Five myths about why the South seceded

[underpants]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html


1. The South seceded over states’ rights.

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

These explanations are flatly wrong. High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.


3. Most white Southerners didn’t own slaves, so they wouldn’t secede for slavery.

However, two ideological factors caused most Southern whites, including those who were not slave-owners, to defend slavery. First, Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday. In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy now.


4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.

5. The South couldn’t have made it long as a slave society.

To claim that slavery would have ended of its own accord by the mid-20th century is impossible to disprove but difficult to accept. In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched in the South. Unpaid labor makes for big profits, and the Southern elite was growing ever richer. Freeing slaves was becoming more and more difficult for their owners, as was the position of free blacks in the United States, North as well as South. For the foreseeable future, slavery looked secure. Perhaps a civil war was required to end it.

[Drale]

1. 5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society

They would never have made it because France or Britain would never have recognized them as a slave society. That is the big reason why neither France or Britain joined the war on the side of the south and France and Britain where the big boys still at that point.

EDIT: The South banned international slave trading before the war begin, just a little fact.

[JVS]

26. "The South banned international slave trading before the war begin, just a little fact."

That's because the international slave trade was competition for their own slave industry. The South needed the Westward expansion of slavery to provide a market to sell slaves to.

[happyslug]

42. And so had the US in 1808

The problem was, while international Slavery was illegal, it still occurred, Slaves were imported into the American South as late as 1865. Yes, it was illegal and had been illegal since 1808, but done none the less.

Under the first paragraph of Section 9 of Article 1 of the US Constitution, the US Congress was forbidden to restrict the importation of slaves till 1808, once 1808 came around the US banned such importation, but like the later Southern Ban, ineffective.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

As to westward expansion, the admission of California was a free State in 1850, finally showed to the south that any expansion of slavery west of Texas was impossible. Mexican Peonage existed in New Mexico at that time, but Peonage was NOT slavery, it was more serfdom (i.e. the Peon had to do things his master required of him, but otherwise was a free man). Furthermore American Slavery was tied in with Cotton, and Cotton could not grow west of Dallas Texas for it became to dry (With irrigation it is possible, but irrigation on the level needed to grow cotton was not possible until the 20th Century and the damming of the Rivers of the Southwest). By 1860 this was clear, New Mexico and Arizona, if they came into the union, would follow California and some in as free states (Through both New Mexico and Arizona, along with Oklahoma were pro-south during the Civil War, that was more a reflection of how few people were in New Mexico and Arizona then any other factor and given how people were moving south, expected to come in with anti-slavery population by 1900.

Thus westward expansion of Slavery died in Texas. Under the Compromise of 1850, Texas could break itself into five states, the problem was Slavery was dominate in East Texas, not South or West Texas, thus any division had the greater possibility of more free states instead of more slave states.

Thus the "Free-eaters" dilemma and their solution. The Dilemma was every way they looked they saw free states coming into the Union, the solution was independence and the continue use of Slaves to raise Cotton for export (Over half of US Exports in 1860 was Cotton).

[happyslug]

35. But both Countries seriously considered going to War for the South

Both Countries imported a lot of Cotton from the American South Before and After the Civil War. The North, whenever it occupied a Cotton area of the South, exported that cotton. Egypt became a cotton growing area as an alternative to the American South (Longer to get to England and France, the Gulf Stream made shipments from the US to Europe in about a week, six weeks in reverse but that was NOT the concern of anyone in the Cotton Trade, Egypt to compete had to use Steam powered ships, thus the US Civil War increased the demand for Steam powered ships to replace sailing ships).

The opposition to going to war in support of the South was divided on Class lines in Both Countries, the poor and working Class supported the North (As did Germany and Russia), while the Ruling elite, the upper class the the Upper Middle Class supported the South. Thus as late as 1865 both Countries were still funding Southern Efforts to win their independence.

The main reason both countries did not go to War, was Prince Elbert (Queen Victoria's husband) opposed such a war for the same reason he had opposed the Crimean war in 1854, it was a war so far away that the supply lines would be stretched to the limit. Prince Elbert had been attacked for his opposition to the Crimean War, but later became well respected when the reasons for his objections became clear (Florence Nightingale also pointed out several of the supply programs no one, but Prince Elbert, had thought of before going to war). By 1862 Prince Elbert views were taken more seriously then in 1854. Furthermore the Monitor Fleet scared the British. It was clear the Monitors were useless on the high seas, thus not a threat to any British and French Fleet heading to America till the fleet was in American Waters. The problem was at that point those Monitors would be in the ideal location to seek the British and French Fleets. Something the Admirals in both countries did not have an answer for in 1862 (Britain had Capital Ships with Turrets, even before the Monitor, but to build a sea going Turrets equipped ship took a lot more money and time then a Monitor. Britain and France needed a ocean going ships to get their troops to the American South, the American North did not need an ocean going fleet to oppose such a movement of troops.

Another factor was Canada. During the US Civil War, more Canadians served in the Union Army, then was serving in the Canadian Militia. Canadian Historians tend to deny this and use the Militia numbers of 1861, which is the highest Militia numbers in Canada between 1860 and 1865. The problem is that the Canadian Militia of 1861 was almost as useless as the US Militia of the same time period. Britain did two reforms of the Militia, one around 1862 another in 1864, to make the Militia more of a reserve army then a conventional Militia. These later Militias all had less troops then were serving in the US Army at that same time and tended to be volunteers as opposes to every male over the age of 18 (The every male over age of 18 is the Traditional North American Militia, i.e. pre-US Civil War).

The number of Canadians serving in the US Army during the US Civil War, a time were it was clear Britain supported the South NOT the North, shows how many Canadians of that time period would prefer rule from Washington over rule from London. Thus after the US Civil War, England gave Canada its independence and accepted that Canada would economically become part of the US (Canada had been using the Dollar, instead of the pound since about 1850, showing how extensive trade was between Canada and the US by 1850 and how interconnected both countries were becoming at that time).

Many British Generals read up on the War of 1812, and saw that the main British Problem, when it came to Canada in 1812-1815, had NOT been resolved by 1860, i.e. given a choice between their "Country" and their "King" most Canadians were fight for their "Country" and that was the US (Most of the lower classes of Ontario had been immigrants from New England after 1790, immigrants who left NOT to be under the King, but to take up the offer of free land if you settled in "Upper Canada". These immigrant's fathers had fought at Bunker Hill, and NOT for the British. The Upper Classes of Canada were much more pro-Britain, many had left the US during and after the Revolution to stay loyal to their king. Thus the British Generals came to a conclusion that given how Canada was divided, that the vast majority of Canadians would just ignore their leaders if the US could invade. The Canadian Leaderships would fight, but once they find their had no troops, they would make a deal with Washington.

Please note, some Canadians Militia Units were made up of people whose ancestors had fought for the King between 1775 and 1783, but these were a clear minority. Enough to put up a fight, but not to defeat even a half hearted attack by the US on Canada, as part of a War between the US and Britain.

The French Canadians were not held in much higher regard in the eyes of the British leadership. English speaking Canadians had fulfilled their Militia Duties between 1812 and 1815 when called to do so. For example in the Siege of Detroit, the British Commander dressed the Canadian Militia in British Uniforms and seeing the men in Uniforms the Americans took them for regulars and vacated Detroit for the Americans did not think their could take a full scale attack by regulars. Had the Americans actually waited to be fired on the fact that the troops were militia would have come out and the Americans would have stayed in Detroit. When later on Americans invaded Canada, neither side gave much wait to the Canadian Militia, the British kept them in camp more to make sure they did not join the invading Americans then any other reason. The Americans ignored them for the Americans knew they would not fight fellow Americans (The Battle ended up a battle between American Militia and Regulars against British Regulars and Native Americans). The same was expected in 1862 from the English Speaking Canadian Militia.

The French Speaking Militia was in worse shape, not involved in the War of 1812 (New England opposed the war of 1812, kept on trading with Britain throughout the War, in fact American ships would leave New England Ports and be meet by British Frigates, who then escorted them to Spain, for New England was the Source of Wheat used to Feed The Duke's of Wellington's Army in Spain, before and during the War of 1812). Thus New England refused to support any invasion of Canada during the war of 1812, and since Quebec would have been the point of any such invasion, Quebec was never threaten during the War of 1812.

Now, while the French Canadians had not done any treason in 1812-1815, the US had raised three regiments out of Quebec between 1775 and 1783 (By 1783, the three regiments had become one regiment). nothing had changed since 1783 so the British High Command had the feeling that Quebec like Ontario would prefer rule from Washington to London and given the massive Union Army by 1862, with massive support for the US in both Ontario and Quebec, in any war with the US, Canada would fall to the US. Britain could not stop such a fall.

One last factor was the 1862 visit to the United States by the Russian Imperial Fleet. That was to show that the US was NOT alone, if Britain would attack the US, Russia would do all it could to support the US. Maybe not go to war, but Russia and British interests came into conflict in the Middle East, the Mountain regions of Afghanistan, and China. Britain would have to respond to any Russian increase in troops in any of these areas, and that meant even less troops for any war in North America.

Given the above, the British ruling elite saw it would lose more then it gained by going to war to support the American South. Lincoln played up that fear by strengthening the few forts along the Canadian border (The US and Britain had a treaty since about 1819, that restricted new forts along the border, but noting about upgrading existing forts). Lincoln even promised to pay for the visit of the Russian Fleet (while not paid for in the Civil War, when Russia sold Alaska to the US, a sale more do to Russian beliefs that the US had a better ability to defend Alaska from any British attack then the Russians themselves could do, the price was increased by the amount of the cost of sending the Russian Fleet to the US, thus the US did pay the Russians).

Napoleon III was NOT going to war with the US, in the US, in 1862, without British support, thus once Britain was out, so was France (France also wanted to move into Indo-China and Mexico at the same time period, preferring both opportunities then a sure defeat in the American South).

Just pointing out, it was the world situation as a whole NOT just domestic opposition to Slavery that kept Britain and France out of the US Civil War. Internal opposition did exists, but would not have stopped any intervention as long as no draftees were being sent (Britain had a Mercenary army at that time period so no British draftees, and Napoleon III, who ruled France at that time, was going to send the same troops he sent to Mexico in 1862, French Marines and the French Foreign Legion and other volunteer/mercenary units of the French Military. The majority of the French Army were Draftees and Napoleon III was NOT going to send then overseas unless he had overwhelming support for the war, and in 1862 he did not have that support, so he was sending just volunteers).

The internal opposition to slavery was NOT going to prevent either country from intervening in the American South, it was that the two largest armies in the world were facing off each other in Virginia and what was happening in the rest of the World would tie up so many troops that any intervention would have little affect on the outcome of the war (In fact Britain might lose more then it gained, France might break even, but given Napoleon III's plan for Mexico, a division of his volunteers/mercenaries would have been required, giving each war less troops. As to Mexico, France barely had the ability to hold Mexico, if many of those same troops went to the American South, France would have even less troops to hold onto Mexico.

Napoleon III is considered a poor reflection of his more famous uncle (Napoleon Bonaparte) but even Napoleon III could count, and he barely had troops to hold North Africa, Indo-China and Mexico let alone the American South.

[miscsoc]

47. very informative response.

good readin'

[fishwax]

52. interesting post, thanks! n/t

[intaglio]

56. Thanks ... but

Please check your spelling, your lecturer may have said "Prince Elbert" (demned British eccent, don't cha know) but it was Prince Albert.

The big reasons the British remained largely uninvolved in the American Civil War was India and the Crimean War. 1857 saw the "Sepoy Revolt" which effectively ended the corporate ownership of the sub-continent by the East India Company. The Crimean War had only ended in 1856 and the British Army was still undergoing the re-examination caused by that sanguinary conflict. These 2 wars had each required the use of virtually the whole British Army which was a small, professional force (largely lead by incompetent amateurs) and it would take huge reforms to make them effective - a fact of which the British government was well aware.

[happyslug]

65. I also ignored the Polish Revolt of 1864 and the Revolt in China in the same time period.

The 1860s were a rough decade, Japan finally overthrew the Shogun and started its modernization program. China went into full scale peasant revolt (Put down with assistance from England and France) as while as Italian and German unification (and lets not forget the "Irish problem" of the time period). The South's hope for British intervention was more hope then reality, Britain had to many fingers in to many pies without even considering Intervention (In fact in 1862, the Mexican City of Veracruz was occupied by a combined Spanish/French/British force to force payment of debt by Mexico to creditors in each country. Britain and Spain subsequently pulled out, by Napoleon III stayed in to help the Mexicans that opposed the Mexican Reforms of the 1850s.

Just a comment on how complex the world was in 1860 and how overly extended both France and Britain were in the 1860s (The German Defeat of France in 1870 forced France to admit it was over-extended and concentrated on Europe, Britain had no such reality check till the Boar War of 1900).

[raccoon]

66. Great post! nt

[happyslug]

37. wrong location

n/t

[mucifer]

2. Lincoln stated many times he believe the founding fathers

were ashamed of slavery and wanted it to end in time. He did not want a civil war to end slavery. He was hoping things could change slowly.

[Warpy]

3. I think slavery would have died out eventually

since slaves cost a lot more to maintain than the mechanization happening in the rest of the country would have. The south would have found its slave based economy non competitive. Likely the abolitionists would have managed to sweeten the pot by extending either tax breaks or bonuses for slave owners who freed the slaves and went to mechanized farming.

I think it would have taken many decades, men being reluctant to give up the illusion of being old European aristocracy as evidenced by serfs/slaves working their property, but likely the heirs would have progressively mechanized the plantations in order to remain competitive.

[DBoon]

15. they would have converted "ownership" of slaves into some other form of servitude

something more suited to an industrial society, where they would have the flexibility to grow and shrink the labor force and to re-organize the work process.

Maybe they would have moved towards renting/leasing slaves from some sort of agency.

Industrial capitalism requires a mobile workforce, but it does not require a free workforce.

[immoderate]

16. Kinda like they do now?

:shrug:

--imm

[Warpy]

72. Good points

and likely those things would have been tried, but most slaves would have simply been cut off, here's ya papers, see ya later, got me a new tractor that can do the work of fifty of you guys except at harvest.

An agency would have been stuck supporting them 24/7/365 and having them pay only at harvest time, while "free" labor could have been hired and cut off at will.

[happyslug]

50. The Cotton picking machine was not invented till WWII

While Cotton Picking machines were produced as early as 1889, all were inferior to manual methods till 1941. Thus during WWII you saw the first mass mechanization of Cotton production in the US. On the other hand given the cost of the Machines, the need for them to use water (it was part of how to mechanically pick the cotton) and the fuel to propel the harvester, manual methods were still competitive till 1967, when Congress expanded Minimum wage to agricultural Workers.

Thus till the 1960s, Slavery would have been profitable. Only as farms became bigger did the larger harvesters finally made cotton so cheap you could NOT compete if you used manual methods, thus slavery would have stayed around till the 1970s, then the slaves freed more to make land available for cotton then any other reason (Slaves need to eat, so they planted food when not working the cotton crop).

People tend to forget that while Mississippi is today more White then Black, in the 1920s it was more black then white. Many Blacks moved north during WWII and the movement from manual to mechanical harvesting in the 1950s and 1960s, with the more whites staying then blacks in Mississippi and other Southern States. Many moved do to the lost of their land do to the owner of the land kicking off the share croppers so the owner can used mechanical harvesters. No land, no food, so African Americans moved North to look for work. The Same thing would have happened if slavery had continued after 1865, slaves would have been freed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s as manual methods were replaced by mechanical methods. This freedom would not have been do to an desire to end slavery but to cut out feeding the slaves.

For more see:
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/1/2004_1_36.shtml

[jeff47]

59. Why would they have mechanized?

Expensive labor is what drove mechanization of farming. Slaves are cheaper to operate than machines, and gruel is cheaper than diesel.

[Warpy]

71. Labor at that point was being paid starvation wages

much as farm labor is now, and machinery was still cheaper. It's why farmers using animal power couldn't compete and animals are even cheaper to support than slaves.

Southern plantations wouldn't have been able to compete using slave labor, they'd have been forced to mechanize or go out of business. Or try to secede again, so that their economy would have been a closed one.

[ehrnst]

61. In time - but they still had the precursor of the Tea Party that wanted a separate underclass

and was willing to die to keep blacks from becoming their equals and competitors.

And they really thought that their poverty was temporary, and someday they'd be needing a bunch of slaves to do their work for them.

[Texasgal]

4. I find it so weird

how DU is so obsessed with the civil war. I am a native Texan as well as my grandparents, great grandparents...and they NEVER discussed the civil war. My whole family are natives and we NEVER made a big deal about this.

I think the fascination is weird!

[rfranklin]

6. My public TV station is obsessed as well...

They're playing "The Civil War" tonight.

[mattvermont]

9. The Civil War is on TV

The fascination, however comes from a lot of angles. First: It is a war that saw the premature end to over 600,000 americans in just over 3 years.
Second: There has not been since a more brutal conflict within our own historical context, regardless of the reasons for the war.

My fascination is renewed by the mere history that is our country. The NY times had a Magazine article today about the backstory that led to the wars connection to slavery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/magazine/mag-03CivilWar-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

Such a connection was thrust upon a few individuals on an island in the Chesapeake Bay. Lincoln did not want the war to be defined by the slavery issue (of course he did not want the war at all).

However, William Seward, the president's Secretary of State was able to cut through the political fog of the time and declare in the following from the article:


When Lincoln finally unveiled the Emancipation Proclamation in the fall of 1862, he framed it in Butleresque terms, not as a humanitarian gesture but as a stratagem of war.On the September day of Lincoln’s edict, a Union colonel ran into William Seward, the president’s canny secretary of state, on the street in Washington and took the opportunity to congratulate him on the administration’s epochal act.

Seward snorted. “Yes,” he said, “we have let off a puff of wind over an accomplished fact.”

“What do you mean, Mr. Seward?” the officer asked.

“I mean,” the secretary replied, “that the Emancipation Proclamation was uttered in the first gun fired at Sumter, and we have been the last to hear it.”

[coalition_unwilling]

38. The Civil War era is full of many ironies and much pathos. Here's

one irony that James McPherson has pointed out (in "Battle Cry of Freedom"). Had Robert E. Lee lost the Peninsula campaign to McClellan, the South would have re-entered the Union . . . WITH SLAVERY INTACT! Lee's "victory" (more accurately, Lee's non-defeat) meant that the South would not be able to re-enter the union with slavery intact.

Wrap your minds around that. The South lost by winning and the slaves won their freedom b/c McClellan got his ass whupped. Go figure.

[El Supremo]

10. My Texas ancestors didn't talk much about the "Civil War" either.

But they sure went on and on about Reconstruction.

BTW, they called it The War Between the States. My great grandfather was in the First Texas Cavalry and fought Comanches as much as Yankees.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. I'll bet your ancestors were not too fond of Sherman either (hee hee) - n/t

[El Supremo]

45. You mean Sheridan

He was the military governor at the start of reconstruction. But there are very few places named Sherman or Sheridan in Texas to this day.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. Hah! Wonder what Texas could possibly have against either

Sherman or Sheridan :)

[Mister Ed]

13. 150th Anniversary. Kinda figures the media will run stories about it. nt

[madinmaryland]

20. Might that be because Texas and much of the South still regards the Civil War as

the Northern War of Aggression again the South? The resentment does continue to this day.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. oh and you know this How? broad brush much?

much of the south....???

all of Texas .... ???

[madinmaryland]

30. Yes. I am a shitty painter...

So the Civil War was not the Northern War of Aggression? Why the hell are there so many Confederate Flags still displayed in the South??

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. you are asking me? how the hell do I know why anybody does anything?

how many did you see today?

[madinmaryland]

43. Since you ask. When I was in NoVA three weeks ago, before I left on business

I saw two of them. I was in Washington State for two weeks and I saw no confederate flags.

Not sure where this is going or why. Are you from the south?

[mucifer]

23. It was a major event in the brief history of our nation and this

is a political discussion board. I don't think it's odd that we would discuss it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. it needs its own forum. move over gungeon and I/P

[CTyankee]

58. Oh, mine did. On my mother's side there were transplanted Georgians who

lost their farms because they were unlucky enough to be in the way of Sherman's March to the Sea and just packed up and left for Texas. My mother recalls her father swearing he'd never set foot above the Mason Dixon line but relented when his son graduated from West Point. I never knew him as he died before I was even born but the story was oft told to me by my grandmother and my mother...

[Warpy]

73. I spent my HS years in NC

and, while it wasn't a frequent topic of discussion, it was pervasive, that old grudge being a strong undercurrent in everything southern.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

5. That last one reminded me of something.

Have you ever seen CSA? It's a very crafty movie done in a History Channel documentary style done as if the south had won the war. There are commercials, including one COPS like show called Runaways. Spike Lee was involved in some way. The movie itself is rather hilarious. It is insightful and clever. I recommend it.
Duckie

[Merlot]

21. I tried to watch that movie, thinking it would be funny.

Got about 20 minutes into it and couldn't take it. It was just horrifying. I realize it was satire and I usually love dark humor, but it was to much.

So be aware, some may find it funny, some, not so much.

[raccoon]

67. I just saw it too, and it was horrifying, but you should've held out til the end.

Those advertisements for many of the ridiculous products, such as "Darkie" toothpaste--many of those products were REAL. "Darkie" toothpaste was, but the name was changed to "Darlie." It is still manufactured.

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

[zinnisking]

44. I saw it

or at least parts of it.

One of the commercials was an insurance ad with a gentle female voice-over who said "Confederate Insurance; Protecting your family... And your property" ...As the camera suddenly zooms in on an African American picking weeds out of the garden.

I give the flick a nod as well.

[Recursion]

7. Native born Misssissippian agrees 100% here

I'm not saying the Union had its hands clean (they didn't) but the attempt to whitewash the South is appalling.

Now if only we could write a history that points out all the skeletons in all the closets...

[Hoyt]

8. Heard a right winger on Randi Rhodes' show try to argue some of that junk.

The idiot was giving the states' right argument, notwithstanding the articles of secession from several southern states that clearly indicate the civil war was about maintaining the "right" to own human beings.

Then, the fool argues that white farmers who did not own slaves joined the confederate army. Rhodes did this impression of several poor white farmers sitting around trying to decide if they should fight. One of them says, you know old Mr. Beauregard ain't gonna pick his own cotton -- we better join up.

I detest right wingers that perpetuate these lies about the civil war. They are like "birthers."

[oneshooter]

17. My Great Grandfather and his 5 brothers never owned slaves.

They two were small farmers, sawyer, wood wright,and a carpenter . None had either the money nor the need to own slaves. They were expensive to buy and maintain.
That being said all six joined the "Clarksdale Militia" and went to the defense of Vicksburg. They went not because of slavery, but out of loyalty to the State of Mississippi. Acording to the four journals that I have they went to war because "The Yanks were in Mississippi." Of the six, four survived the war, including my Great Grandfather. Of the other two, one died of disease in Vicksburg, and the other was wounded and taken prisoner. He reportedly died in a Union POW camp.

They fought not for slavery, they had no slaves. But for a loyalty to the state of their birth. If you bother to look, many had more love for their state of birth than for the country. Strange eh?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[NOLALady]

34. I have 3 direct ancestors who fought for the South.

I have no journals, so I must assume they fought for their State as they were not slave owners. Otherwise, I have no clue why they chose to fight. I simply assumed they were drafted.

BTW, one of them also died of disease at Vicksburg.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. Beward the 'intentional fallacy'. Just because your relatives said

they intended to fight to defend their state does not necessarily make their claims true.

Here's what I think, without knowing any of your ancestors or any of mine. America at the time was predominantly rural. I grew up on a farm and, let me tell you, few things are more boring to a strapping boy of 16-18 than sitting around watching the fescue grow. Along comes a war that affords young men the ability to get away from boredom and monotony of the farm and cloak their real motive (getting away from the boredom) in all types of fancy rhetoric about defending states' rights, preserving the Union, abolishing slavery and so on.

Most of those who joined up just wanted an excuse for a little excitement, I imagine. Anything to get away from the boring old farm for awhile and see the world.

Just a thought.

Edited for typos and clarity.

[oneshooter]

57. At the time they were aged 26-37 years old,and were journeymen level craftsmen

Not 18 or so aged young men. The journals are very well written, if a little hard to understand due to the changes in the use of words between now and then. All were at least educated to todays middle school level.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[raccoon]

68. Great, kick-butt post. nt

[Hoyt]

63. The civil war was about slavery -- your ancestors and maybe mine were used by the rich slave owners.

Go read Mississippi's Articles of Secession. Then, tell me it wasn't about owning human beings and abusing them.

Here's just a few lines: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. . . . . . "


Again, your ancestors fought for the slave owners.

[SteveG]

11. You must be watching Ken Burn Civil War

On PBS. it looks like they are going to show the whole series on Sunday Evenings. Every American should watch, especially the TeaParty types. The verbage of the Confederates sounds uncannily like that of the Teabaggers.

[dflprincess]

27. I was surprised that my brother had never seen Burns' Civil War

he called me tonight and asked what I thought would be a better show, the Civil War on PBS or the Kennedy tripe on Reelz.

"Brother dear," I said, "did you enjoy Ken Burns baseball documentary?" He conceded that he had and then shocked me even more when he asked if Burns had done the Civil War documentary (usually he is better informed). Fortunately, that was all it took to convince him PBS was the better choice tonight.

[GKirk]

12. People really think that slavery would have

have continued on til about 1950 if the Civil War hadn't been won by the North?

"To claim that slavery would have ended of its own accord by the mid-20th century is impossible to disprove but difficult to accept."

[RickFromMN]

14. A musical from 1969, the musical's name was "1776", had a song, "Molasses to Rum"

For reference, here is the wiki for the musical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_%28musical%29

Here are the lyrics for the song:
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/1776originalcastrecording/molassestorum.htm

I don't know if the lyrics for the song describe what was actually happening in 1776.
Could a historian comment and tell us if the lyrics to the song represent fact or fiction please?

[Aristus]

19. The Triangle Trade, mentioned in "Molasses To Rum", from Wikipedia:

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

[OHdem10]

18. If all these are myths and I call it a big if, then why did we have

the civil war????

Revisionist History????

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. +1

[MadHound]

28. Because the South wanted to preserve its "peculiar institution", ie slavery.

That is the sole, single reason why the South seceded. Anything else is revisionist history. Don't believe me, go check out the primary documents, the states' Secession declarations. It is all there in black and white.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. nobody in the north owned slaves...........?

only southerners brought over the slaves from Africa............?



indentured servants has such a nicer ring to it...............

[El Supremo]

39. They were not called indentured servants.

They were called "servants" and they were permanent. My Massachusetts ancestors owned some in the 1700s.

Indentured servants were mostly white.

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. Actually, most iterms of indenture were not permanent - that would be absurd.

Nobody would willingly sell himself into permanent bondage.

'Indenture' was obligating one's service, usually in exchange for passage to the Americas or paying off a debt. It was usually for a term of 4 to 7 years. Some, maybe many, who held the contracts made the indenture open-ended by adding rent and sustenance to the original contract, virtually guaranteeing that the servant would not be able to pay off his obligation within the contracted time, much the same way human traffickers do today. Even so, if a servant was able to come up with the cash to buy off the contract the 'owner' was obligated to honor it.

As mentioned elsewhere, the practice died away or was outlawed well before the civil war.

[MadHound]

49. Ah yes, but you forget that in the North, both indentured servitude and slavery

Died out. Slavery was dying out in the South as well until the invention of the cotton gin. When Cotton became King, it was a crop that required massive amounts of human labor, and hence the revival of slavery. Slavery quickly became the economic underpinning of the Southern economy and wealth. This is what was at stake in the South, the continuation of slavery so that the plantation owners could continue to reap the riches.

As witnessed to by the primary source documents of the time everybody in both the North and South realized that the Civil War was about slavery and race subjugation. It wasn't only until after the Civil War do you start coming across arguments stating that the Civil War was about states' rights, tariff rates and other such nonsense.

Again, go back to the primary source documents of the time, do your research, and you will find that yes, the Civil War was about slavery, and not one damn thing else.

[jeff47]

60. At the time of the civil war, both slavery and indentured servitude were illegal in the North. (nt)

[Dan]

36. Agreed!

[coalition_unwilling]

46. Agree with you but with this one caveat. The Southern traitors did

not simply want to 'preserve' slavery, they wanted to expand it beyond its then-current borders. This Lincoln and the North\West alliance simply could not allow. Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to remain within its current borders where, he believed, it would die over time of natural causes. But Lincoln was not willing to allow slavery to expand.

[fishwax]

29. how would these being myths change whether or not we had a civil war

I don't understand your comment, I guess.

[Prophet 451]

53. Because of slavery

We know this because the seceeding states damn well said so.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. yawn

[Dappleganger]

51. The week wouldn't be complete without a good South bashing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Where is the 'south bashing' here?

Since when is facing the singular true cause of the civil war 'south bashing'?

[krispos42]

55. It's quite simple...

...the South, especially the ruling class of the South, the movers and shakers, the plantation owners and the merchants get got rich off of them, spent every day of their lives convincing themselves of their own superiority over the black slaves. Everything was centered around keeping the slaves in their place (the place that God had put them, remember). Terms of address, jokes, dialogue, analogies, etc., were all designed to reinforce in the minds of all white southerners that they were superior and the black slaves inferior. They were OBSESSED with keeping the black slaves from getting "uppity", and the law let them do basically anything they wanted to to them.

So even though the poor whites were getting shafted by the system as well, goddammit, they weren't going to be equal to the blacks! No sirree!






Besides, I bet there would have been a communist revolution in the South if slavery had gone on for a couple of decades longer, regardless of whether the Union stayed whole or the CSA had become an independent nation.

[Zoeisright]

62. All you have to do to figure out why the South seceded

is to READ the articles of secession. Every other word is "slavery".

[Hoyt]

64. Exactly. Those who fought, but didn't own slaves, were used by the rich who did.

[raccoon]

69. Check out the book Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War

"This fast-paced book will be a revelation even to professional historians. Pulling together the latest scholarship with his own research, Williams (A People's History of the Civil War), a professor of history at Valdosta State University, puts an end to any lingering claim that the Confederacy was united in favor of secession during the Civil War. His astonishing story details the deep, often murderous divisions in Southern society. Southerners took up arms against each other, engaged in massacres, guerrilla warfare, vigilante justice and lynchings, and deserted in droves from the Confederate army (300,000 men joined the Union forces). Unionist politicians never stopped battling secessionism. Some counties and regions even seceded from the secessionists. Poor whites resented the large slave owners, who had engineered the war but were exempt from the draft…

http://www.amazon.com/Bitterly-Divided-Souths-Inner-Civil/dp/1595584757/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

[GeorgeGist]

70. How's that "more perfect union" thing ...

working for you?

[Romulox]

75. Not much has changed. The South is *still* fighting an economic battle for cheap labor

In modern times, the stoop labor being exploited is largely Latino. But many of the same dynamics remain.