150 Years ago today

[Dutch]

Guess what happened?

[Flying Orca]

American Civil War started, I think.

[Norman Bernstein]

And it never really ended:



WHISTLING PAST DIXIE.... On the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, CNN released a poll that suggests some of the issues related to the conflict "still divide the public (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/)."

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Tuesday, roughly one in four Americans said they sympathize more with the Confederacy than the Union, a figure that rises to nearly four in ten among white Southerners.

When asked the reason behind the Civil War, whether it was fought over slavery or states' rights, 52 percent of all Americas said the leaders of the Confederacy seceded to keep slavery legal in their state, but a sizeable 42 percent minority said slavery was not the main reason why those states seceded. [...]

When broken down by political party, most Democrats said southern states seceded over slavery, independents were split and most Republicans said slavery was not the main reason that Confederate states left the Union.
The regional differences (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/11/rel6b.pdf) were especially striking. Respondents were asked, "When you think about the Civil War, if you had to choose, would you say that you sympathize more with the northern states that were part of the Union or the southern states that were part of the Confederacy?" Support for the Union was overwhelming in the Midwest (68%), Northeast (79%), and West (84%), but in the South, only 48% said they were more inclined to sympathize with the Union.

That's not good.

As for the politics, Jamelle Bouie explained (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2011&base_name=republicans_and_the_civil_war), "From voters to elected officials, the Republican Party is dominated by white Southerners, particularly those from the Deep South. What's more, and for incredibly obvious reasons, white Southerners are most likely to sympathize with the Confederacy and its decision to secede from the Union. When considered together, it's no real surprise to learn that Republicans are most likely to disagree with the notion that slavery drove the Southern states to split from the North."

[Taylor Tarvin]

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/apr/12/e-pluribus-unum/

Even the local Charleston paper had an interesting aspect concerning the start of the Civil War.

[Bob Cleek]

Every fifty years or so, the South needs to be reminded that they lost.

[Greg Nolan]

Five myths about why the South seceded

By James W. Loewen, Washington Post, Saturday, February 26, 12:01 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story_1.html

One hundred fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it --- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even about why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles --- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox --- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

**1. The South seceded over states' rights.* *

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed
to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states'
rights --- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina's secession convention
adopted a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify
the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." It noted "an
increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the
institution of slavery" and protested that Northern states had failed to
"fulfill their constitutional obligations" by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states' rights, birthed the Civil War.

South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed "slavery transit." In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer ---
and South Carolina's delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected
that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist
societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right
to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said
threatened slavery.

Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. "Our position is thoroughly
identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. "Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

The South's opposition to states' rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal
government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states'
rights. Doing so preserves their own.

**2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.* *

During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations --- the terrible years
after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white
"sundown towns" and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting --- "anything but slavery" explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, "the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure," The Washington Post reported.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/21/AR2010122105341.html>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001715.html>

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.* *

Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and
that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from
Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy
parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.

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.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html>

Second and more important, belief in white supremacy provided a rationale for slavery. As the French political theorist Montesquieu observed wryly in 1748: "It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians." Given this belief, most white Southerners --- and many Northerners, too --- could not envision life in black-majority states such as South Carolina and Mississippi unless blacks were in chains. Georgia Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, trying to persuade the Virginia Legislature to leave the Union, predicted race war if slavery was not protected. "The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy." Thus, secession would maintain not only slavery but the prevailing ideology of white supremacy as well.

**4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.* *

Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was
the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation
together. Abolition came later.

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

However, Lincoln's own anti-slavery sentiment was widely known at the
time. In the same letter, he went on: "I have here stated my purpose
according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." A month later, Lincoln combined official duty and private wish in his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

White Northerners' fear of freed slaves moving north then caused Republicans to lose the Midwest in the congressional elections of
November 1862.

Gradually, as Union soldiers found help from black civilians in the South and black recruits impressed white units with their bravery, many
soldiers --- and those they wrote home to --- became abolitionists. By 1864, when Maryland voted to end slavery, soldiers' and sailors' votes
made the difference.

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

Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them --- or forced them to abandon slavery?

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.

As we commemorate the sesquicentennial of that war, let us take pride
this time --- as we did not during the centennial --- that secession on
slavery's behalf failed.

*jloewen@uvm.edu*

Sociologist *James W. Loewen *is the author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me"
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743296281?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-opinions-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0743296281>
and co-editor, with Edward Sebesta, of "The Confederate and
Neo-Confederate Reader."
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1604732199?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-opinions-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1604732199>

[S.V. Airlie]

oops Did not realize this one was here..Sorry.

[Taylor Tarvin]

Every fifty years or so, the South needs to be reminded that they lost.

Good luck with that.

ps I am not a local, I am fully aware who won and lost.:d

[CK 17]

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.
>

Hee Hee Hee, still hoping after all these years. . . . .

[S.V. Airlie]

So can anyone remember who the commander was at Fort Sumter?

[Keith Wilson]

In their own words:


A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. (1861)

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[Bruce Hooke]

It is maybe worth noting that a lot of northerners were earning a good living (and some were getting quite wealthy) making cotton fabric from the cotton grown in the South and as a result there were some up north who were more than a little ambivalent about slavery so the institution of slavery helped to make their livelihood possible as well.

[Phillip Allen]

the semantical argument will never end except for those who do not have preconceived ideas

[Taylor Tarvin]

So can anyone remember who the commander was at Fort Sumter?

Robert Anderson, PTG Beauregards artillery instructor at West Point.

[Taylor Tarvin]

the semantical argument will never end except for those who do not have preconceived ideas

It is a bit difficult not to have preconcieved ideas when it comes to the most written about war in history that occured 150 years ago.

[S.V. Airlie]

Taylor correct..Col. Anderson and you went a step further pointing out PTG's relationship with Anderson..

[Gerarddm]

Bingo. Southern Republicans are the bane of the country's existence. It was a neat trick to morph from southern Democrats over the last 150 years but they did a thorough job.

[Phillip Allen]

It is a bit difficult not to have preconcieved ideas when it comes to the most written about war in history that occured 150 years ago.

why is that...do you suppose?

[S.V. Airlie]

It is maybe worth noting that a lot of northerners were earning a good living (and some were getting quite wealthy) making cotton fabric from the cotton grown in the South and as a result there were some up north who were more than a little ambivalent about slavery so the institution of slavery helped to make their livelihood possible as well. Bruce..you forgot the UK in your argument.

[purri]

Manchester cotton millers in particular.

[Osborne Russell]

Everybody is equal, everybody is a racist, and that's why the Republicans were abolitionsts and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery or even with racism.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Guess what happened?

The Wheelchair was invented?

[Dutch]

The Wheelchair was invented?


why is it that the self professed reformed drunks on this forum are the ones most full of hate?

does anyone have an answer?

[Bob Cleek]

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

Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them --- or forced them to abandon slavery?

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."

Gee, that sounds a lot like our current immigration policy. Pay subsistence wages to a captive workforce and reap the profits. Of course, we just don't call 'em "slaves" anymore.

[Dutch]

What are the immigrants captives of
Cleek? Our generous welfare benefits?

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

why is it that the self professed reformed drunks on this forum are the ones most full of hate?

does anyone have an answer?


Sure, I do. You don't really want answers do you?

[Dutch]

dry drunk syndrome

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

See? I thought so, you have have all the answers.

[Chris Coose]

why is it that the self professed reformed drunks on this forum are the ones most full of hate?

does anyone have an answer?

One thing we have in common is we use our full names. Never hiding behind anonymity, multiple personality or false handicap.
That transparency might give you a hint that you ain't gonna get far bulsh!tting bullsh!tters.

[Glen Longino]

The Wheelchair was invented?

:D:D
Argentina was discovered!!!

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Manchester cotton millers in particular.

Up to a point, Lord Copper!

Manchester cotton mill owners tended to favour the South.

Their workers, on the other hand, mostly backed Abolition, and hence the Union, although the Civil War had the effect of cutting down on cotton supplies and this threw many of them out of work.

You will ask whether the Manchester industrial proletariat were politically aware and whether they had the vote with which to make their opinions known.

The answer is that yes, they were pretty politically aware, and those who did not have the vote under the Great Reform Act were in the process of getting the vote under Disraeli's Reform Act. Religion comes into this in quite a big way and the Dissenting churches were strongly Abolitionist.

(I can bore for England on this, on the basis of a sixth form essay that I wrote forty years ago under a talented, left wing, Canadian history teacher... )

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Robert Anderson, PTG Beauregards artillery instructor at West Point.

Anderson was pro-slavery and had at one time owned slaves, though he did not own any in 1861.

(Courtesy of a BBC radio programme yesterday - do I get a bonus mark?)

[Taylor Tarvin]

oznabrag, it's that memory thing again, thanks for the correction.

Andrew, bonus marks for you and BBC.

Philip, The normal high school student graduates at 18 years of age. During thier time in school they have probably had two courses in American history. Due to time constraints and material to be covered these tend to be ,covering major events but not much in great detail. These students may go to college where they can elect to take a more detailed course in specific areas of American history or may decide they want to do that on thier own. During thier time in school they have been bombarded with movies/tv programs, books/novels, magazine articales etc. Some of what they are exposed to will have historical accuracy, some will be pure drivel, devoid of fact. All that information is going to help form a notion (preconcieved idea) whether informed or not. Add to that regional difference in the view of the war and some can come up with wild ideas before ever begining an honest and indepth study of a very complicated affair.

[S.V. Airlie]

Taylor..so true... Five pages on WW2 does not call for any in depth knowledge of our history...One line or a paragraph on the League of Nations does not come close to telling students about the league except with a broad brush.. Most history books is just overviews. I took one course at college on the Crimean War..nothing else..The entire semester on one war..Obviously one that went in depth....
And TV and even channels like the History Channels, I have found to be incorrect...The Patriot..(movie)..has some similarities to an individual who was known for his treatment of the revolutionaries and therefore, in some sense, matched a character in the movie but in real life..this was not an in depth study of the war.. Stictly for entertainment.

[purri]

Up to a point, Lord Copper!

Manchester cotton mill owners tended to favour the South.

Their workers, on the other hand, mostly backed Abolition, and hence the Union, although the Civil War had the effect of cutting down on cotton supplies and this threw many of them out of work.

You will ask whether the Manchester industrial proletariat were politically aware and whether they had the vote with which to make their opinions known.

The answer is that yes, they were pretty politically aware, and those who did not have the vote under the Great Reform Act were in the process of getting the vote under Disraeli's Reform Act. Religion comes into this in quite a big way and the Dissenting churches were strongly Abolitionist.

(I can bore for England on this, on the basis of a sixth form essay that I wrote forty years ago under a talented, left wing, Canadian history teacher... )

I inferred that it was the mill owners as the economics of transporting cotton from India were unfavourable and yes I acknowledge that the electoral Act(s) and the dissenting churches were a large factor in support for the North (esp as English banks were loaning millions for industry including the westward expansion of the US railroad system.

Tuchman makes for an interesting read.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Guess what happened?

You was born and wrapped in swaddling cloths and laid in a manger full of sheep poop.

[Osborne Russell]

Excellent post, Mr. Cleek.