The Civil War

[Evil Alpaca]

Civil War?
Who won?

 

[china-doll]

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. 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." – August 22, 1862 – A. Lincoln

(Note my highlighting)

Christ Burley, you really are the Google Queen of the AH.

But yes, that's my point exactly. Lincoln's first objective was always to save the Union. Freeing the slaves was only a means to an end for Lincoln. It was a convienent tool to keep the major European powers out of the war. But as has been noted above it was a double edged sword. The New York Draft Riots were staged largely my Irish imagrants. The Irish competed with the free blacks for the lowest paying jobs, hence their unwillingness to fight in a war that was now being prrtrayed as a war to end slavery. But overall, the need to keep Europe out of the war was one of Lincoln's highest objectives. If England and France came to the aid of the South, the North never would have won.

 

[R. Richard]

But yes, that's my point exactly. Lincoln's first objective was always to save the Union. Freeing the slaves was only a means to an end for Lincoln. It was a convienent tool to keep the major European powers out of the war. But as has been noted above it was a double edged sword. The New York Draft Riots were staged largely my Irish imagrants. The Irish competed with the free blacks for the lowest paying jobs, hence their unwillingness to fight in a war that was now being prrtrayed as a war to end slavery. But overall, the need to keep Europe out of the war was one of Lincoln's highest objectives. If England and France came to the aid of the South, the North never would have won.

china-doll:
You have stumbled into a very key piece of understanding the civil war, slavery and economics.

Along the banks of the Mississippi River, there tended to be high bluffs where the river had worn its way down. Negro slaves would haul bales of cotton to the tops of the bluffs. The Negro slaves would then slide the bales of cotton down flumes to the river below so that the cotton could then be carried by riverboats. As you might imagine, the job of gathering in the bales at the bottom of the flume was very dangerous. The bales were heavy and could either slide very fast or even tumble with the potential to injure the Irishmen at the bottom of the flumes.

Why did they not use Negro slaves at the bottom of the flumes? Negro slaves were valuable. They were, as I have previously stated, worth a whole year's gross earnings for a skilled workman. Nobody was going to risk a valuable Negro slave at the bottom of the flume. Irishmen, on the other hamd were free. If one of them got injured or crippled, there was always another Mick to take his place.

The Irishmen disliked the Negroes. Perhaps not so much out of predjudice, but out of economic fear. If the Negroes were freed, there would be other, hungry men willing to work the hard, dangerous jobs.

While I would not want to be a slave, there were some definite advantages to being a slave.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Civil War?
Who won?

Ken Burns

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

Thank you for you're response.

I actually have heard many of the arguemnts of the other side- and only recently have I approached it from the African-American and slave point of view. I believe that the slaves knew much more about what was really going on than even the slave holders, let alone what they wanted to admit. I believe in studying the history of slavery from the point of veiw of the slaves, and the history of Native American's from the point of view of the Native Americans, ect. I would give Sitting Bull's autobiogrophy or recorded words more consideration than a white schollar of the subject.

Did the slave holders know about other slaves teaching each other to read in secret? Did they know about travel and information routes amoung the slaves? Yes, many slaves could not read, but I think it is unfair to paint the picture that all or most slaves were illiterate, unlearned and ignorant. As many have noted, slaves found it politic to pretend to be ignorant, to hide what they knew. To pretend to be content. And to find whatever little happyness their lives afforded them.

I'm sorry that I am just an ignorant liberal northerner. I guess as long as I beleive the words of former slaves over the words of former slave owners I will always be viewed that way. I have posted thoughts to support my views, and to show that i did not make them up out of my mind. Although I don't have extensive years of study on the subject, please do not take this to mean that I have never read, heard or studied any other point of view on the topic. My reading and interests are varied. I have read extensive material from the KKK's own website. I am not afraid to read an opposing point of view.

I thank you for your considerate response. My response here refects my reaction to the thread so far, and not just what you have said. But I do have a desire to know the truth- however no one will ever know the absolute truth, I will have to content myself with aquiring knowlege.

This thread has basicly gone off the topic of the civil war to the topic of slavery, which was not what it was meant to be. My comments about slavery are really not concerning my oppinions of the civil war- unless specifically stated, the topic just got changed.

If you want to study slavery from the view of a slave that's quite admirable. You should however realize, there are practically no credible, contemporary accounts of life from that point of view up to 1865. There are a few, and you can make extensive use of them, but remember too, these accounts are written by ex slaves, in general for an audience of abolishionists.

There exists a more substantial volume of work by freed slaves who have learned to write and by those chronicling them. This too is a fairly select volume of work and must be taken in the knowledge most of thoem also have an agenda.

Contemporary accounts of life on a plantation exist, in general with a biase towards soft pedaling the issue of slavery. Contemporary accounts from southerners of all walks of life exist, many written in the form of letters & diaries that were not meant for publication and in all likelyhood don't contain the degree of concious self editing or unconcious agenda common in many accounts intended for an audience.

Factual documents exist, in the form of bils of sell, bills of lading, budgets, production notebooks, etc.

I point all this out to say simply you can't just study slavery. Even working from primary sources, the volume is too small and the reporters too biased, to give an accurate overall view. If you wish to study it, you have to take an overall and interdisciplnary approach.

For example, if you are interested in slavery, there is currently an archeoloical excavation of three period slave huts on an island off the coast of Gerogia. From the level of habitation that coinsides with the period slaves lived there, they have found a lot of artifacts that tend to say the occupants lived well. There is evidence the house had glass windows, evidence the children had toys, the striking flint from a french musket is most intrigueing, possibly coboborating the theory that these slaves at least, were able to keep a fowling piece to supplament their diets. The refuse pits show a large percentage of bones from wild game, indicating they were far better fed than previously expected. You should check it out.

Your statement about a large incidence of mixed ancestory chilren being born is easily proveable or disproveable. Any child of a slave mother is a slave. Slaves also tended to be denoted by the percentage of non african blood they had, with Quadroons, octaroon, and less frequently high yellar being denoted. Simply look up the records that have survived of the various big pantations. By subtracting the number of slaves purchasced in any year, and making a note of deaths if avialable or contemporary mortality features for the era, you can estimate the natural increase. Across the sampling avialable, you may be able to prove or disprove your asumption. You can't do that if you wish to view slavery from the slaves point of view only. You have to use records and other primary sources that are outside of the information avialable from primary african sources.

You cannot ever get to the absolute, indisputeable truth, because history, despite its reliance on facts, is interperative.

A fine example would be a Civil War battle like Antietam. The facts are there as to exactly what happened, not only the overall military account, but eyewitness accounts and follow up archeology. The question however has never been who had what troops or who attacked where and when. The question has always been how McClellan got his butt handed to him when he held every advantage, including a captured copy of Lee's order of battle and plans. For that, you must take what you know of the facts and form an interperative opinion.

How you interperet the facts and I interpret the facts is likely to differ, thus you have two people arguing about the exact same facts, with neither disputing them, but both sure the other is wrong.

Slavery has to be studied for what it was, an economic system, existing with in a context of a certain society and georgraphical area. To study the history, you can't even attempt to make pronouncements without disciplines like archeotlogy, anthropolgy and linguistics providing anciallary proofs. You have to take the widest possible range of interpretation, judge each school of thought versus the others and what you know. Apply the factual record as well as new discoveries from related fields, and distill all of it to get at the truth, as far as you can tell.

As a historian, I read from as wide a selection as I can across whatever I am studying. I apply what I know of the facts as well as on the spot research of the facts as stated in any treastice. I quickly find myself discounting a large volume of what I see as philosophy and or poli-sci. The opinion of the author often blatantly at odds with the historical record or the archeology or both.

Be wary of an author who presents partial facts, especially when more is known. Be especially warray of one who neglects to mention facts that run counter to his thesis. It generally indicates you are getting political opinion at worst or the author simply dosen't understand or adhere to the methodology of studying history.

I believe most slaves couldn't read. And most were unlearned. To believe otherwise is to ignore the historical record IMHO. What you are doing is making the illogical leap, that stateing they were in the majority unlearned and illiterate, is making the statement they were unintelligent. Flowing from that, you are trying to counter with statements they were intelligent, which is also part of the historical record. Slaves kept an oral tradition, much of it centered on their religious beliefs & myth cycles from whatever part of africa their forefathrs hailed from. They developed music and a hybrid religion taking parts of their native beliefs and adding roman catholic or protestant trappings. Those who did learn to write, when made free by whatever means, were often powerful writers or accomplished in other fields. That dosen't change the fact that your average field hand couldn't read and if he could write, could only write his name.

If you have worked in agriculture in the deep south, you will readily understand one reason why. It's brutal. Four or five hours and you just want to curl up in a shady place & die. From dusk till dawn? Even the most fit man will find little energy for anything other than sleep after a day like that. House slaves had more time and more energy, so it is probably not a stretch to assume some of them could read and write. The small artisan class on the big plantations, blacksmiths, tanners, cobblers, etc. may also have found time to learn. Some slaves even worked as bookeepers neccessitating they know numbers and how to write. But that fraction of the population is tiny.

Slaves were brought in to work the land and if you have ever seen or worked in a cotton field you will realize immediatly, the demand for labor is enormous. Most worked the land, from the time they were old enough to help, until the time they were too old to work. Their work day began with the rising sun and ended when it set. The labor was physically demanding in the extreme. The supposition that these people came in at dark, managed to get a light source, and then taught themselves to write is hard to swallow. When you add there is no motivation to learn and having the knowledge is punisible by death in many instances, it seems even more implausible. Modern day evidence shows people who don't see much chance to move up in the world, don't generally take advantage of a free education and make an effort to learn. Illiteracy is rampant in urban centers around the country.

Tales of underground classrooms and a predominatly literate manual workforce don't seem very plausible to me. Further evidence is provided by freed slaves, with the exception of a small artisan class, the majority stayed with field work. The minority who found work in trades requiring literacy is infestisimal. Even those who moved north in general found work in factories, doing unskilled labor or on farms. You can't blame Jim Crowe laws for it either, since the south was in the hands of radical recronstruction until Hayes became President, I believe.

In the end, you can choose to believe whatever you will. The arguments I have given are just off the top of my head, not a throughly researched rebuttal. But I think the argument is fairly convincing, and it comes from a solid if unspectacular knowledge of the general time period. If you are going to study slavery, I hope you will see the advantages in knowing about the whole period so you can place the interpretations and assertions you read within context and apply critical thinking to them. Without the context, you are at the mercy of the author to provide accurate information, and all too often, that contextural information is omitted to make his/her argument seem stronger than it really is.

 

[ozymandiask]

White Slaves ?

Until the USA declared its independence I understand that English criminals were often exported as slaves (for the term of their sentence) to Barbados and some parts of the US.

Later of course Australian States were founded as a penal colonies because the former destination was no longer available. It is my understanding that the literacy of these people was also very poor up until transportation ended in about 1860. It seems that all forms of forced labour are inimical to literacy development.

One also needs to consider the literacy of the slave owning classes and other groups eg women. My guess is that general levels were poorer than we imagine but it is hard to get objective evidence.

 

[ishtat]

An outsiders opinion was asked for. As an Englishman who has lived for twenty or so years in Australia I would say the American Civil war figures in English minds as much as the English Civil war 1642-1650 would to Americans.

We were taught that although the English were against slavery we supported the South because of the importance to Britain of the Cotton Trade. However, when the North won, Britain patched up differences by paying compensation for some damage done by a ship we had sold the Confederates. In other words the British interest at the time was largely confined to Trade issues - self interest.

In a similar vein I have a Russian friend who is elderly and emigrated to Australia about 5 years ago. His, and most Russians view of the second World war is that it was a Russian/German war and everthing else including the Pacific and Western fronts were sideshows of no great importance. He cites for example, that for every American killed ,160 Russians died , or at the battle of Kursk, there was more armour in conflict than the whole of the rest of the war combined. He particularly likes to laugh at the bookshops selling stories of Macarthur, Paton or Montgomery. He thinks Marshall Zhukov was by far the greater soldier .

History depends on the individuals point of view and where military 7 civil war history is concerned that is particularly the case.

 

[rgraham666]

Civil War?
Who won?

We'll let you know when it ends.

If it ends.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

We'll let you know when it ends.

If it ends.

You're an optimist! D'you really think it ever will?

 

[rgraham666]

You're an optimist! D'you really think it ever will?

No. Everybody's having waaay too much fun to let it end.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

But when the red states finally push the blue states completely in the sea, who are the neo-cons gonna pick on then?

 

[cheerful_deviant]

But when the red states finally push the blue states completely in the sea, who are the neo-cons gonna pick on then?

The French.

 

[rgraham666]

But when the red states finally push the blue states completely in the sea, who are the neo-cons gonna pick on then?

You can always find an enemy. A modus vivendi is difficult. Finding and keeping true friends the hardest thing of all.

 

[R. Richard]

Colly:
As usual, your response is intelligent an welll thought out.

Since I have lived in the South, I know what the summer weather is like. As you point out, doing field hand work in 100+ temperatures with near 100% humidity is brutally hard work.

Then, as you point out, the theory of an exhausted man/woman returning to an unlighted shack and studying at night is rather far fetched. First, the slaves had no money, so where would they get books to learn from? Second, even if they had books, the books would depict a lifestyle completely and totally alien to the slaves. The probability that the average slave ever learned to read is, alas, appallingly low.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The French.

Most likely, after all the French were aiding to some degree, the Union. Could be one of the reasons the Undying Confederacy hates them so much.

I think the whole debate above shows that the Civil War isn't over in the hearts and minds of North and South. Hell, even the views on slavery are slanted to one side or the other. Yeah, most slaves were illiterate and unread and had no energy left to learn (point Colly), but at the same time, mullatos were in existence and often fetched a better price than pure breds because it was a reported belief that the white blood helped make up some of the flaws of the blacks. On the same note, it was still looked down upon immensely to sleep with a slave. cloudy, Colly, and Joe are also right that slaves were the possessions of the rich. Most southerners did not have slaves. And not all owners were white. There were Native American and Black slave owners as well. Also treatment depending on masters. Yes, some were treated like family. Some were treated Uncle Tom style. Most were treated somewhere in the middle. All of this is marked by factual truths and ones that can be based on mere common idioms, document records, and whatnot as well as slave narrarations, Southern revisionism, etc...

On the same note, the majority is right that the war wasn't about slavery, but on the same note, it's bullshit that the war was "northern aggression". Seccession from a country whose border is within walking distance of the capital is an act of agression and treason and precedent and human nature stated that a war would form from that. Maybe a history major can correct me, but I don't know of many (okay, any) country splits that occured peacefully except for the rare ones involving two ultra-powerful countries impolitely using the split as an excuse to stare angrily at each other.

The truth is between the hate and biases, a mixture of both, but an inability for either North or South to deal with that makes me believe that the war didn't really win anything. The Union is split in all ways but name.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Most likely, after all the French were aiding to some degree, the Union. Could be one of the reasons the Undying Confederacy hates them so much.

I think the whole debate above shows that the Civil War isn't over in the hearts and minds of North and South. Hell, even the views on slavery are slanted to one side or the other. Yeah, most slaves were illiterate and unread and had no energy left to learn (point Colly), but at the same time, mullatos were in existence and often fetched a better price than pure breds because it was a reported belief that the white blood helped make up some of the flaws of the blacks. On the same note, it was still looked down upon immensely to sleep with a slave. cloudy, Colly, and Joe are also right that slaves were the possessions of the rich. Most southerners did not have slaves. And not all owners were white. There were Native American and Black slave owners as well. Also treatment depending on masters. Yes, some were treated like family. Some were treated Uncle Tom style. Most were treated somewhere in the middle. All of this is marked by factual truths and ones that can be based on mere common idioms, document records, and whatnot as well as slave narrarations, Southern revisionism, etc...

On the same note, the majority is right that the war wasn't about slavery, but on the same note, it's bullshit that the war was "northern aggression". Seccession from a country whose border is within walking distance of the capital is an act of agression and treason and precedent and human nature stated that a war would form from that. Maybe a history major can correct me, but I don't know of many (okay, any) country splits that occured peacefully except for the rare ones involving two ultra-powerful countries impolitely using the split as an excuse to stare angrily at each other.

The truth is between the hate and biases, a mixture of both, but an inability for either North or South to deal with that makes me believe that the war didn't really win anything. The Union is split in all ways but name.

The war of Northern agression centers on a key concept Luc. Namely, there was nothing said about joining the union being a permanent thing when the states ratified. While the right to leave wasn't expressed either, the governmental form before this was the articles of confederation and the right to leave was ackowledged in that union. It's difficult to defend the right of the federal government to force unwilling territories into a union they nolonger believe in.

So 13 states decided to exercise their right to leave, since the union was no longer serving their needs in their opinion. And what happened? The North invaded. Granted the first shots were fired by the south, but they were fired at Northerners who refused to evacuate from territory that was claimed by South Carolina.

There is no denying Manassass Junction is in Virgina. Thus there can be no denial that the union invaded the CSA. With that line of reasoning, the war of northern agression is quite defensible.

 

[TheEarl]

Maybe a history major can correct me, but I don't know of many (okay, any) country splits that occured peacefully except for the rare ones involving two ultra-powerful countries impolitely using the split as an excuse to stare angrily at each other.

Not wishing to degrade your point at all, because I agreed with it all, but you did ask for information. The separation of Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia was fairly painless.

The nations created out of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points after WW1 weren't too badly done either.

The Earl

 

[ozymandiask]

Probably a better example is that the breaking apart of the Soviet Union was fairly painless -so far. But Yugoslavia -- Slovenia, Bosnia, Macedonia,Croatia & Serbia?

 

[3dipper]

The Civil (or Uncivil) War

I am a new member of this forum, and have some small bit of knowledge on this subject. (I was injured with a broken leg in 1994, and had a long recovery. As my wife is a Librarian, she arranged for me to have access to between fifty and seventy books on the Civil War, the Assassination of A> Lincoln, and the aftermath of the war.

I Have also read a large number of articles published by the Lincoln Forum from the Lincoln University, so rest assured the articles are in no way biased to the views of the South.

Having said that, it is interesting to note that a large amount of my readings did, in fact, seem to indicate that there may have been some indications that the Civil War, like all wars, was over power, riches, territory, or just viciousness.

During the Buchannon administration, I believe, the industrialists in the north of our country was unsettled because the costs of raw material from the south, (cotton, tobacco, and hardwoods, among other materials) was becoming more expensive.

This was largely due to the need in european countries for these goods, and their willingness to pay a good price for such material; in turn increasing the cost to those in the industrial north wishing to sell textiles, processed tobacco, and furniture to those same european countries.

These events led to an export tax, levied by a Bill enacted in the Congress of the United States. (The larger populations in the north resulted in a majority in the House of Representatives). The apparent plan was to raise the cost of doing business with Europe hish enough to make selling to the north more profitable.

Soon these goods were leaving the shores of the U.S. for european countries, in defience of the tarrifs, resulted in shipment of federal soldiers to a fort in the Charleston, S.C. harbor. Of course, we all know that fort was Ft. Sumpter.

A lot of excitable rhetoric passed back and forth between Governors of most of the southern states, and in the halls of congress; which led to the introduction of an arbitrator into the frey, a former Judge, if I remember correctly.

One incident, in particular, I found to be interesting. Apparantly, a personnal friend of President Lincoln, Ward Lamon, met with the arbitrator; and during the meeting, Lamon was questioned on the subject of so many federal troops manning a large cannon battery in the harbor. It was reported to the Governors that Lamon had indicated that these troops would be releived "within a fortnight".

A fortnight had long passed when a ship was boarded enroute to Ft. Sumpter loaded with troops, clothing, food, weapons and ammunition. The administration was challenged on this, and the Sec. of State. maintained that Lamon had no authority to speak for the President.

Everthing went downhill from there. Not too long after that incident, the firing on Sumpter began, and as they used to say in those days, "The dance was on".

Four years later, a little over two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, the war between the states was over.

Over 600,000 military personnel, on both sides, were either dead or seriously wounded. (There are no numbers concerning civilian casualties.)

Untold hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of personal and public property was destroyed; (It is said that General Sherman's troops went so far as to sow salt in the fields of Georgia).

The slaves were eventually freed, but had nowhere to go. It was about one hundred years before any appreciable legislation attempted to give their offspring any real legal rights.

The cost of cotton, tobacco and hardwoods did not decline, and

We are still arguing about this today!

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Those are excellent 3dipper. ty
Did you also know that the first shot of the war was fired in Pensacola, FL? Not at Ft. Sumter. I believe it was a few days before th firing at Sumter that a group of Conf. soldiers made a charge at Ft. Pickens in Pensacola. They had just been reinforced by Lincoln to protect the Gulf. Someone on the Conf. side fired a shot at the fort and the war was begun. Sumter was the capture so it got the history books.