Civil War, southern perspective? Neo-confederates today?

[Mrs Mungo]

The only thing I've seen is attacks on the South and how they owned slaves as though the North had nothing to do with it. May not be "saying" how good the North is, but certainly ignoring the part they played. That's all I ever heard in school was how wonderful the northerners were, how wonderful Lincoln was.

 

This is because nobody is *defending* racism in the North, the Northern slave trade, Sherman's scorched earth policy, child labor in factories, racism among Yankees, etc. The *only* thing being defended is slavery, slave owners and/or reasons for the war.

 

Radical Responders = Vision Forum, Douglas Wilson, etc.

 

Ah, so you are suggesting they are merely responding to the "mainstream" view that the South was evil, that is your assertion?

[Mrs Mungo]

Never claimed it to be a benevolent institution. Never claimed it wasn't an issue.

 

But other people have.

[mommaduck]

This is because nobody is *defending* racism in the North, the Northern slave trade, Sherman's scorched earth policy, child labor in factories, racism among Yankees, etc. The *only* thing being defended is slavery, slave owners and/or reasons for the war.

 

 

 

Ah, so you are suggesting they are merely responding to the "mainstream" view that the South was evil, that is your assertion?

 

For the most part, yes.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Radical responders? What does this mean? Are you referring to people in this thread?

 

For example, when I rejected the assertion that slavery was "needed" on plantations I pointed out that there were plantations that did not use slavery at this point in history. This is a fact. I didn't say whether or not these plantations were in the North or South.

 

But *anyone* who declares slavery a benevolent institution, no matter HOW well the slaves were treated is downright delusional, as far as I'm concerned because the issue is that they were treated as *property*. How well some slaves were treated or how racist some Yankees were is not the issue. Treating PEOPLE as PROPERTY is the issue.

 

Amen:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

For the most part, yes.

 

What is our working definition of mainstream?

 

If the mainstream view is the one that is taught in public schools, then the mainstream view is the "states' rights" POV. Therefore, I would disagree.

[mommaduck]

What is our working definition of mainstream?

 

If the mainstream view is the one that is taught in public schools, then the mainstream view is the "states' rights" POV. Therefore, I would disagree.

 

When I was in school it wasn't. The public schooled children around here know NOTHING about "states' rights" only that "Lincoln was a wonderful man that freed the blacks from the evil slave-holding south". They literally cannot converse on anything beyond that. They know nothing of any of the other issues. They disbelieve that ANY Northerners were involved in the slave trade. Yes, it's being taught extremely lopsided. That is mainstream from having attended school myself in various states and living in this one.

[Mrs Mungo]

When I was in school it wasn't. The public schooled children around here know NOTHING about "states' rights" only that "Lincoln was a wonderful man that freed the blacks from the evil slave-holding south". They literally cannot converse on anything beyond that. They know nothing of any of the other issues. They disbelieve that ANY Northerners were involved in the slave trade. Yes, it's being taught extremely lopsided. That is mainstream from having attended school myself in various states and living in this one.

 

I was taught the "states' rights" POV and I'm from Oklahoma. MOST textbooks I have seen teach it that way. Obviously, many in this thread were taught that because that's how they were arguing the point.

 

That whole POV is based in fiction.

 

I posted a link to some of the Articles of Secession for various states. South Carolina's includes:

 

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

 

and

 

The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of the States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.

 

The complaint here is that the federal government is not making the other states change their laws and return runaway slaves. So, "states' rights" is not the issue. The case being referred to in the second paragraph is Dred Scott but Dred Scott does not restrict states' rights in the way in which SC is trying to claim. South Carolina also complains about abolitionists and wants the government to do something about them. The primary sources prove that as far as SC is concerned, it's about slavery, not states' rights.

 

That fact doesn't automatically make everyone in one geographical area good and everyone in the other geographical area bad.

[mommaduck]

I was taught the "states' rights" POV and I'm from Oklahoma. MOST textbooks I have seen teach it that way. Obviously, many in this thread were taught that because that's how they were arguing the point.

 

That whole POV is based in fiction.

 

I posted a link to some of the Articles of Secession for various states. South Carolina's includes:

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

The complaint here is that the federal government is not making the other states change their laws and return runaway slaves. So, "states' rights" is not the issue. The case being referred to in the second paragraph is Dred Scott but Dred Scott does not restrict states' rights in the way in which SC is trying to claim. South Carolina also complains about abolitionists and wants the government to do something about them. The primary sources prove that as far as SC is concerned, it's about slavery, not states' rights.

 

That fact doesn't automatically make everyone in one geographical area good and everyone in the other geographical area bad.

 

Precisely on the last part. One of the quotes I find humorous as it names the last slave holding state in the US and didn't change it's law until AFTER the war.

[Mrs Mungo]

One of the quotes I find humorous as it names the last slave holding state in the US and didn't change it's law until AFTER the war.

 

Hey, blame South Carolina, they wrote it. :tongue_smilie:;)

[razorbackmama]

When I was in school it wasn't. The public schooled children around here know NOTHING about "states' rights" only that "Lincoln was a wonderful man that freed the blacks from the evil slave-holding south". They literally cannot converse on anything beyond that. They know nothing of any of the other issues. They disbelieve that ANY Northerners were involved in the slave trade. Yes, it's being taught extremely lopsided. That is mainstream from having attended school myself in various states and living in this one.

Same here. I went to school in Ohio.

 

FWIW, my dh went to school in Arkansas and learned the same stuff, except for the South being evil, of course.;) The Civil War was about slavery, PERIOD, and the whole jist was that the North swooped in to rescue the blacks from the South.

 

Now, was this overtly TAUGHT and stated as such? I can't remember LOL. But that is what both of us came away with anyway. I know my sister (also in Ohio and then Colorado) was under the same impression.

[Slartibartfast]

But NJ had called for gradual Emancipation but they wouldn't return escaped slaves so SC was right that they wouldn't enforce the Fugitive Slave Act

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

Same here. I went to school in Ohio.

 

FWIW, my dh went to school in Arkansas and learned the same stuff, except for the South being evil, of course.;) The Civil War was about slavery, PERIOD, and the whole jist was that the North swooped in to rescue the blacks from the South.

 

But it was about slavery. It was about slavery and slavery was in no way a benevolent institution. That's my whole argument in a nutshell. Anyone who says otherwise is revising history.

 

I'm *also* saying that the fact that it was about slavery doesn't mean that *everyone* in the North was good and *everyone* in the South was bad. However, I have never heard anyone defend slave traders or factories that used child labor (well, except in a modern context, but that's another debate). If someone was doing that in this thread, I would argue with them. But they aren't.

[Mermaid Mama]

But it was about slavery. It was about slavery and slavery was in no way a benevolent institution. That's my whole argument in a nutshell. Anyone who says otherwise is revising history.

 

I'm *also* saying that the fact that it was about slavery doesn't mean that *everyone* in the North was good and *everyone* in the South was bad. However, I have never heard anyone defend slave traders or factories that used child labor (well, except in a modern context, but that's another debate). If someone was doing that in this thread, I would argue with them. But they aren't.

 

Like all things in government - I think it was about MONEY.

Hence the reason that Northern states were the last to integrate schools.

[mommaduck]

But NJ had called for gradual Emancipation but they wouldn't return escaped slaves so SC was right that they wouldn't enforce the Fugitive Slave Act

 

Also the gradual emancipation of slaves in the North permitted the northerners to sell their slaves to those in the South to keep from being at a loss (and many did just that). So it's not that they freed their slaves, but rather just got rid of them.

[mommaduck]

Hey, blame South Carolina, they wrote it. :tongue_smilie:;)

 

LOL (yeah, I know...us Carolinians get poked at all the time ;) )

 

It was New Hampshire that was the last slave holding state in the Union. Just pointing out how they contradict themselves.

Edited March 23, 2010 by mommaduck

[Mrs Mungo]

Like all things in government - I think it was about MONEY.

Hence the reason that Northern states were the last to integrate schools.

 

Racism and slavery are two different issues.

 

It was New Hampshire that was the last slave holding state in the Union. Just pointing out how they contradict themselves.

 

Let me try rephrasing this. Did the Southern states secede from the Union because of slavery? Yes. Did the North go to war over slavery? No, the North believed in keeping the union whole and our country powerful. Does going to war over keeping the union whole mean they necessarily opposed slavery? No.

 

We didn't go to war with Germany over the Nazi party's treatment and attempted extermination of the Jews. But it was a major issue and ending it was a byproduct of that war.

 

eta: Does that better explain *my* position?

[Mermaid Mama]

Radical responders? What does this mean? Are you referring to people in this thread?

 

For example, when I rejected the assertion that slavery was "needed" on plantations I pointed out that there were plantations that did not use slavery at this point in history. This is a fact. I didn't say whether or not these plantations were in the North or South.

 

But *anyone* who declares slavery a benevolent institution, no matter HOW well the slaves were treated is downright delusional, as far as I'm concerned because the issue is that they were treated as *property*. How well some slaves were treated or how racist some Yankees were is not the issue. Treating PEOPLE as PROPERTY is the issue.

 

And I do believe it was Abraham Lincoln himself who was a racist.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior."

 

Like I said earlier - it was ultimately ALL ABOUT MONEY.

The North wanted what the South had.

[mommaduck]

Racism and slavery are two different issues.

 

 

 

Let me try rephrasing this. Did the Southern states secede from the Union because of slavery? Yes. Did the North go to war over slavery? No, the North believed in keeping the union whole and our country powerful. Does going to war over keeping the union whole mean they necessarily opposed slavery? No.

 

We didn't go to war with Germany over the Nazi party's treatment and attempted extermination of the Jews. But it was a major issue and ending it was a byproduct of that war.

 

eta: Does that better explain *my* position?

Yes. However, most ppl do not spell out their position. It's only "The war was over slavery, the south had slaves, the north freed the slaves". Seriously, how does that sound to MOST ppl? Most schools go into more detail of WWII than they do of our internal war.

[Mrs Mungo]

And I do believe it was Abraham Lincoln himself who was a racist.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior."

 

His private letters showed how conflicted he was and how much he opposed slavery. You have to start somewhere. You don't start at the end of the journey.

 

Like I said earlier - it was ultimately ALL ABOUT MONEY.

The North wanted what the South had.

 

The North had more money than the South, more industry. It's the reason they won the war.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes. However, most ppl do not spell out their position. It's only "The war was over slavery, the south had slaves, the north freed the slaves". Seriously, how does that sound to MOST ppl? Most schools go into more detail of WWII than they do of our internal war.

 

Honestly, the horrible coverage of history is probably THE main reason I homeschool. I think it's downright disturbing. Many homeschool texts are no better.

[mommaduck]

Honestly, the horrible coverage of history is probably THE main reason I homeschool. I think it's downright disturbing. Many homeschool texts are no better.

 

I agree (cough *Abeka*) :P

 

I was in an Abeka school when I was in third. I'm fine with their phonics, grammar, and math in elementary, but I would not touch their history and reading selections with a twenty foot pole. Talk about whitewashed, no pun intended.

[razorbackmama]

But it was about slavery. It was about slavery and slavery was in no way a benevolent institution. That's my whole argument in a nutshell. Anyone who says otherwise is revising history.

 

Which is what my (and my sister's and dh's) public schools did. They all said what you and mommaduck said:

 

Let me try rephrasing this. Did the Southern states secede from the Union because of slavery? Yes. Did the North go to war over slavery? No, the North believed in keeping the union whole and our country powerful. Does going to war over keeping the union whole mean they necessarily opposed slavery? No.

 

We were taught (or at least what we LEARNED;) ) was that not only did the South secede because of slavery, but the whole entire war was about slavery. Not to preserve the union but to rescue the slaves.

 

Yes. However, most ppl do not spell out their position. It's only "The war was over slavery, the south had slaves, the north freed the slaves". Seriously, how does that sound to MOST ppl? Most schools go into more detail of WWII than they do of our internal war.

 

Yep, that's what we learned in school.:glare:

[Orthodox6]

Informative, interesting thread. Thanks to all of you.

 

What I never have understood, and never shall, is why people continue to perpetuate the Civil War at all. When I meet people who resurrect the old issues and live as though trapped in a time warp, I truly cannot comprehend them. Always these are people who espouse either the traditional or the revisionist -- both seem to exist -- viewpoints for "the South." Never yet have found a "Northerner" who wants to live in the past like that. Can anyone explain this phenomenon ?

[mommaduck]

Informative, interesting thread. Thanks to all of you.

 

What I never have understood, and never shall, is why people continue to perpetuate the Civil War at all. When I meet people who resurrect the old issues and live as though trapped in a time warp, I truly cannot comprehend them. Always these are people who espouse either the traditional or the revisionist -- both seem to exist -- viewpoints for "the South." Never yet have found a "Northerner" who wants to live in the past like that. Can anyone explain this phenomenon ?

 

You haven't been to Gettysburg then :lol:

[Tangerine]

Informative, interesting thread. Thanks to all of you.

 

What I never have understood, and never shall, is why people continue to perpetuate the Civil War at all. When I meet people who resurrect the old issues and live as though trapped in a time warp, I truly cannot comprehend them. Always these are people who espouse either the traditional or the revisionist -- both seem to exist -- viewpoints for "the South." Never yet have found a "Northerner" who wants to live in the past like that. Can anyone explain this phenomenon ?

 

Maybe we Northerners just stick with Ren Faires and the Society for Creative Anachronism.

[LibraryLover]

I was able to attend decent schools (in the North! Gasp lol) and we were taught emphatically that the civil war was over states rights', and ending slavery came later, because it seemed abolishing slavery would help Lincoln win and end the war. Of course, all that came with a great dose of the amazing stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. (As it should have, imo).

 

I think more than slavery, it was the stories about the bombing murders of little black church girls, and knowing that tiny Ruby had had to go to school under armed guard so that white people wouldn't hurt her physically as they called her nigger, was what formed my thoughts about Missisippi, 'The South', etc as I was growing up.

 

As a young school child, the civil war was a far-away thing, as ancient as gladiators and Greek slaves. I never thought of slavery as being 'modern' . Everyone I knew knew it was bad and wasn't done anymore ;)

 

The Civil Rights movement was on TV during my childhood. I remember my mother crying over Martin Luther King's assasination. I remember seeing news casts of white police struttting with clubs, and hitting and using water cannons against protestors as if they were nothing more than dogs. But I also saw white pople walking in soldairty with those black protestors. I knew Ruby's teacher had been white. I did hear the venom in George Wallace's voice, and he was the first politician who scared me ( I was in second grade when he was shot, and I was amazed and hopeful to hear him renounce his former beliefs later in life). I knew rasicim was NOT limited to geogrpahy. In MA, I was very much aware of the rasicm of many notherners as well. I remember Boston 'bussing' and the fear and violence of that era. I *still * hear people complain that their kids aren't getting into Harvard because they are white.

 

When I was a young teen, I watched Roots on TV, and I had no idea until that mini- series that the KKK was still so strongly in existence. So. I would say there is plenty of recent history that has given me pause about certain people and places. The American civil war is not what clued me in to intolerance and hate, although it seems a lot of folks here would like to believe we northerns were brain -washed somehow, and that the civil rights movement that showed so much violence was a lot of fuss about nothing.

 

I have to say that this board has been one of the most educational opportunities I've ever had.

 

The first time I saw Tammy Faye and the PTL club, I thought it was a sitcom, so you know I need a reality check. ;)

Edited March 23, 2010 by LibraryLover

[mommaduck]

Of course, all that came with a great dose of the amazing stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. (As it should have, imo).

 

 

 

Totally agree! Amistad is a favorite here. The Bondwoman's Diary, Slaves in the Family, and a bunch of others are on my favorites shelf.

[Orthodox6]

FWIW, I am "Southerner by birth" (Virginia), "Yankee by inclination and culture" (not sure how better to word that one), and live in Texas -- a perplexingly wonderful territory which cannot establish whether it belongs to the South, to the Southwest (my vote), or should return to its defunct days of status as an independent country !

[LibraryLover]

Maybe we Northerners just stick with Ren Faires and the Society for Creative Anachronism.

 

And Trekkie Conventions?

 

Northerners have the Revolutionary War. I think recreating the past is incredibly fascinating , and keeps knowledge and certain skills & trades alive, and I would never want to see battle reenactments etc., bite the dust. (People should see what a field of endless bodies looks like). The antebellum balls are interesting, but I think they are more about remembering a certain time period, and trying to understand the past than it is about trying to justify slavery. I just won't allow myself to think that people who like the fancy hoop skirts and virgin mint julips are thinking the emancipation proclamation was a bad idea. ;)

 

Some people like Toga parties, too, but it doesn't mean they want to toss Christians into the lion dens. Going to a Ren fair doesnt mean you want your kid to die of the black plague (they had slaves then, too).

 

You're all making me crazy. ;)

Edited March 23, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Amy in TX]

I was able to attend decent schools (in the North! Gasp lol) and we were taught emphatically that the civil war was over states rights', and ending slavery came later, because it seemed abolishing slavery would help Lincoln win and end the war. Of course, all that came with a great dose of the amazing stories of Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. (As it should have, imo).

 

This was precisely my experience, in public schools in Pennsylvania in the 70s and 80s. I specifically recall one of my high school history teachers reading us a passage from some primary source about how Lincoln refused to receive some prominent black person at the White House, and telling us "Lincoln was a bigot." The teacher's point was that Lincoln wasn't a perfect man and that his original intent in entering the war was to preserve the Union; not necessarily to end slavery. Freeing the slaves in the southern states later in the war was a tactic to motivate northerners.

 

That's what I took away from my northern public education.

 

:)

[Ibbygirl]

When I was in school it wasn't. The public schooled children around here know NOTHING about "states' rights" only that "Lincoln was a wonderful man that freed the blacks from the evil slave-holding south". They literally cannot converse on anything beyond that. They know nothing of any of the other issues. They disbelieve that ANY Northerners were involved in the slave trade. Yes, it's being taught extremely lopsided. That is mainstream from having attended school myself in various states and living in this one.

 

This is what was taught in my public schools in South Florida too. This thread has been a very eye opening and educational read for me. Thanks. :)

[mrsrevmeg]

When I was in school it wasn't. The public schooled children around here know NOTHING about "states' rights" only that "Lincoln was a wonderful man that freed the blacks from the evil slave-holding south". They literally cannot converse on anything beyond that. They know nothing of any of the other issues. They disbelieve that ANY Northerners were involved in the slave trade. Yes, it's being taught extremely lopsided. That is mainstream from having attended school myself in various states and living in this one.

That's the way it was taught in Alabama schools in the 80sand 90s. And is still taught that way in the school systems today. When we went to get our taxes done one year my son took Rifles For Watie to read. The accountant (who was married to one of the principals at son's school he attended at the time) spent almost an hour telling us how he was disgusted at the way it is taught in textbooks that the war was all about slavery.

[hana]

It was New Hampshire that was the last slave holding state in the Union. Just pointing out how they contradict themselves.

 

Can you tell me more about this? It's my understanding that New Hampshire ratified the 13th amendment in 1865 and that Mississippi didn't do that until 1995.

[Mejane]

I had always thought the Civil War was long ago and far away until I met a very old lady and her sister who showed me pictures of their daddy as a little boy living on a plantation. He had been a slave. Those ladies were well into their nineties and this was over 20 years ago, but I still remember feeling shocked at the time that it was all just that close.

[PollyOR]

Can you suggest a book (or books) that I can read to learn more about the Civil War?

 

Yes, I'm from the South, but I will admit that I have avoided learning about the Civil War because it makes me so sad. Just this morning my 11yodd and I were reading a lesson about the war and I was unable to take my turn reading because I was so choked up. My poor dd was so confused :001_huh:.

 

I think I'm ready to tackle it.

[mommaduck]

Can you tell me more about this? It's my understanding that New Hampshire ratified the 13th amendment in 1865 and that Mississippi didn't do that until 1995.

 

I would have to look it up again. I had found it when I was doing research for a class I taught on this era (I taught from "outside the box"...basically we studied all sides of the war, positives and negatives on both sides and those caught in the middle).

 

Can you suggest a book (or books) that I can read to learn more about the Civil War?

 

Yes, I'm from the South, but I will admit that I have avoided learning about the Civil War because it makes me so sad. Just this morning my 11yodd and I were reading a lesson about the war and I was unable to take my turn reading because I was so choked up. My poor dd was so confused :001_huh:.

 

I think I'm ready to tackle it.

I have a couple of book suggestions and a site suggestion. I will pm them to you.

[PollyOR]

I have a couple of book suggestions and a site suggestion. I will pm them to you.

 

Thank you!