The Civil War Narrative?

[Shek]

Shek,

No doubt I misread the numbers there. So the Democrats had the majority in the Senate, but were all Democrats "pro-slavery"? Could the "pro-slavery" contingent rely on other Dems to help provide a filibuster? Obviously the Southerners did not think that was the case, that they could rely on the filibuster as an indefinite block against anti-slave (or anti-pro-slave) legislation, otherwise why secede?

While not monolithic, the Democrats would have opposed the GOP plank of no expansion of slavery in the territories and would have supported popular sovereignty instead, which would have allowed slavery to expand to a degree to maintain Southern power in the Senate for decades to come. Neither the GOP or Northern Democrats felt that they could touch slavery in existing states where it existed at the federal level without passing a Constitutional Amendment, which would have never have had a 3/4 majority among the states. The Morrill Tariff, while an example in a different realm, provides an example of how "trampling" of so-called state's rights was a facade based on the existing remedy of Senatorial influence and power in the national decision-making process - I'd agree that Southern power was on the wane, with the loss of the Presidency and the House, but it's gone by a long shot and so remedy was available.

[Shek]

Julie,
A series of compromise bills to avert secession of additional states as well as bring back the states that had already seceded were thrown into the arena in 1861. What were the topics addressed in this bills? Did any of them address tariffs? If not, why not?

Julie,

In the event that you're not familiar with these compromises, here they are:

Avalon Project - Amendments Proposed by the Peace Conference, February 8-27, 1861
Avalon Project - Amendments Proposed in Congress by Senator John J. Crittenden : December 18, 1860
Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of them talk one bit about tariffs. All of them talk about slavery. If these are the last ditch efforts to prevent secession and war, then why do they all talk about slavery? Shouldn't this lead to the conclusion that it was slavery that was the cause of secession and war? Since they don't talk about tariff, how can you sustain a conclusion that it was tariffs that was the cause of secession and war?

[Albany Rifles]

During the American Civil War, the Union was a name used to refer to the federal government of the United States, which was supported by the twenty-three states which were not part of the secession attempt by the 11 states that tried to form the Confederacy. Although the Union states included the Western states of California, Oregon, and (after 1864) Nevada, as well as states generally considered to be part of the Midwest, the Union has been also often loosely referred to as "the North", both then and now.[1]

Union (American Civil War) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Either I made my point poorly or you did not get my point.

There was and is a Federal government. There was not a Northern government or a Union government. There were Northern STATE governments and there were forces for the Union but he national level government of the United States was the Federal government.

And durin4 the Civil War there 34 or 35 states. The Federal forces didn't take the stars off of the flag.;)

And as for the laws passed by Northern States, they may have been discriminatory towards African Americans but it did not enslave them. BTW, some of those same laws were discriminatory towards Catholic immigrants and Native Americans as well. I agree that those were not the greatest moments in the histories of those states.

[rj1]

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down by The Band

Songwriter: Robbie Robertson (a Canadian!)

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train
'Til Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again
In the winter of '65, we were hungry, just barely alive
By the tenth of May, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "La, la, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E. Lee"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if the money's no good
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should never have taken the very best

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, "La, la, la"

Like my father before me, I will work the land
And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand
He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his grave
I swear by the mud below my feet
You can't raise a Caine back up when he's in defeat

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, na"

good folk rock song


My father's family are all from eastern Kentucky. My grandmother told us they were taught in school that Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War, which is kind of a unique way of looking at it. :))

[Albany Rifles]

Rj

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down by The Band

Songwriter: Robbie Robertson (a Canadian!)

good folk rock song

My father's family are all from eastern Kentucky. My grandmother told us they were taught in school that Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War, which is kind of a unique way of looking at it. :))

And a much better song done with Levon Helm at the mike instead of Joan Baez.

As for Kentucky...I went to a seminar a few autumns ago about the ACW in the borderlands and listend to Kent Masterson Brown discuss the ACW in Kentucky. A supposedly Union state, Kentucky was not treated well by the Federal government after the war. As a result, Brown said Kentucky secceeded AFTER the Civil War!

[Julie]

None of them talk one bit about tariffs. All of them talk about slavery. If these are the last ditch efforts to prevent secession and war, then why do they all talk about slavery? Shouldn't this lead to the conclusion that it was slavery that was the cause of secession and war? Since they don't talk about tariff, how can you sustain a conclusion that it was tariffs that was the cause of secession and war?

You wanted to know why states were seceding before Lincoln's inauguration. Lincoln campaigned, prior to the election, about tariff's and protectionism, which would have been a great advantage to the North, and a disadvantage to the South. This drove a wedge deeper between the Northern and Southern cultures.

I still say slavery was not the initial cause of the war, but added later for support of a war cuz many northerners were against war, and wanted things worked out in the political arena.

I think more could have been done to work out the secession thing at the time of Lincoln becoming President. I am aghast at the loss of American lives in this war, and Lincoln being this great hero, when it still took 100 years for blacks to be able to live in society as 100% free.

The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and I believe this was an abrupt path to hell for blacks, immediately after the war. They had no jobs, no land. It wasn't like there were "For Rent" signs everywhere that would give blacks a place to stay. There was nothing for them. Before, they were in a prison inside of a prison. After the war, they were still in a prison. They couldn't own land, could not vote, etc., etc.

The southern Land was given back to the previous landowners after the war, no land was deeded to blacks so they would have a place to stay.

Slavery was already at a turning point heading for the door. Either way, it would have taken 100 years and much legislation to do so. A gradual turn, rather than such a drastic and horrific one would have been the better choice.

The South was not a threat to the North, nor were they doing anything unconstitutional. If they had, Amendments would not have been required. They were following the path their country was founded on.

I have a copy of Martha Washington's will, and it bequeaths her slaves, and their unborn, to her family. Washington was our founding father.

I am a Southerner, and I believe in change, with changing times. However, when you are speaking of humanity, it requires alot of attention, with a gradual change, so as to avoid violence and rebellion. It takes time for change to grow on people....

and that's all I have to say about it.

[astralis]

julie,

man, that post is wrong on so many levels, it makes the head spin.

I still say slavery was not the initial cause of the war, but added later for support of a war cuz many northerners were against war, and wanted things worked out in the political arena.

flatly incorrect-- in fact, i notice that you are STILL avoiding shek's questions regarding tariffs. the historical record shows that the Morrill Tariff was only of interest in SC and GA-- already the hotbeds of secession-- and ignores the fact that there was plenty of secessionist sympathy in the south prior to 1860 (despite the fact that US until 1860 had some of the lowest tariff rates in the western world).

also, slavery as a reason for the war was NOT popular in the north outside the most abolitionist enclaves-- many people said that they would sacrifice for the union but not for blacks.

I am aghast at the loss of American lives in this war, and Lincoln being this great hero, when it still took 100 years for blacks to be able to live in society as 100% free.

institutional racism was not a fault of lincoln nor of the civil war-- in fact, as you mention yourself, this was something that was built into the southern economy.

The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and I believe this was an abrupt path to hell for blacks, immediately after the war. They had no jobs, no land. It wasn't like there were "For Rent" signs everywhere that would give blacks a place to stay. There was nothing for them. Before, they were in a prison inside of a prison. After the war, they were still in a prison. They couldn't own land, could not vote, etc., etc.

well, it didn't help that southern politicians rolled back multiple Republican attempts to grant blacks greater rights, economic protections, and subsidies (40 acres and a mule). it is disingenous to blame the civil war for the political games played by racists, south and north.

A gradual turn, rather than such a drastic and horrific one would have been the better choice.

the number of blacks whom fought for the union-- and the number of slaves running away when sherman's troops drew close-- would seem to disprove this.

However, when you are speaking of humanity, it requires alot of attention, with a gradual change, so as to avoid violence and rebellion. It takes time for change to grow on people....

perhaps, but i do note that in the end, the south was the side who decided they would rather see a resort to armed violence rather than deal with issues via political means. and to say the north would not negotiate is obviously not true, given the number of legal and political compromises the south had won previously.

[rj1]

As for Kentucky...I went to a seminar a few autumns ago about the ACW in the borderlands and listend to Kent Masterson Brown discuss the ACW in Kentucky. A supposedly Union state, Kentucky was not treated well by the Federal government after the war. As a result, Brown said Kentucky secceeded AFTER the Civil War!

Well it makes sense when you think about it. Radical Republicanism took hold post-war and Kentucky would've been one of the non-Confederate places where the Democratic Party would've been strongest. What pro-Union Democrats in the state existed I imagine didn't take kindly to Andrew Johnson's attempted impeachment by Benjamin Wade and the Republican Congress as Johnson would have been "of the same political color" as them, and the people in the state that sympathized with the South during the War would have had no love for the Republicans to start with.

Here's the election results for Kentucky for that time:

1864: George McClellan (Dem) 69.83%, Abraham Lincoln (Rep) 30.17%, most lopsided Democratic Party vote that year, only New Jersey and Delaware also went for McClellan and the vote in both of those places was around 52-48

1868: Horatio Seymour (Dem) 74.55%, Ulysses S. Grant (Rep) 25.45%, most lopsided Democratic Party vote that year while most Southern states still could not vote

1872: Horace Greeley (Dem) 52.32%, Ulysses S. Grant (Rep) 46.44%

1876: Samuel Tilden (Dem) 61.41%, Rutherford B. Hayes (Rep) 37.44%, this election marking the end of Reconstruction due to "the Bargain"

[Julie]

julie,

man, that post is wrong on so many levels, it makes the head spin.

Wrong or not, it is my opinion from what I have read.

flatly incorrect-- in fact, i notice that you are STILL avoiding shek's questions regarding tariffs.

I am the one who initially brought up tariffs by the way.

also, slavery as a reason for the war was NOT popular in the north outside the most abolitionist enclaves-- many people said that they would sacrifice for the union but not for blacks.

That is also what I said, if you will re-read my post. That is where the tariff tool came in as a campaign tool for Lincoln. The South was partaking in Free Trade, and Lincoln campaigned for protectionism/tariffs.

perhaps, but i do note that in the end, the south was the side who decided they would rather see a resort to armed violence rather than deal with issues via political means. and to say the north would not negotiate is obviously not true, given the number of legal and political compromises the south had won previously.

The Feds came to South Carolina, not the other way around. ;) The South was on the waning side of political wins when Lincoln came into office.

[Shek]

My father's family are all from eastern Kentucky. My grandmother told us they were taught in school that Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War, which is kind of a unique way of looking at it. :))

Neutral is probably a great way of putting it. I had to search to find the numbers, but I believe the number of regiments serving in the North and South were about equal during the war.

[Shek]

That is also what I said, if you will re-read my post. That is where the tariff tool came in as a campaign tool for Lincoln. The South was partaking in Free Trade, and Lincoln campaigned for protectionism/tariffs.

That plank from the GOP platform was no different than the Whig party platform. Given that, where are the calls for secession based on the election of Whig Presidents in the 1840s since their party's platform also included tariffs. What makes Lincoln and the GOP any different in 1860 (hint - the GOP adopted the economic platform of the Whigs, but the key difference is the adoption of the Free Soil platform against the expansion of slavery into the territories).

In the end, it still comes down to the fact that tariffs were low and the results of the Morrill Tariff in the Senate in 1860 would have been replayed in the next Congress - Lincoln couldn't have signed the Morrill Tariff because the bill would have never made it out of Congress. This is a red herring excuse.

The Feds came to South Carolina, not the other way around. ;) The South was on the waning side of political wins when Lincoln came into office.

Actually, the resupply mission to make sure that the garrison on the federal land of Fort Sumter, which didn't belong to South Carolina, was fired upon by Beauregard's forces, meaning that the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis started the armed conflict in the Civil War.

[Shek]

I have a copy of Martha Washington's will, and it bequeaths her slaves, and their unborn, to her family. Washington was our founding father.

I didn't realize that Martha Washington was our founding father, I always thought that George Washington was. He emancipated all of his slaves and set up a trust to take care of those that were too old or sick from that point forward.

[rj1]

I find this discussion a bit pedantic. The South sought secession. Slavery was a reason, as was tariffs. Neither one by itself could completely explain the reasons for the actions that were taken. South Carolina had been itching 25 years earlier for secession with then-Vice President John Calhoun. (Take a tour of Charleston some time - it's a great place with lots of history on offer.) But the main reason for secession in my mind was that the country's power centers was defined as "North" and "South". And that power center was changing because the North was becoming far stronger than the South, both demographically (as the frontier lands were made into states, they were becoming more like the North and were free soil) and economically (if slavery disappeared which it was starting to become outdated anyway in 1860, the South would've became even more of an economic backwater than it already was, and it did post-war), so that if the southern states did not secede, they would've become hopelessly dominated by the North and Midwest. And the South on a national scale post-war was dominated by the North and Midwest electorally until the Great Depression came around 65 years later.

At another point in time, you saw this style of power struggle as well. You saw it during the War of 1812, where the power centers were defined as "Northeast" and "Mid-Atlantic/South/Frontiers" with the latter group becoming far stronger just due to demographics increasingly being in their favor and Napoleon's sale of Louisiana to the U.S. to fund his wars, thereby ensuring even better demographics for the latter group. The Northeast saw the War of 1812 as a completely needless conflict started by President Madison that inflicted economic pain on them through the Embargo on trading with Britain. So they called amongst themselves the Hartford Convention where secession was on the table. They ultimately decided against it, but when news of the Convention reached Madison in Washington at the same time as the news of the war ending in a truce and the news of Andrew Jackson's victory over the British in New Orleans, they were seen as traitors and the Northeastern-dominated Federalists were humiliated.

[JAD_333]

[QUOTE=rj1;690241]Take a tour of Charleston some time - it's a great place with lots of history on offer.

One of the most charming and best preserved historic cities in the country. My son chose it for his wedding. We all trekked there from DC and points as far away as London to indulge him in his romantic fantasy. It took place at a waterfront site. Alas, it was rainy and cold, but we had a terrific time.:)

[zraver]

the South would've became even more of an economic backwater than it already was, and it did post-war)

Why was it backward? My earlier post addresses this question. The rich planters wanted to keep the South's social and thus economic order in stasis. To do this they opposed federal projects like canals, roads and rail on one hand. On the other they sought the expansion of slavery in order to create political allies and keep the stalemate in the senate. Even slave labor isn't free, but it is exceptionally cheap. Farming doesn't pay either unless done on a grand scale with cheap labor. The rich planter class had both vast estates and an abundance of cheap labor. Thus it was in their interest to keep slavery alive, and states rights and tariffs are just convenient fictions.

Sure the tariffs cost them some money, but not appreciably, it would be the lower classes that would suffer. Railing against the evil of a powerful federal government was one side of the mouth while the other side warned of the dangers of the Africans. Both stories served to keep the poor white majority focused on anything but the real reason why they were poor- so that the rich and powerful planters could stay rich and powerful.

Post war, thanks to Andrew Jackson most of this class ended up with their estates back under family control and they set about recreating the exact same conditions as before. Of course carpet baggers and scalawags replaced the evil federal government, but the black narrative stayed the same. The poor whites bought it... again. The fact that things like the poll tax, literacy test and grandfather clauses also disenfranchised poor whites was no accident. Neither was Southern reluctance to properly fund education or to seek out industrialization an accident. Wages poor as they are free people form the land and allow the payment of the poll tax and education removes the literacy barrier.

This system does not even begin to breakdown until the great migration during WWI. All throughout the 1920's you see blacks steadily gaining ground in some areas in the south as the need for cheap labor wars with the now scarcity of laborers in the South. this slows down during the great depression, and even takes a hit like the Southern senators demanding and getting field ad domestic workers excluded from the social security act. However during WWII the gains pick up steam as millions more migrate to the factories.

It takes its final hit in 43 when mechanization starts to replace the share cropper. Some areas of the Mississippi Delta have still not recovered from the death blow to farm labor mechanization dealt the share cropper system. Luckily by that point a new national consensus was developing as blacks increasingly found their voice and whites increasingly were willing to listen.