|
RELATED LINKS:
PAGE CONTENTS:
Memory And The Civil War
The Confederate Myth
The Slave Trade And The North
Memory and the Civil War
By Denis Mueller
The Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender, but the battle
for memory only had just begun. This battle would go on for nearly 100 years until the civil rights movement and historians
like Eric Foner, Kenneth Stampp and David W. Blight would question what had really happened. In many ways the South lost the
war and won the battle over memory. In the South, proponents of the lost cause would blame the North, ignoring the fact
that it had been the South who had seceded from the union. They would put forth the inaccurate claim, denying the obvious
when hundreds of thousands signed up to fight for their freedom, that the slaves were content under this barbaric system.
While many of the South sought refuge in nostalgia and denied the terrorism of the KKK, many did not. Enoch M. Banks
was one and another was John Mosby. They called for "a rank realization and acknowledgment of our errors." Banks, a University
of Florida professor, said that the fundamental reason for the Civil War was the institution of slavery. He felt that the
south should accept responsibility for the war. His reward for his words, which contradicted the lost cause dogmatism of the
time, was to be forced out of the University of Florida.
But his words against this incorrect view were mild when compared
with guerrilla cavalry leader "Grey Ghost" John Mosby. Mosby was one of the romantic figures of the confederacy. His exploits
included raiding of union trains, capturing a union general and the hanging of prisoners as well. After the war he worked
for the Grant administration, served in the foreign service and loathed Confederate reunions, although it must be said that
he did enjoy meetings with those who were under his command.
Mosby became despised in the South but this did not phase
him in his conviction to tell the truth. "You speak of the bitter hostility of the North towards the South. Well, four years
of hard fighting is not calculated to make men love each other; neither is an everlasting rehearsal of the wrongs, which each
side imagines it has suffered going to bring us any nearer to a better understanding. Peace can only come with the oblivion
of the past."
Mosby had a candor, which was unusual for its honesty, in that
he never apologized for what he did or sought nationalization for his acts. "I committed treason and proud of it. It was our
country and we fought for it and we didn't care whether it was right or wrong." He fought against the nonsense that the South
did not fight the war to preserve slavery. "Why not talk about witchcraft if, as he said, slavery was not the cause of the
war? I always understood that we went to war on account of the things we quarreled with the North about... I never heard of
any other quarrel than slavery."
He steadfastly refused to apologize for his actions and that makes him
a unique man. "The South went to war on account of slavery-a soldier fighting for his country-right or wrong-he is not responsible
for the political merits of the course he
fights in. The South was my country." It's too bad that there was not honesty
among even northern historians, like we see in Mosby. Perhaps if there were we might not have seen the thousands of lynchings
that occurred. Maybe we would not even have the racial problems we have today. The truth is a powerful weapon and it can set
one free. Mosby was unique in that, not only he knew that, but that he practiced what he preached.
Sources: David
Blight, Race and Reunion; Eric Foner, Reconstruction
Copyright 2004 by PENN LLC. All rights reserved. Go ahead and forward
this, in its entirety, to others.
The Confederate Myth
The myth of the Confederacy is an important
part of Southern life. According to this myth, the South fought against overwhelming odds to sustain a way of life that was
being threatened by the federal government. Like other myths, this sounds good and just. It suggests that this heroic cause
was the last American resistance against the organizational state. The tragedy, for American history, is that this notion
is wrong.
First, there was opposition to the war in the South. During the anti-bellum
period the Whig party had considerable support. The Whigs did not accept the states rights agenda of the secessionists. But
opposition to this agenda did not stop with the Whigs. Democratic President Andrew Jackson of Tennessee was a fervent nationalist
who had one time threatened the state of South Carolina with intervention in the crisis of 1832. There were very few things
that Southerners Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay of Kentucky could agree on. One of them was the preservation of the Union.
Another example of Southern opposition is the elections of 1851 where the
secessionist movement suffered defeats through- out the South. Even as late as 1860, at least 40% of the popu- lation opposed
leaving the union. Before Fort Sumner was fired upon the people of Tennessee, North Carolina and Arkansas all voted against
secession. During the war there were active pockets of resistance throughout the South. In fact, there were more desertions
by Southern troops than from Northern troops.
Union sentiment, united the conservative Democrats and ex- Whigs. Many
of them were leaders in the new Southern industries and after the war stood for conservative fiscal policies, supported the
coming of Northern capital and the onward march of business. It is incorrect to think that the entire South was dominated
by freedmen and carpetbaggers in the re- construction period. Many who became Republicans were former Democrats and Whigs
who were always pro-union.
The old South, that had begun during the war industrialization, continued
that trend after the war. Iron furnaces grew up in Chattanooga and Birmingham. Industries also grew in New Orleans, Atlanta
and Houston but the South was transferred in the war. The confederates who ran the government did not govern as states rights
advocates. They created a strong centralized system.
Many Southerners opposed slavery for economic and political reasons. One
of those was Cassius Marcellus Clay, cousin of the more famous Henry Clay. Mr. Clay felt that slavery retarded the growth
of the South. Clay felt that the best course of action lay in the gradual emancipation of the slaves. Many, such as Mr. Clay's
more famous brother Henry, felt that slavery was evil. It is true that they equally worried about freeing of the slaves but
many had no great love for the South's particular institution.
One of the tragedies of history is that the racist elements captured the
South. It is true that that in many respects the North were just as opposed to equality. President Lincoln, for one, felt
that black people were inferior. But the South created a myth for itself that lasts until today. The best thing that ever
happened to the South was the civil rights movement. By forcing the hand of the white supremacists and questioning their power,
the South was able to join the rest of the country. The growth in the last thirty years has been remarkable. It shows that
the elements were always there. They just needed a push and an end to racist tyranny.
Source: The Confederate Myth, Frank Vandiver - There Was Another
South, Carl N. Degler
The Slave Trade and the North
by Dennis Mueller
Slavery was not just a southern problem. It was a part of an
economic system that provided a great deal of the wealth for the Western Hemisphere. Slavery not only flourished in the South
but it made possible the great wealth of the European Empires. It was rationalized by saying that it was necessary to the
New World.
While now we seem to look at it as particular Southern institution, there
was a complex interdependence that existed. Investors in the slave trade included small town merchants, large investors and
individuals such as Voltaire and John Locke; wealthy middlemen: New Englanders who shipped food, clothing, timbers and supplies
to the West Indies and last, but not least, those consumers who purchased slave-produced rice, hemp, cotton, rum and other
goods.
It must be understood that slavery was accepted from pre-biblical times.
So then it must have taken a tremendous moral change in attitudes to defeat it. At the time of the American Revolution, there
was criticism of it from people like the Quakers, Thomas Paine and the French philosopher Montesquieu. Yet, by 1800, it was
more entrenched than ever.
The whole system of American government was influenced by it. Remember
that a slave counted for three-fifths of a person, which helps explain why Southerners held the presidency in 50 out of the
first 72 years of the republic. Right from the start American foreign policy favored slave-holding states. One needs just
to look at our opposition to the black revolution in Haiti.
The North itself owed much of its wealth to the slave trade. The textile
advancements were directly propelled by the cheap affordability of cotton. With the exception of land, slavery represented
more capital than any other commodity in the nation. At the time of the civil war, the amount invested in slaves tripled that
of manufacturing or the railroads.
So how did the Abolition movement succeed against so many powerful obstacles?
It did so because of the fervency of its cause and the bravery of men like William Garrison. But there were other factors
as well and the great Christian awakening had much to do with it. This small group faced violent mobs from Ohio to New England.
They were disowned by their families but felt they were morally right, so the Abolitionist rode on.
Their influence in the South was stronger than their real strength. It
was the South’s reaction to slave rebellions that led to their desire to nationalize slavery in the new territories.
It also led to the creation of the Republican Party, which then led to the Civil War. The goal of the Southern aristocracy
to make slavery a national institution, not states rights, led to the Civil War.
Those who think that evil cannot be defeated need only to look at the anti-slavery
struggle. In the end, a group of dedicated people influenced public opinion to the point that an institution which was as
old as the republic was defeated. So who is to say that people can’t change the world, they already have.
Sources: New York Times, A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn
|
