PDA

View Full Version : Five Myths About Why the South Seceded



megimoo
01-20-2011, 10:01 AM
One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?
SNIP

1. The South seceded over states' rights.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina's secession convention adopted a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union." It noted "an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery" and protested that Northern states had failed to "fulfill their constitutional obligations" by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states' rights, birthed the Civil War.
SNIP

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.

During the nadir of post-civil-war race relations - the terrible years after 1890 when town after town across the North became all-white "sundown towns" and state after state across the South prevented African Americans from voting - "anything but slavery" explanations of the Civil War gained traction. To this day Confederate sympathizers successfully float this false claim, along with their preferred name for the conflict: the War Between the States. At the infamous Secession Ball in South Carolina, hosted in December by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, "the main reasons for secession were portrayed as high tariffs and Northern states using Southern tax money to build their own infrastructure," The Washington Post reported.
SNIP
3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.

Indeed, most white Southern families had no slaves. Less than half of white Mississippi households owned one or more slaves, for example, and that proportion was smaller still in whiter states such as Virginia and Tennessee. It is also true that, in areas with few slaves, most white Southerners did not support secession. West Virginia seceded from Virginia to stay with the Union, and Confederate troops had to occupy parts of eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama to hold them in line.
SNIP


4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.

Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later.

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: "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. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
SNIP
5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.

Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them - or forced them to abandon slavery?
SNIP

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010703178_pf.html

Starbuck
01-20-2011, 10:19 AM
For me, the most significant statement in the article is "No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily."


About half the people living in the South in 1860 were slaves. That appears to be a ball wound too tightly to easily unravel.
http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Alabama


There are parts of the South that never recovered from The Civil War. Maybe - as in the case of Mississippi - there are entire States that have yet to recover.

fettpett
01-20-2011, 10:59 AM
there is another post on this same article

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 05:29 PM
Any word on how many black households owned slaves?

Just to note, if you don't think there were black plantation owners then you're delusional.

CueSi
01-20-2011, 06:22 PM
Any word on how many black households owned slaves?

Just to note, if you don't think there were black plantation owners then you're delusional.

But how many of those were there? Not alot, I'm willing to assume.

~QC

fettpett
01-20-2011, 06:37 PM
Until Jackson there were Indian plantation owners too...

megimoo
01-20-2011, 06:54 PM
But how many of those were there? Not alot, I'm willing to assume.

~QCAnd if you're unwilling ?

fettpett
01-20-2011, 07:01 PM
Any word on how many black households owned slaves?

Just to note, if you don't think there were black plantation owners then you're delusional.


According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

there you go

Starbuck
01-20-2011, 07:36 PM
Interesting stuff...

I don't know of a way to accumulate information, but I'd sure like to find out what those black slave owners thought about The Civil War.

fettpett
01-20-2011, 07:59 PM
Interesting stuff...

I don't know of a way to accumulate information, but I'd sure like to find out what those black slave owners thought about The Civil War.

They probably supported the Confederacy, many blacks did, particularly the free ones

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 09:12 PM
But how many of those were there? Not alot, I'm willing to assume.

~QC

However how many, it pretty much blows a hole in the left's constant browbeating about slavery being a white man's institution. There were white slaves as well. Not to mention black Confederate soldiers. People like to think that the Civil War was a black and white issue(pardon the pun). It was not.

Starbuck
01-20-2011, 10:33 PM
They probably supported the Confederacy, many blacks did, particularly the free ones
I expect you are right. Their livelihood was at stake and they were, as we said, slave owners.

They were prevented by law from serving in the Confederate Army, but wouldn't it be great to stick your head back in those times and have a conversation with a black slave owner?:)

NJCardFan
01-20-2011, 10:51 PM
I expect you are right. Their livelihood was at stake and they were, as we said, slave owners.

They were prevented by law from serving in the Confederate Army, but wouldn't it be great to stick your head back in those times and have a conversation with a black slave owner?:)
Actually, didn't some slave masters have slaves fight in their stead? Yep, I'm right. Not about the stead thing but there being black Confederate soldiers:
http://shehasmyeyes.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/black-confederate-soldier.jpg
http://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/black-confederates.jpg

http://www.calebstriumph.com/black_confederates/black_confederates.html

fettpett
01-20-2011, 11:03 PM
I expect you are right. Their livelihood was at stake and they were, as we said, slave owners.

They were prevented by law from serving in the Confederate Army, but wouldn't it be great to stick your head back in those times and have a conversation with a black slave owner?:)

there were a lot of them at Gettysburg too.

Not only that, but toward the end of the War the Confederate Congress was looking at not only bringing in more Colored troops but freeing them AND giving them citizenship upon completion of their service.It didn't pass the Congress but shows how far they were willing to go

megimoo
01-20-2011, 11:11 PM
Any word on how many black households owned slaves?

Just to note, if you don't think there were black plantation owners then you're delusional.

Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.

On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.
snip
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

CueSi
01-20-2011, 11:51 PM
And if you're unwilling ?

Well ,we can at least say there wasn't a majority...


However how many, it pretty much blows a hole in the left's constant browbeating about slavery being a white man's institution. There were white slaves as well. Not to mention black Confederate soldiers. People like to think that the Civil War was a black and white issue(pardon the pun). It was not.

I'll agree with that...there's speculation that the Welsh and Irish strains in our genepool are from slaves in the Caribbean, so there's that. I'm pretty well aware of black Confederates... The Civil War was a cocktail of causes, and to say it was JUST ONE THING is inaccurate.

~QC

Rockntractor
01-20-2011, 11:53 PM
The Civil War was a cocktail of causes, and to say it was JUST ONE THING is inaccurate.

~QC

precisely!

megimoo
01-20-2011, 11:59 PM
Well ,we can at least say there wasn't a majority...



I'll agree with that...there's speculation that the Welsh and Irish strains in our genepool are from slaves in the Caribbean, so there's that. I'm pretty well aware of black Confederates... The Civil War was a cocktail of causes, and to say it was JUST ONE THING is inaccurate.

~QCYou are a very wise young lady !History is never that simple .

fettpett
01-21-2011, 12:16 AM
You are a very wise young lady !History is never that simple .

and yet sometimes it is....

Bubba Dawg
01-21-2011, 12:16 AM
I have read many works on the causes of the Civil War.

At best I can say that it had multiple causes, and different people were probably motivated by many differing reasons and beliefs.

For me it is impossible to separate the issue of slavery from the causes of the war. I don't see it as the only reason, but it certainly appears to have been a catalyst. The economics of the different regions also played a part. It is complex, as are most such issues and events.

What I also see is that many, certainly not all, but many people who talk about the Civil War today also have an interest in arguing other more recent (and even present day) issues by proxy in debating the causes of the Civil War. To me, the causes of the Civil War are irrelevant in such cases. Argue the issues at hand.

The thing is, as I see it, Jim Crow laws lasted into the sixties in many parts of the South, and racial prejudice was manifested in the attempt at de-segregating the Boston schools in the 1970's and also when Martin Luther King Jr. marched in white neighborhoods of Chicago Illinois in the 1960's.

And the Supreme Court Decision of Brown vs Board of Education was against the BOE of Topeka Kansas.

Racism was all over.

If you want pretty history with entirely clean hands, I wish you good luck.

I am a Southerner, but I am an American first. If we were lining up for the Civil War today, I would go north and fight for the Union, as did many Southerners of that generation 150 years ago.

And damn anybody who would fire on my American flag.

Starbuck
01-21-2011, 01:06 PM
Actually, didn't some slave masters have slaves fight in their stead? Yep, I'm right. Not about the stead thing but there being black Confederate soldiers:........
There are men with distinctive degrees in History and black history in particular who disagree.
I know this is a volatile issue, and I am aware of the numerous web sites touting the existence of black Confederate troops.
But I don't believe they existed:
Professor Bruce Levine of University of Illinois disagrees with you, and I buy his arguments and historical research.
http://www.history.illinois.edu/people/blevine3

He recently had this to say:

This strikingly unsuccessful last-ditch effort, furthermore, constituted the sole exception to the Confederacy's steadfast refusal to employ African American soldiers. As Gen. Ewell's longtime aide-de-camp, Maj. George Campbell Brown, later affirmed, the handful of black soldiers mustered in Richmond in 1865 were "the first and only black troops used on our side."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/the_myth_of_the_black_confeder.html

The use of black troops was absolutely illegal until March of '65, one month before the end of the war, when they were recruited. As you see above, they were not very successful.
Reading about Lincoln's reluctance to use black troops, the segregation of the troops that were used, and the threat of desertion by white Northern troops leads me to believe that, for all purposes of discussion, they were not used by the South at all.

But lots of people have other ideas.

Rebel Yell
01-21-2011, 01:25 PM
But how many of those were there? Not alot, I'm willing to assume.

~QC

Percentage wise, free blacks owned slaves at about the same rate as free whites.

Rebel Yell
01-21-2011, 01:30 PM
Black slaves were treated badly, but the biggest pieces of shit, in society's eyes at the time were the indentured servants. Look it up.