The Civil War

[sweetnpetite]

As a northerner, what I learned about the civil war often left me, even then, wondering-- what do they teach southern kids about the civil war. From the pov of what we were learning - the south was... er... well- the 'bad guy' or at least, in the wrong.

This thread isn't meant to be a debate about the civil war, or who was wrong or who was right, just a curiosity of what they are tought. If we are continually each only taught one side-- and it is vastly difference, how are we to be considered one country? Let alone 'united' states? I think we all grow up sort of assuming that others were taught the same lessons and values that we were-- that our expereince was 'typical.' I guess this is why I read a lot, because I like to see what most do not-- that we are all starting from vastly different vantage points.

So anyway, back to the topic. Does your education leave you feeling that the North are the 'bad guys'? What are you taught about the motivations of each side and so forth?

Furthermore, what about those outside the US? How much doesn our civil war rate in you're history books and what does it seem to imply about us from the POV that you were taught?

 

[sophia jane]

I moved around too much when I was younger to have been influenced either way (north v. south), but I can say that part of the southern thinking on the civil war is that they were fighting to preserve a way of life. They looked at it as protecting themselves. I think in alot of (southern) minds, and I could be wrong here, the south didn't even really think about the slavery part of it, as much as they focused on keeping their way of life the same. In that vein, they do consider the North to be the "bad guy" because the northerns, people from the outside, were trying to change things.
It's sad, but you still see alot of that kind of thinking in the south. Maybe focusing on keeping things the same makes it easier to be a racist because if your focus is on yourself, you don't have to think about the feelings of everyone else.

Just my rambling two cents worth.

SJ

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I think 'way of life' sums it up. It's a bit like red states and blue states today. We're just not talking to each other.

 

[rgraham666]

From what I've read sophia, that's just about right.

In some ways, the Civil War didn't need to be fought.

Because of the Industrial Revolution, change was coming whether The South wanted it or not. Their agrarian way of life was going to disappear.

But being human, they would rather fight than switch.

I don't think The Confederacy would have lasted long, even had they won. The same forces that tore the U.S. apart, would have torn it apart. I've read things that showed some Confederate States were as unhappy with the Confederacy as they were with the Union.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

We won...who cares?




Kidding. Recently I've been working on a story that takes place during that time and in researching I've come across so many fabulous bits of info on our country. (My Apologies to those from other lands, it wasn't met as a snotty dig)
The history is so rich and yet still fresh. I live in Pa...and close enough to drive to Gettysburg, I was there as a child and would love to go back knowing what I know now.

Finding how so many people died, prospered and survived that time is incredible at best. I never there was a woman held for being a confederate spy, nor did I realize what the black community had gone through in our fight for a new freedom.

I don't consider the North to be the bad guys, just pretty lucky...the south had some very smart military leaders.

 

[Goldie Munro]

'Gone With The Wind' says it all for me

Seriously it is an amazingly interesting time in US history - quite weird to think about nowadays that the US could have a civil war.

We had one long before you of course and I think a king had his head chopped off!

 

[sophia jane]

I don't consider the North to be the bad guys, just pretty lucky...the south had some very smart military leaders.

The problem the South had during the Civil War, and as far as I can tell from living in the south for several years, is they have way too much pride.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

The problem the South had during the Civil War, and as far as I can tell from living in the south for several years, is they have way too much pride.

But the food was good, right?

 

[R. Richard]

I used to live in the South. One day I was looking to buy a house and I toured several houses. In one house was a genuine bill of sale for a Negro field hand. The date of the bill of sale was, IIRC 1855 and the amount was $750. In 1855 $750 was at least an entire year's gross pay for a skilled worker.

If you owned a plantation with 100 Negro slaves, you had $75,000 tied up in the slaves. That is more like $75 million in today's money. Suddenly Northerers come to you and tell you that slavery is immoral, free all your slaves. If you are a thinking Southerner you say, "Ok, but first you give me $75,000 for the value of my slaves. The Northerner thinks this over and realizes he/they do not have $75,000 but he tells the Southerner to free his slaves anyhow. After a while, they have a war.

The South loses the war and the slaves are free!

You are a freed slave. Generally, you are a field hand who's only skill is field hand. You have no money. Thus, you stay and work for your former owner for as much money as you could hope to get anywhere. However, the money you earn is not enough to support you and you sink into economic slavery to the owner who once freed you. Meanwhile the Northerners are basking in the glow of self congratulations and saying, "We freed you boy. Rejoice, but don't come up North, we don't need your kind here!"

If you are a house servant, your situation is even worse. The plantation owners who once owned you cannot afford to pay you for service that does not yield money. Thus, you try to become a field hand. However, you are free!

Oh yes, the South is full of freed slaves who decamped from the plantation, taking the owners horse. They sold the horse and live like a king until the money runs out. Then, it is back to field hand or turn to crime.

Do you know how the Klu Klux Klan got started?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I used to live in the South. One day I was looking to buy a house and I toured several houses. In one house was a genuine bill of sale for a Negro field hand. The date of the bill of sale was, IIRC 1855 and the amount was $750. In 1855 $750 was at least an entire year's gross pay for a skilled worker.

If you owned a plantation with 100 Negro slaves, you had $75,000 tied up in the slaves. That is more like $75 million in today's money. Suddenly Northerers come to you and tell you that slavery is immoral, free all your slaves. If you are a thinking Southerner you say, "Ok, but first you give me $75,000 for the value of my slaves. The Northerner thinks this over and realizes he/they do not have $75,000 but he tells the Southerner to free his slaves anyhow. After a while, they have a war.

The South loses the war and the slaves are free!

You are a freed slave. Generally, you are a field hand who's only skill is field hand. You have no money. Thus, you stay and work for your former owner for as much money as you could hope to get anywhere. However, the money you earn is not enough to support you and you sink into economic slavery to the owner who once freed you. Meanwhile the Northerners are basking in the glow of self congratulations and saying, "We freed you boy. Rejoice, but don't come up North, we don't need your kind here!"

If you are a house servant, your situation is even worse. The plantation owners who once owned you cannot afford to pay you for service that does not yield money. Thus, you try to become a field hand. However, you are free!

Oh yes, the South is full of freed slaves who decamped from the plantation, taking the owners horse. They sold the horse and live like a king until the money runs out. Then, it is back to field hand or turn to crime.

Do you know how the Klu Klux Klan got started?

How cool was that to find???

Okay, tell us how it started.

 

[rgraham666]

Slaves are indeed much cheaper then employees. As Richard pointed out, you buy them once and after that you only have to feed and house them.

And such a huge investment!

People always fight viciously to keep their property.

 

[TheEarl]

I thought (and don't shoot me cause this is not my period of history) that the Emancipation Proclamation was only made halfway through the civil war.

The Earl

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I thought (and don't shoot me cause this is not my period of history) that the Emancipation Proclamation was only made halfway through the civil war.

The Earl

the proclimation was delivered in 1863, the war ended in 1865.

edit: I should mention it started in 1861 after many states seceded the union.

 

[TheEarl]

the proclimation was delivered in 1863, the war ended in 1865.

edit: I should mention it started in 1861 after many states seceded the union.

Ah, your edit beat me to my question.

The Earl

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Ah, your edit beat me to my question.

The Earl

LOL............then you were correct, it was given in the middle.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Slaves are indeed much cheaper then employees. As Richard pointed out, you buy them once and after that you only have to feed and house them.

And such a huge investment!

People always fight viciously to keep their property.

I am sure you have read or at least know about 'Beloved' by Toni Morrison - really brings home the realities of it all.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Living in the south, I grew up with many things fed to me about the Civil War. Since childhood I've read everything I could get my hands on, attended conferences, done re-enactments, volunteered in museums and written a few articles concerning the civil war.
The major cause for the south to split from the north was over states rights. Slavery was on it's way out in most of the south. The common soldier couldn't afford to own slaves, only the rich plantation owners. Captured confederate soldiers were asked many times why they were fighting. They gave two answers, states rights and because you invaded our home.
The emancipation proclamation given by Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south, leaving those in the north and neutral states as slaves if their owners wished. Before the war, Lincoln even made an offer to ship the slaves back to Africa. The proclamation was issued to keep France and England out of the war on the side of the South. Slaves in the north and neutral states were not freed until after the civil war. During Shermans march to the sea, many northern soldiers hated the freed slaves following them and didn't understand why they were fighting to free them. The northern soldier mainly fought to maintain the Union. Yes, we hear of all the ones who wanted them free, but that was not the majority. The new york riots proved this when Lincoln implemented the draft.
Yet throughout history most of us have been told it was all about slavery. The writing of history belongs to the victors.
Do as I have done and continue to do. Read everything you can get your hands on. Visit the museums and attend lectures. Even come to some of our re-enactments. Those of us who are buffs of the era still debate the cause and battles of the war. It's always fun and intelligent conversations. And to see how camps and everyone lived in that era is an excellent family outing. You'll find varied opinions on the war and even be able to taste how the common soldier ate, played cards, listened to music and hear each's political thoughts of the era. Even our matches are reproduced from the era.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I think the accounts they taught in the West are probably the closest to unbiased you'll find dealing with the Civil War in America (not saying much by saying this by the way). It slants morally with the North a bit, but also talks a lot about the heavy atrocities the Northerners committed and how pathetic their command was (except the guy in charge of the 20th Maine). The reason for the war as we were taught was the South was leaving over some deal breaker concerning the divying of some new states and the balance of free/slave and a few other grievances and the North went "No, you will be united against thy will fuckers. Besides, you have our capital in a death grip." And then shit started to explode.

The emancipation proc. was a gamble done afterwards and then the North later pointed at it to show how the we're morally superior in the fight as if that had been the real reason they went to war.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ah, your edit beat me to my question.

The Earl

I beleive that there are two ends to the civil war. the official end (and the emancipation proclamation) and several years later when General Lee actually stopped fighting and surendered. Also, the emancipation proclamation officially freed the slaves, but they were not in actual freed until much later- "Juneteenth"

J"UNETEENTH. On June 19 ("Juneteenth"), 1865, Union general Gordon Grangerqv read the Emancipation Proclamation in Galveston, thus belatedly bringing about the freeing of 250,000 slaves in Texas. "

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/JJ/lkj1.html

What is Juneteenth? Juneteenth is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. Dating back to 1865, it was on June 19th that the Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended and that all slaves were now free. Note that this was two and a half years after President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation - which had become official January 1, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation had little impact on the Texans due to the minimal number of Union troops to enforce the new Executive order. However, with the surrender of General Lee in April of 1865, and the arrival of General Granger's regiment, the forces were finally strong enough to influence and overcome the resistance.
Later attempts to explain this two and a half year delay in the receipt of this important news have yielded several versions that have been handed down through the years. Often told is the story of a messenger who was murdered on his way to Texas with the news of freedom. Another, is that the news was deliberately withheld by the slave masters to maintain the labor force on the plantations. And still another, is that federal troops actually waited for the slave owners to reap the benefits of one last cotton harvest before going to Texas to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. All or neither could be true. For whatever the reason, conditions in Texas remained status quo well beyond what was statutory.

http://www.elecvillage.com/juneteen.htm

 

[cloudy]

How interesting, as a southerner, it is to read these answers.

Slavery had very little to do with the civil war - the freedom of slaves was basically a byproduct, not the end aim...as Luc says, it was on it's way out, anyway.

It's not taught as 'us vs. them" by the way, not at all. It is, however, considered the war of Northern aggression still, in most of the south. The reason it's seen that way is that the south just seceded, and said "leave us alone," but the north wasn't having it. The south was militarily stronger, and had the better generals, but at the end, that mattered little.

Much could have been done to ease the transition had Sherman not seen fit to burn a swathe miles and miles wide on his way south to the gulf. That was revenge, not war.

And yes, R. Richard, I know why the KKK was founded, and it's not why most think. It didn't start out as a racist organization at all, far from it. It was founded as almost an underground resistance to the carpetbaggers who flooded the south after the war.

 

[sophia jane]

Juneteenth is still celebrated as a "holiday" in Texas. Just a little FYI.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Suddenly Northerers come to you and tell you that slavery is immoral, free all your slaves. If you are a thinking Southerner you say, "Ok, but first you give me $75,000 for the value of my slaves. The Northerner thinks this over and realizes he/they do not have $75,000 but he tells the Southerner to free his slaves anyhow. After a while, they have a war.

The South loses the war and the slaves are free!

You are a freed slave. Generally, you are a field hand who's only skill is field hand. You have no money. Thus, you stay and work for your former owner for as much money as you could hope to get anywhere. However, the money you earn is not enough to support you and you sink into economic slavery to the owner who once freed you. Meanwhile the Northerners are basking in the glow of self congratulations and saying, "We freed you boy. Rejoice, but don't come up North, we don't need your kind here!"

The problem with this outlook as I am coming to learn, is the false impression that we get from our education that the blacks were first imprisned by southern whites and then freed by northern whites. Meanwhile, not actors but victimes in all that happened.

In fact, it is true, many northerns benefited from slavery, many turned a blind eye. Not all were agaist it and not all who were against it were northern. Not all abolishionists were white. Black people did a greet deal more to bring about there own emancipation than they are usually credited for. Free and slave, blacks were as much abolishionists as whites. No- the struggle for them did not end with emancipation. And sure, some were satisfiied that they had achieved there purpose. But emancipation was only a step. And Blacks themselves were instrumental in bringing that about. (Norhtern, Southern, Free and Slave). Yet, again- not all slaves were abolitionists, not all even agreed with the fight for freedom. There were some who thought that the wisest course was not to rock the boat- for fear of even worse treetment and conditions.

They way we are taught history seems to paint every group in a solitary block, almost like a cartoon. All blacks, all white's all southerners all northerners or whatever. In reality, history was full of individuals- and all were players, not meerly spectators standing around waiting to be rescued or persecuted.

end rant...

 

[sweetnpetite]

The major cause for the south to split from the north was over states rights. Slavery was on it's way out in most of the south. The common soldier couldn't afford to own slaves, only the rich plantation owners. Captured confederate soldiers were asked many times why they were fighting. They gave two answers, states rights and because you invaded our home.

State's rights- ok, but what other rights besides the ones to keep slaves? [or to succeed in order to maintain that right?]

Also the common soldier's motivation doesn't determine the reason for the war. Nor are what they are told and taught to fight for always the truth. (usually they are told they are fighting for patriatism and family and other noble goals. Cause they don't actually gain or care if there leaders aquire more land or whatever else it is that the leaders want.)

I am confused- in what northern states was slavery legal after/during the civil war?

 

[sweetnpetite]

The emancipation proclamation given by Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south, leaving those in the north and neutral states as slaves if their owners wished.

From the emancipation proclamation:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

 

[yui]

The Civil War was basically about States Rights versus a strong Central (Federal) Government. I've lived here since I was six and I was taught that slavery was really only brought into the picture as an enormous "moral issue" in an effort to prevent England from aiding the South. My understanding is that England was trying to preserve their cotton source, but backed out when the moral question of slavery became part of the issue.

Also, moral right or wrong aside (slavery is wrong and I am not condoning it), my college profs held that slavery was an economic necessity at the time and without it, not only would the South have failed to flourish, but the entire nation would have been significantly less successful.

Luck,

Yui