of the Battle of Port Hudson what the ultimate outcome resulted in a Union victory correct and in the sense the garrison surrendered correct that's right very strict here strike interaction but let's turn now to the the the greatest in terms of at least land battles between opposing armies the greatest victory for the Confederacy in Louisiana that would have to be the Red River campaign in Marietta why don't you tell us a little bit about what happened the Red River campaign bill I think the statement makes correct but I'd like to say one thing also about the fall in New Orleans it started a divide at Louisiana and I think that was extremely important when the Federals took control of part of the state of Louisiana and the Confederate government and sort of more or less began to govern from wheels moving across the state and kept moving and moving until finally it ended in Shreveport German went from New Orleans to Baton Rouge to Opelousas to Shreveport is report so and I don't think in this state a lot of people realize you had that to government's operating at the same time you had Confederate Louisiana you had federal control Louisiana I said I know Gaines knows that effect that had on reconstruction when reconstruction started so early in this state but the last campaign the Red River campaign of course came in 1864 and I think was an attempt by the Federals to not only change the Red River area field in particular to take the cotton sources of the Red River area and also to get into Texas and to also you know finally conquer Texas I believe there's more to be said about that cotton you know aspect of that Red River campaign for many reasons but one reason is I think people forget that and this is something tonight y'all noticed people forget that by 1864 Abraham Lincoln was not a shoo-in for re-election in fact of anything it was probably thought just the opposite and certainly those New England textile owners who perhaps it felt so strongly about slavery also felt strongly about their prosperity with the need for cotton and therefore I think there's a lot to be said about that Red River was just full of cotton bales just lined up along yet and either Confederates or Federals destroyed it either way both destroyed it so they would not be seized I do think that the Battle of Mansfield certainly preserved at least one Confederate Army west of the Mississippi River but so late I don't know that it affected the outcome of the war itself I do think also something pertinent to what we've been speaking of today is the racial complexity a part of that red river area in particular the area around the Natchitoches region and the fact that in the antebellum period many of the black planters in that area were very prosperous they owned slaves themselves which I always find when people talk about slavery is black on white it is not necessarily black on white can be black and black white and white black in Indian Indian and white or whatever but up in that cane river area there were many blacks who suffered losses and disaster and death destruction just like the whites did in that River area and who never came back from it I mean who a very prosperous plan is prior to that River River campaign and but like I say suffered just as did their white neighbors during that period of time it's an unusual area I will admit that came river country but it is again an example that it's hard to generalize in fact it's impossible to generalize the human suffering resulting from the war knew no class distinction you know racial distinction rich or poor they all ended up the Equality of poverty and a lot of that stayed in that situation but the entire Red River campaign david edmonds did a great job of putting out the conduct of the federal troops and from official Confederate records sworn affidavits of the horror that the civilian population and a the thing that is so amazing is the the invader of a foreign country the invader is always in a bad position because he knows now who is his friend or foe and he treats everyone as as the the foe and the southern people black and white were treated to the horrors of war and this is something that's a part of our heritage we as southerners we should be proud that yes we rose above the horrors of war and were able to overcome it but the conduct of the federal troops is something that has been unparalleled and I love to contrast that with the way that the southern troops conducted themselves as they entered Pennsylvania quite a different means of treating civilian population and quite a different attitude towards the international laws of war and the treatment of POWs as well I've been to southern cancer I've been to southern Pennsylvania and there's I don't know what he's getting have to make a couple of comments on two things one is the Red River campaign in Louisiana you had severe what they call Black Codes which meant that before a planter or a slave owner could manumit or emancipated slave there was certain requirements that that person had to undergo and there were laws on the books that prevented free blacks from associating with slave blacks I mean if you were a slave owner you wanted if you were black and a slave owner you wanted to omit manumit your black slaves that slave had to be 25 years of age had to be able to have a occupation of self-sufficiency and it had to be approved by other planters because no one was going to manumit slaves on one plantation and the next plantation maintained them because you were inviting servile insurrection it was a call at that time so no those those black families were not allowed to manumit their black slaves letme gains what's the most enduring we're beginning to wind down our our panel discussion what's the most enduring legacy of the Civil War well I think it's still the problem that the war was about in many ways we the show the Civil War series I think it's excellent on on the human experience of a war that's our first memory is human suffering which is not to be minimized though the key I think that might be another place for Ron to talk about both sides being guilty of that but I think that the legacy is that that we can we remember those sorts of things about it and we don't completely deal with the issues and so I think the the racial problem of making the Declaration of Independence real that was at the heart of the war is still the problem today the war didn't solve it in part because both sides both white sides didn't didn't address the issue as they should have or could have then and we still wrestle with it bowels have ended but the war is still going on anybody would like to make a closing comment before we say goodnight I would like to say that again the people of the South have experienced having been right constitutionally in my opinion and yet being forced to accept a government that they did not want and fought against yet we have since the quote war for Southern independence have been very loyal to this country we've been very patriotic this country and I feel that we certainly have done our share as southerners thank you very much I want to thank all the panelists I thought we had a very stimulating a conversation tonight an excellent panel the Civil War will be on every night for the remainder of this week and on behalf of Louisiana Public Broadcasting thank you for being with us you you

Channel: Louisiana Public Broadcasting

Views: 2,561

Rating: 4.5555553 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: xsGigjwxarE

Length: 52min 27sec (3147 seconds)

Published: Tue Mar 17 2020