"The South Still Lies About The Civil War" (pretending the war wasn't about slavery)

[applegrove]

The South Still Lies About The Civil War

By Tracy Thompson at Salon

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

"SNIP...................................................


At the bottom of all of these is one basic question: was the Civil War about slavery, or states’ rights?

Popular opinion favors the latter theory. In the spring of 2011, in recognition of the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, pollsters at the Pew Research Center asked: “What is your impression of the main cause of the Civil War?” Thirty-eight percent of the respondents said the main cause was the South’s defense of an economic system based on slavery, while nearly half—48 percent—said the nation sacrificed some 650,000 of its fathers, sons, and brothers over a difference of interpretation in constitutional law. White non-Southerners believed this in roughly the same proportion as white Southerners, which was interesting; even more fascinating was the fact that 39 percent of the black respondents, many of them presumably the descendants of slaves, did, too.

We pause here to note that wars are complex events whose causes can never be adequately summed up in a phrase, that they can start out as one thing and evolve into another, and that what people think they are fighting for isn’t always the cause history will record. Yet, as Lincoln noted in his second inaugural address, there was never any doubt that the billions of dollars in property represented by the South’s roughly four million slaves was somehow at the root of everything, and on this point scholars who don’t agree about much of anything else have long found common ground. “No respected historian has argued for decades that the Civil War was fought over tariffs, that abolitionists were mere hypocrites, or that only constitutional concerns drove secessionists,” writes University of Virginia historian Edward Ayers. Yet there’s a vast chasm between this long-established scholarly consensus and the views of millions of presumably educated Americans, who hold to a theory that relegates slavery to, at best, incidental status. How did this happen?

One reason boils down to simple convenience—for white people, that is. In his 2002 book “Race and Reunion,” Yale historian David Blight describes a national fervor for “reconciliation” that began in the 1880s and lasted through the end of World War I, fueled in large part by the South’s desire to attract industry, Northern investors’ desire to make money, and the desire of white people everywhere to push “the Negro question” aside. In the process, the real causes of the war were swept under the rug, the better to facilitate economic partnerships and sentimental reunions of Civil War veterans.

...................................................SNIP"

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Thanks fascinating reading

My social science book in fourth grade in Mexico stated the cause was slavery, but that many Americans still thought it was states rights. It struck me as odd phrasing, I only got it when I attended an American University where a couple kids from the south got into a screaming match with my prof. He happened to have been born and raised in Athens Georgia. He also marched with MLK and ultimately ended leaving the south.

So after class this curious foreigner asked about that. It was truly the first and last time I heard people calling a tenured professor a traitor.

[applegrove]

2. I didn't know it was that bad. I learnt it was slavery but the south digressed (in canada).

Talk about living in denial. And it isn't like you can meet halfway to come to some sort of understanding as we did with the two solitudes in Canada. Slavery as an institution was a monstrosity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. My prof told me stories

He grew up in a very liberal family. Starting in the 1950s dad started getting death threats for being a "nigger lover." I am quoting him.

After he marched with MLK during freedom summer, one of the few in the South, dad sent him off to the University of Chicago. Five years later he found the death threats against the family. He never went back. He realized his father got all the kids out...prep and university schools were a way to get them out.

He specialized in American History, he used inter library for his research, as well as ways he found to get access to documents...and these kids, these two punks.

Anyway think progress has a tape of a young CPAC attendee telling an AA that it was his heritage under attack, and that we needed separate elections. It brought me back....instantly....to that day in class.

[applegrove]

4. Really tough to get through if that is the filter many in the South are looking through.

Of course they get taken advantage of my gop hucksters for not knowing their own selves. I said in a post a few months ago that the south seems to have stayed mad after the Civil War. When you get sad is when you take stock of reality and accept the bad things within yourself and reconnect to a new world where you will do better. You grow. If the South has not done this they bounce from being delusionally happy (where there is no problem) and delusionally mad (where you don't accept the problem). They never learn. And the cycle just goes on and on. For sure I don't mean everybody in the South. But you can make some judgements about the body politic in the south.

[cordelia]

7. So now it's time for some South bashing?

"delusionally (sic) mad"

"They never learn."

The bigotry just never ends.

[applegrove]

9. Happy people are slightly delusional. Angry people don't learn. Sad is where it is at.

Last edited Tue Mar 19, 2013, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Sad people are more perceptive. It is a thing in psychology. You don't learn when you don't see a problem because you are happy or you don't learn when you are mad because you are in protect thyself or give me more territory mode. Have you not seen many confederate flags and race hate in the South. Those are signs of not learning.

[cordelia]

12. The only people I've encountered who insist on fighting the Civil War all over again

are people who don't live here, outside a few who do Civil War enactments. And the last one of them I knew personally died in the 1980s.



ETA: Trashing this thread.

[Fawke Em]

14. Agreed.

I never hear any neighbors, friends or co-workers discuss the Civil War in Tennessee. I read about it mostly on, well, here.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Tennessee was more into the whole "put a dead animal on your head" thing...

[Sissyk]

33. Bullseye!

Goodness! DU is the only place I ever see the Civil War mentioned. Once a year we can hear the cannons at the re-enactments for the Battle of Franklin.

[coldmountain]

42. This article is on Salon where is generated over 12 pages of comments

The Civil War won't be over until the South actually surrenders and admits it was wrong.

[Fawke Em]

11. It has more to do with our media down here, in truth.

When I was growing up in Tennessee, I rarely saw a Confederate battle flag. Racism was publicly chided, etc.

Now, with the lack of progressive - or even non-biased - news and talk in the South, many live in a bubble and have reverted back to 1950s racism, but some of us have broken out of that bubble.

We're not that much different. For example, all four of the largest cities in Tennessee have Democrats for mayors, but the state, ruled by rural gerrymandering, is controlled completely by Teahadists. The only difference between Tennessee and Pennsylvania is that our four largest cities are not as large as the two huge cities in Pennsylvania to make up the difference.

[Lars39]

20. I had the same experience here.

As an adult I've realized how beat down economically the state has been from the Civil War and then the Great Depression. My theory is that the Civil War was so horrific that people wouldn't talk about it that much. Lost oral history left a vacuum that the war glorifies were able to fill.

[Fawke Em]

5. Actually, what people tend to overlook is that states rights were

what was used to convince the poor whites to fight for the wealthy. Most of the young men killed in that war weren't wealthy enough to rub two coins together, much less own slaves. Why should they fight for the wealthy land owners that, even in that day, squeezed the economic life out of the poorer of those around them? Well, because "if we don't fight for states rights, we'll lose our CULTURE. Our TRADITION."

And, therefore, that's why so many believe that it was states rights and that it is a valid opinion. To many who fought in that war, it WAS about states rights because that's what they were told and that's what they believed.

Don't believe me?

How about this one: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and planned 9/11 with Bin Laden.

[applegrove]

6. So true.

[Fawke Em]

8. And, many good people in the South still believe that because they AREN'T

racist and don't want to believe their ancestors were duped.

Kind of like what we're seeing in the aftermath of the Iraqi War. Only, with communications such as they are, the truth has a better chance of coming out sooner.

[johnnyreb]

18. They told us we were fitin' for freedom.

That's on my profile page. There's a lot of Blue down hyeah in Columbia South Carolina, capital of the former Confederacy. 'Specially since Haley. We thank y'all kindly for hep keepin' our supply lines up at every opportunity.

[ThoughtCriminal]

23. There were also told that if the slaves were free

They would take their jobs, steal what little property they had, murder and rape their families. Huge effort was put into spreading that fear among poor southerners.

After the war, the KKK pretty much took that belief and ran with it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. The burning of Atlanta backed up the whole "War of Northern Aggression" meme...

I've run into Southerners who believe the North invaded and were beaten back but then Lee betrayed them and surrendered.

[lonestarnot]

10. Pugs have an adversity to root causes of any fucking thing.

[iemitsu]

13. What an excellent article, Applegrove.

I hope others take the time to read it.
I was schooled in the north and was taught a version of the Civil War history that the DOC pushed. The social and psychological reasons for the south to highlight the "state's rights" aspect of the war rather than the defense of slavery makes so much sense, especially for the generation that had survived the war. The efforts of the DOC to rewrite history has met with much success and puts into question the old adage that the winners write the history.

[Sunlei]

15. Things would have been different today if reconstruction wasn't stopped.

Why use just theory when we have stockpiles of actual state,federal and family records of what actually happened to Americas freed slaves?

At first like any other fresh new immigrant to America- they were, on their path to the American dream. What immigrant group were ever crushed like the newly freed group were? History never reports the entire truth and so America can never heal that wound.

This documentary based on historical facts opened my eyes.

http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch/

[eShirl]

37. +1

thanks, I was only able to see part of that before but it was good

[msongs]

16. there were no slaves in the south. it's all a yankee lie to suppress white people :-) nt

[Orrex]

17. When I'm told that the war was about the tariff or whatever...

I always mention The Cornerstone Speech.

[freshwest]

25. Glad you brought that to this thread. I've posted about it before. Never forget history.

This is the true treason of the South, that is never acknowledged.

The anti-Federal Reserve crowd, etc. try to shift away from this, call it all some international scheme, that all Presidents were in on it since Hamilton, even that Lincoln started the war for the bankers. That's an endless CT.

That proclaimation was the reason, and it's no use dancing around the bush. The South left the Union because they did not believe in human equality. Those who follow this line have proven it over and over again since then.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. My response is always "States' rights to do what?" n/t

[ThoughtCriminal]

21. History classes in Alabama

I grew up in Alabama in the mid 60's to 70's. The repeated theme in was that the in the "War between the States slavery was one of many causes"... I believe that it has deteriorated in recent years as neo-Confederate revisionists have gained more control over the curriculum.

I'm a bit surprised that the historical distortions have spread outside the region

I've had this debate many times and found that many of my southern friends and family have picked up some astonishingly inaccurate information about the war. Here's a sampling of "Facts" believed by many of them:

- It was all about tariffs (Except for the tariffs the southern states wanted. Take a look at the Articles of Succession for the each of the Confederate States)

- It was about "States rights" - (Really which ones?)

- Tens of thousands of black soldiers fought for the Confederacy (Not even close to reality - in the last weeks of the war, the Confederate Legislature allowed recruitment of black soldiers. In total it was a handful of men recruited from orderlies at a hospital. The account of thousands seems to originate from slaves confiscated or bought by the Confederate Army and used as slave labor.

- Very few Southerners owned slaves (Some statistical games here - when you only count the head of household as the owner, and families were very large it makes the percentage seem small. If you look at the percentage of families who owned slaves, it's a substantial block - and the only people who really had any influence)

- There were Union States that had Slavery. (Yes, but slave ownership was generally much lower in those states, most repealed it before the end of the war and most significantly, no Free State joined the Confederacy.)

- Slavery was not about race anyway - there were black slave owners. (A very tiny percentage, and in the overwhelming majority of those cases, it was actually a free man purchasing members of his own family. Southern laws made it increasingly difficult to free a slave - so on paper, they were still "slave owners".)

- My great-great grandfather and is brothers fought in the war, but they didn't have any slaves, so the war couldn't have been about slavery. I tell them:

1) It''s funny how about one out three families in the south owned slaves, but nobody has any ancestors who did. It's just not something that became part of the family history.
2) Even if your Confederate ancestor dd no own slaves, it might be because because his father was the owner. One estimate is that 50% of soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia were from slave owning families.
3) Yeah, and the Iraq War was not about oil because the soldiers didn't own Exxon. Slave owners ran southern politics. Period.
4) Were they also deserters? That part doesn't get mentioned in family history either. Never met any Sons of Confederate Deserters.
5) There was a huge amount of propaganda - and not just in the South, about the terrible things that slaves would do if they escaped or were freed. It was commonly believed that former of fugitive slaves would steal your property, rape and murder. Even if people did not own slaves, they were terrified of the idea of slave rebellion or abolition.
6) It was incredibly dangerous to be anti-slavery in the South. You had to "watch what you say".

[freemay20]

22. Slavery was secondary

I hate to say it, but the main reason for the start of the Civil War (per what I studied in college and have read later here in life) was actually the cotton trade. England and Europe as a whole needed more cotton because of the unrest in India and Africa at the time. A large push was on to allow the southern states ship directly without getting the exports approved and taxed/tariffed by the US Gov't.

The English supported the southern states and thus, there was reason for the rest of the Union to blockade the ports of the south. England and at times, other European countries tried to send supplies and support in the way of arms to the southern states in the dispute.

Slavery did play into the war but only after the North felt it needed a stronger cause to stir support against the southern states. It was the "personal" spin on the war used initially only to get support and to circumvent some of the laws in the way. Once it became a "human rights" issue for the times and the wanted result was achieved (of support), the issue was then taken seriously because of the public outcry against slavery.

I, being a transplanted Yank living in the south, do understand what you say about the attitude that there never was a civil. There was however a "War of Northern Aggression", as it is commonly called in Richmond and the Raleigh areas.

I hope everyone has a great day and equality to all.

[Zoeisright]

26. Oh bullSHIT.

Read the articles of secession. Every other word is "slave". I am sick to death of this fucking revisionist bullshit. What the FUCK do you think THIS means???

"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.

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.

ETCETERA.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp



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

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Zoe is right again.

[freemay20]

32. Blah blah blah

No revisionist changes going on here. Maybe you should educate yourself and enlighten yourself to the HISTORY of what was going on before the articles of succession. Then you might get a broader look at the truth. Please come out from under your bubble of self-importance and learn real American history, not just history as you want people to conform to.

[LanternWaste]

39. You may want to (re)read the individual articles of secession from each of the eleven states

You may want to (re)read the individual articles of secession from each of the original seven states making up the Confederacy, and note that the one overlapping concern written into the articles of each was slavery. Additionally, if one looks at the confederate constitution, it's an almost verbatim replica of the US constitution with the *only* distinction between them being several explicit protections of the institution of slavery.


Also, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, in his infamous Cornerstone Speech of March of 1861 said, "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition..."


And that is most certainly not "history as you want people to conform to". It is however, history. On the other hand, revisionist history, at least in this context, does pretend to conclude that the civil war was indeed fought over states rights. Which is odd, because the confederate constitution allowed *fewer* rights to its people (including an internal passport system, and that mere *belief* (regardless of action or inaction taken on behalf of the belief) of the Northern cause was in fact considered treason against the state).

[Paladin]

35. Neo-Confederate Propaganda.

The "slavery was secondary" notion didn't gain any traction until the 20th century-era civil rights movement, when segregationist southern politicians needed to cover their asses. And if you're going to give credence to the "War of Northern Aggression" concept, you've revealed more about yourself than you probably intended---unfortunately. Enjoy your stay.

[freemay20]

38. Do you have any comprehension?

If you read what I wrote , you will see I did not give any credence to the "war of Northern Aggression". I stated it is what is said in certain areas of the country, not that I gave it any merit. So please stop distorting something so that your off base comment may appear to have any form of logical response. Since your antecedent is completely wrong (the assumption I gave credence to W of N A ) your consequent is totally off base rendering the point you made as moot. Thank you for wishing I enjoy my stay, if I were as ass -uming as you are I would say that statement reveals a lot about you. LMAO

[Paladin]

40. Stay classy. (nt)

[RZM]

36. Egypt actually did quite well during the civil war

They made tons selling cotton because trade with the American south was disrupted. When that trade resumed, their finances went into the toilet. The ensuing fiscal crisis resulted in British and French meddling and ultimately culminated in Britain essentially taking over the place less than 20 years later.

[XRubicon]

45. Read this

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time


http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

[davidn3600]

24. It's both and more...

There were a lot of issues surrounding that war. Slavery was one, state rights were another, trade was another, taxes and tariffs were another. Supreme Court decisions were another. There were many other little things too.

Like the article says, wars are many times quite complex. They are rarely sparked on one issue alone. There is usually a list of issues that stretch over time that culminate into conflict when the camel's back finally breaks. Slavery was a big part of the civil war. There is no doubt about that. But that wasn't what started the war and it wasn't the only reason it was fought. Lincoln was a smart man and used slavery as a wedge issue to unite the North and convince them to fight the South.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. Look at the absolute PANIC over a black President....

The Civil War was all about writing into LAW the superiority of white people over black people.

That is NOT going to happen. EVER.

And it's driving a lot of these people out of their minds.

[theHandpuppet]

31. I assume the Articles of Secession aren't part of the curriculum

Such as these...

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#SouthCarolina

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas

[magellan]

44. +1 - It's all on display right there n/t

[WilliamPitt]

34. For Lincoln, it was about preserving the Union

The same could be said for many Union soldiers. There were riots in NYC over the draft because people did not want to fight for the Black man's freedom. The war was surely about slavery for a great many abolitionist statesmen of the time - Salmon Chase, Thaddeus Stevens, etc. - as well as many Union soldiers, but to say the whole thing was about slavery for everyone misreads history.

[jeff47]

41. It was about state's rights.....to own slaves. (nt)

[Honeycombe8]

43. I think it was about both, AND about the economy.

Not sure if the Civil War would've happened, if eliminating slavery wouldn't have benefited the north greatly. AND state's rights is still an issue, as we saw in the news in 2012. AND there were plenty of people against the immorality of slavery.

I think it was all those things. Which one was the top one may depend on you asked at the time.

But I do know that, like now, the soldiers fighting the war may or may not have believed in the war. They were forced to fight eventually. Not sure if it started out as a draft. And some volunteered for the pay.Altho I'm sure some did fight for the cause, whichever side they were on.