Southern Civil War Excuses: Proving My Point While Thinking You're Refuting It

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 20:38


A diary I wrote last week, "Northern Racism--Yes, I Know It Exists", sparked a response at Street Prophets, "Neo-Confederate Thought and Racism" by Matthew Krell, that inadvertantly helps make my point clearer in the larger argument crititicizing Southern political culture as distinct from individual Southerners.

I have no reason at all to think Krell a racist.  For all I know he's a fine upstanding progressive.  And yet, his diary is devoted to yet another argument that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War:

On the jump, I explore (but do not claim to make a definitive statement on) the idea that the Civil War (as a war, not as a conflict that could escalate to war) was caused not by slavery, not by federalism or any of the "neo-Confederate" bullshit that Rosenberg calls apologia, but by a simple problem - the weakness of the rule of law.

Well, let me just say this about that: every war there ever was could be said to be caused by the weakness of the rule of law.  At least every civil war.  But it takes a certain sort of cultural myopia that's endemic in the South not to recognize this obvious fact.

Paul Rosenberg :: Southern Civil War Excuses: Proving My Point While Thinking You're Refuting It

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Southern Civil War Excuses: Proving My Point While Thinking You're Refuting It | 141 comments
Re (4.00 / 4)
I live in the South (well, sort of: Oklahoma) and I've run up against those who insist that the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, as they often call it) was not about slavery.  I argue against this, saying that all of the issues of federalism, states' rights, etc. were basically just technical issues surrounding slavery.  One of my favorite counter-arguments that I've heard came from a guy who said that Grant felt that the Civil War would not have been worth fighting if it was about slavery.  Okay, so our great general (who wasn't really known to be a political genius or a philosopher) didn't think it was about slavery.  I guess that proves the point...
The War Of Southern Aggression (Begun When South Carolina Fired On Fort Sumter) (3.43 / 7)
was indeed not about slavery, but about another institution that, by a remarkable coincidence, shared the same name!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Excellent work, Paul. (4.00 / 1)
The Civil War was a war of two systems: capitalism v. agrarian-based slavery.

Yes, it was slavery.  Most historians agree.

[ Parent ]
As a Jewish Southerner like Krell, (0.00 / 0)
I'll back him up on this one.  I've written on this in the past.  

And Paul, really sharp statement above:

Well, The Real Reason For The Civil War was Southern stupidity:  They actually thought that they'd win.

Nice.  Southerners are inherently dumber than Northerners.  Got it.

I don't think that's what Paul's saying. (4.00 / 1)
How about white pro-slavery southerners in the late 1850s? Would you agree with that?
[ Parent ]
That they were more stupid (0.00 / 0)
than Northerners?
[ Parent ]
Where did he make any comparison to another group of people? (0.00 / 0)
I guess if you get down to it, stupid being a judgement word, is always made in relation to someone's elses intelligence. So fine if you object to anyone ever using the term "stupidity" as a judgement word. So what would you call it?
[ Parent ]
They were (4.00 / 3)
If they thought they could win a civil war against the north.

Paul's been pretty consistently clear that when he talks about the South, he means the political culture and the elite. And it's pretty damn difficult to see much intelligence or far-sighted political thought there.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Again (4.00 / 3)
Collective political behavior is not reflective of the individual.

But Southern culture seems doomed and determined to repeatedly ignore and deny this fact.

And backing up Krell doesn't do a damn thing.  As I pointed out, so what?  Every civil war started because of the weakness of the rule of law.

That doesn't explain diddley.

The fact that you would simply re-assert it as you do is precisely indicative of what I'm talking about. It illustrates the general principle, simply stated, that we don't know who discovered water, we only know that it wasn't a fish.

And so it is with Southern denialism about slavery, racism, the Civil War, etc.  Your typical Southern white can no more see these things clearly than a fish can see water, and for the same reason--which, I hasten to add, is not an indictment of the individual.  It's a commentary on their situation.

There are of course, flying fish, who regularly gain a more enlightened perspective.  But that's whole different kettle of, well, you know.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Gosh, I wish I lived in the North (4.00 / 1)
where I could be more "enlightened."  It sucks not being able to see anything clearly down here in my "situation" with all the other "typical whites."

Do you see how elitist and condescending you sound?  Whether you're right or wrong--and I think you're wrong--you'll never persuade anyone with the attitude.

[ Parent ]
Yup! (4.00 / 2)
I really wish it weren't true.

And yet...

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
if paul prefaced everything with (0.00 / 0)
"conservative white southerners", would you be OK with it?
[ Parent ]
That would be a start, but he (4.00 / 1)
doesn't seem too interested in distinguishing between groups of Southerners.
[ Parent ]
Civil War St. Louis (4.00 / 4)
I'm a native of St. Louis and recently completed a long, 400+ page book "Civil War St. Louis" about the era in what was, at the time, the most important city in the Western US.  Missouri was a slave state, but the economy was much more tied to the North, not unlike Civil War Maryland.  In any case, the more I study the Civil War the more I absolutely believe it was about slavery, no doubt about it.  Virtually everyone who sided with the Confederacy supported slavery.  There were Unionists who favored slavery but when people really had to choose sides -- and in St. Louis the choice was pretty much forced on everybody more so than in cities to the North -- attitudes about slavery were the determining factor.  
[ Parent ]
Germans (4.00 / 3)
One of the key factors in Missouri and Maryland that kept those states in the Union was the presence of large German communities.  Many had come to the states following the collapse of the Revolution of 1848 and were vehemently abolitionist.  St. Louis and Baltimore had large and active German communities.

A fair summation is that many individuals made their choices on the basis of their state (lee) or maintaining the union (Grant, Sherman) but the factor that triggered the war was slavery.

[ Parent ]
Some may have been Scots (0.00 / 0)
remembering their centuries old battles with the English brought to the New World, treated as bastard step-children and back hills runoff. Why didn't the Southern Scots and Irish just give up? Why couldn't they accept the superiority of the North and its industrial ways?
[ Parent ]
I wish you lived in the North, too. (4.00 / 2)
You're embarrassing us all.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
If I May Hitch A Ride A Spell (4.00 / 4)
As I see it, Sadie is not offended by what I say because she knows that she lives in the South, but she is not the South.  There are some parts of the South that she loves.  Some parts she despises.  Some parts she conflicted about, etc., etc., etc.  What she identifies with in the South she chooses, and takes responsibility for.  What she does not identify with she also chooses---to reject.

Because she understands herself as a whole person, she has nothing to be defensive or apologetic about.  And she is exactly the sort of person who will, over time, redeem the South and make it a place that everyone can feel proud of, without feeling any need to deny, distort or run away from the ugly parts.

Just as most people in the North don't get mired in regional political shit the way so many Southerners do, very few Northerners have to go through what Sadie has to get disentagled from all the cultural bull she was raised in the midst of.  As a result, she--and other Southern progressives like her--has a generally higher level of awareness about such issues than most Northerners do.

At least that is how it seems to me, given what I've seen of how she conducts herself, and my own experience of living in the South decades ago, and knowing Southerners throughout my life.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well isn't Sadie well behaved. (0.00 / 1)
Now if only we could domesticate the rest of the illiterate savages in the South to become model citizens like her, America would be on the right track.

And you base much of this on "knowing Southerners" throughout your life?  Hey buddy, I have black friends, too.

[ Parent ]
You're new around here, (4.00 / 4)
aren't you?

No one has ever accused me of being "well-behaved" before.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
It's a Southern thing (4.00 / 1)
We smile and chat with our neighbors of whatever persuasion. Just basic good manners.
[ Parent ]
Since we're chatting, all neighborly like (4.00 / 1)
I was wondering, how old were you when your daddy transferred to North Carolina? Or is it Marietta? Martin-Marietta perhaps? You first generation types are always the worst.

My family crossed the Cumberland Gap in 1775, and in the 200 something years that have passed since then, we've made it all of about ten counties over.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Aren't you special (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
And Aren't You All Et Up With Envy? (4.00 / 1)
One almost has to wonder why.

Almost.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I know I've told this story before (4.00 / 6)
but one time I met a rabbi who had lost family in the Holocaust, and responded to that by dedicating his life to justice for Palestinians. He explained, "I love my people, but they are capable of terrible things and sometimes I have to fight them."

I took that as my model. When your people do terrible things, you can't stop loving them, you have to love them harder. You fight them because you love them.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Having lived in regions of the South nearly my entire life (4.00 / 2)
I can state that, sadly, there is a definite dearth of gray matter floating around. Then again, I think we Americans, as a whole, are a fairly unenlightened bunch. But in my experience, Southern ignorance abounds. Now, I will leave it to others to decide how that compares with ignorance in other regions of the country, but from where I'm sitting, it's pretty grim.
[ Parent ]
Eh, sadly, that's true everywhere. (4.00 / 1)
You would think that the world was overrunning with smart people to read OL's commentary. However, I'm new to the South, and I see no distinction. But NC now has some of the best ranked public school systems and certainly other parts of the South have some of the worst.  
[ Parent ]
one small point (4.00 / 2)
I do not want to get into a drawn-out argument on this here. I think it is clear slavery was the main cause of the Civil War; I also think Krell's formulation is silly and formal. But the form of this debate here does not lend itself to really getting into the issue or even making clear what the issue is. I mainly want to comment on your earlier post at daily KOS in which you use Lincoln's famous letter to Greeley to indicate that slavery was not the cause of the civil war. Certainly Lincoln was saying then as he stated throughout his pre-presidential career, his candidacy, and his early presidency that he would not interfere with slavery as it existed then in the Southern states; the Republicans (at least from Lincoln through the radicals) were adamant on not allowing slavery to expand into the territories. On this he stood firm. The letter to Greeley (in response to Greeley's worried appeal to surrender to Southern demands) did not turn him from this resolve. You seem to conclude from this that slavery was not the cause; indeed the context proves the contrary.
[ Parent ]
To Brandon Friedman. Please explain (0.00 / 0)
Just out of curiosity, what role does your Jewishness play in backing him up or in his original ideas? I am also Jewish. I don't see what role this plays in the discussion. Am I missing something? (PS., I used your name to indicate who I was talking to; the indentations aren't always the easiest to follow).
[ Parent ]
It's about having a similar perspective. . . (0.00 / 0)
it's not an ethnic solidarity thing, if that's what you're asking.
[ Parent ]
It is a bit more complicated than this (4.00 / 3)
The South seceeded because of slavery.  The North did NOT fight the Civil War to end slavery, it fought it to keep the Union together.  

The question of whether individual states had the right to seceede was not an easily resolvable issue, and the South has tended to use the dispute of the legality of secession  as an explanation for the cause of the War.

When you study the law, you learn about proximate cause.  The problem with the southern explanation of the cause of the Civil War is that it ignores what CAUSED them to suceede in the first place - and there is no doubt that what caused them to seceede was slavery.  

Ultimately, the best source on the Civil War is Lincoln, who said in the Second Inagural that the War was "somehow" caused by slavery.  That for me was the end of this argument....

I Fail To See How That's More Complicated. (4.00 / 3)
The South tried to seceed because of slavery.  They started the war because of slavery.  (Attacking Fort Sumter, remember?)  The North fought back to stop them.

What's so complicated?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
"more complicated" (4.00 / 1)
I think fladem's use of the term "more complicated" is not unreasonable. Without question, slavery was the underlying cause; Krell's formulation is sophomoric and silly (still it could stand him in good stead. he might have a successful academic career ahead of him...look how Condeleeza Rice parlayed bromides into a thesis, then University president-ship and high cabinet position); but there were all sorts of layers and currents that contributed to the war and to its virulence. For example the industrial north vs the agrarian south; religious and ethnic differences between regions; disputes over tariffs, and internal developments; the dynamism of the north and the rigidity of the south, and as fladem states the legal disputes over free speech (for abolitionists), the humanity of blacks (Dred Scott, fugitive slave laws), secession itself.  
[ Parent ]
I Believe You Left Out The Werewolves (1.33 / 3)
Musn't do that!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
?????? (4.00 / 1)
your too clever for me here, or something.  Of course if you want to be understood you might write plainly.
[ Parent ]
Those Other Explanations Are Fanciful And Exotic (4.00 / 1)
like werewolves.

So why not include them as well?

I realize that you weren't invoking them as explanations.  But then why mention them at all?  I'm certainly aware that all sorts of different complications were involved.  But nothing came anywhere close to the importance of slavery, except as a facilitation or a hindrance to it.  And thus to speak of anything else in the same breath is to give at least some token of assent to the obfuscation of what the war was all about.  And while it is not quite in the same league as Holocaust denial, it certainly is a related phenomena, intended to downplay a great historical crime and minimize its significance for politics today.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
fanciful and exotic? your imagination? (4.00 / 1)
"I realize that you weren't invoking them as explanations.  But then why mention them at all?" I think I WAS mentioning them as explanations and important ones as well. The problem for me with this particular post is possibly more with   question being poorly-posed than with the quality of some of  the answers. When one talks of the cause of the civil war, I think slavery is the clear overarching cause. But many books on the subject with which I agree (e.g the writings of James MacPherson on the subject or Karl Marx who wrote about it too) do not stop at a single one line answer. They give the question the textured and nuanced discussion it deserves and helps us understand.
Of course Krelle's response is formal and silly; but others here have not been when they have tried possibly to answer other aspects of the question. Clearly a tremendous number of the actors at the time who actively embraced the war did not do so from their view of slavery. Many poor Southern whites that enlisted or were drafted were not fighting "for slavery"; Stephen Douglass who embraced the war after secession was a racist, and through his wife a slave-holder but he supported the Union and in the end the war. The examples are legion and it is worthwhile to understand them. Putting the answer into a cubby-hole and then defending the classification is not so constructive.
What was the basic cause of Obama's defeat of McCain. I think the basic cause was the economy and its meltdown.  I think it is constructive to see how other issues played an important role, how the economic issue affected other issues and differing groups of the population.

 

[ Parent ]
But the North didn't (4.00 / 1)
intend to contest their leaving because of slavery, it was because they didn't think the South had the right to secede.  You dramatically oversimplify the start of the War: The North was not going to allow the South to secede.  The fact that the South fired first is really irrelevant - once the South took the legal step of secession war became irrelevant.


[ Parent ]
I should note (4.00 / 1)
lest some conclude some sort of sympathy on my part with the South because of my user id, that my great great great grandfather was part of the Vermont Regiment that held the Union Left at Gettysburg.  I am a native Vermonter, and a proud Yankee.  
[ Parent ]
Ah but, (3.00 / 4)
why did the other southern states follow South Carolina's lead in 1860 and not during the nullification crisis during Jackson's time?

I think we can talk around this for hours (like we have), but when it comes down to it, slavery was the reason for the treason. Everything sprung from it and revolved around it.  

[ Parent ]
So? (0.00 / 0)
You really think this is a great complication?

There are kids in junior high with love lives more complicated than this.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
When did I say it was a (0.00 / 0)
"great complication"?  I said it was a bit more complicated.

How does "a bit" become a great complication?

[ Parent ]
That Was Mockery, I'm Afraid (4.00 / 1)
From where I sit, it's no complication at all.

And Jason C. is right.  What bugs me about all this is the definite whiff of denialism that runs through it all.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Denying what? (0.00 / 0)
No one seems to be denying that slavery was the major cause of the war. Some of us just think there were other matters and emotions that also mattered.
[ Parent ]
In fact, I was taught at Berkeley, (0.00 / 0)
which is very much not a bastion of Southern myopia, that the Emancipation Proclamation was the last of punitive measures designed to get the South in line. Which is not to say that slavery was not the issue around which the South felt compelled to secede. But I was certainly taught that slavery was not the reason why the North entered the Civil War.
[ Parent ]
It wasn't a punitive measure (4.00 / 2)
it was jujitsu.

Lincoln knew the economy of the South was built on slavery and could not survive without it. A mass desertion of slaves would do it in.  A mass desertion of slaves, who were then trained, uniformed, and returned as soldiers fighting against their old master was deeply traumatic and demoralizing.

He turned his enemies advantage into his own.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yes, the jujitsu went both ways (4.00 / 3)
Lincoln had to wait until a big Union victory, Antietam, to sign the EP in order to not enforce the perception that he was desperate for black soldiers to reinforce Union forces, which was something even most people in the North were afraid of.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
The Civil War was fought (4.00 / 6)
because the power elite = plantation/slave holders saw their power in Washington eroding as the population of the industrialized North was increasing.  That is why they wanted the new territories to be slave states; they needed a way to grow the population of slave holders so they could maintain their power in Washington against the industrial North.  That power protected their right to own slaves.  They did not really think that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, but they knew it was going to happen sooner or later because their power was disappearing.  Thus, they chose to leave the Union so they could keep their slaves.  Most of the white population of the South were not slave holders.  But they were easily manipulated by the power elite slave owners through racism and fear of having to compete economically with freed slaves.  That mind set still exists today and is why the Republican party's "Southern Strategy" was so effective in turning the South to the Republican party.  Working class whites in the South are more than willing to shoot themselves in the foot and vote against their own economic self-interests as long as the people they are putting in power hurt the interests of blacks (or any other people of color)even more.  Somebody has to be on the bottom and it ain't gonna be them. Upper class whites foster the racism and fear amongst the working class whites because it keeps them in power so they can continue to bleed the rest of the rubes dry. I'm from the South, and I can tell you that the mind set that "the South will rise again" is very prevalent, along with the racism.  It's not a pretty sight.  
Funny wasn't it, (4.00 / 5)
while the Southern oligarchy ran the federal government (just count how many of our first presidents were Southern), they were all for federal government.

They only discovered "states rights" when they lost control of the federal government. It almost makes one question their sincerity . . .

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
If only it was as funny… (4.00 / 1)
...as it is an insightful bit of info...hadn't really occurred to me before. Thanx.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
Except early on (0.00 / 0)
the Kentucky and Virgin Resolutions were drawn up to counter the Sedition Laws, so yes, southern states cared about states rights early on.
[ Parent ]
Virginia Resolutions that is (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Except That (4.00 / 1)
Adams--a Federalist--was President when those were passed.  Once the Democratic-Republicans (Virginians all at the presidential level until JQA) took over, the South quickly dropped all the states' rights talk--and New England took it up, as I mentioned elsewhere.

That was always the problem with "states' rights" dogma, it was always so closely bound up with special pleading.

Now, personally, I think it's a very good idea to have multiple levels of sovereignty.  But there's got to be a coherent and consistent framework of principles regulating them and their inter-relationships.  That was never really a big concern of the Southern political class.  They just wanted something that said that they were right.  And if they changed positions 180 degrees, they wanted something else that said that they were right.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Not quite convincing (0.00 / 0)
Do you think Kentucky and Virginia would have supported the Sedition Acts under Jefferson and Madison? Likely the reason they didn't have to is that Jefferson and Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In an item worthy of Cheney or Rove, we hear "At a more serious level, Alexander Hamilton, then building up the army, suggested sending it into Virginia, on some "obvious pretext." Measures would be taken, Hamilton hinted to an ally in Congress, "to act upon the laws and put Virginia to the Test of resistance."" I can't imagine why some southerners might feel threatened.

A few years later, South Carolina supported Nullification under both a Federalist president and a Democratic president - is that enough equal time for you?

[ Parent ]
Count the electoral votes (4.00 / 2)
In 1800, when Jefferson was elected, slave states were 46% of the electoral votes.  From 1800 through 1836, southerners held the White House nearly all the time.  From 1836 through 1860, as southern electoral power waned, the White House was mostly held by friends of the south.  Pierce and Buchanan clearly fit the mold.

By 1860, slave states accounted for only 39% of the electoral votes. When free states (sorry guys, that was the term at the time) united behind a candidate against the expansion of slavery, the south knew its time was over.

One extension of this argument needs to be made.  Back in the 1950s, a book called "The Mind of the South" explained southern culture or at least southern political culture rather brilliantly.  The key post-Civil War moment came in the 1880s and 1890s when the ruling oligarchy was challenged by populism.  The solution was brilliantly simple and effective.  The southern top dogs split populism along racial lines promising as usual that poor whites would be ahead of all southern blacks.  This created a faux middle class (just poor whites who felt entitled).  The real brilliance came in enforcing this by denying blacks the right to vote (thus cutting the potential voting power of any opposition).  When the textile mills moved south, the compact was extended.  Southern whites got the better mill jobs and southern blacks got the leftovers.

Of course, the old top dogs stayed as top dogs and were even more entrenched but the vast working class was split with a large share acting as overseers, etc.  It was dastardly but in some form it has held on for well over 100 years.  

[ Parent ]
So simple it hurts (4.00 / 3)
Some seventy years later, I lived in the reality which was the fruit of that evil social contract. I was awfully young -- at least it seems that way to me today -- but even then I was aware that I was living in a hell which began with the compromises deemed necessary to get the Declaration of Independence through the Continental Congress, and which had been going inexorably downhill from there.

Desider has absolutely no fucking clue where his true heritage lies. I do. If the South is as determined as it seems to be to rise again, it will have to contend with folks like me -- thousands of them. Southerners can keep their pickups, and their cotillions and beaux arts too, for all I care, but they can never have my country. Never.

[ Parent ]
But David, you're also pointing out (0.00 / 0)
that it was also an issue of political control, that the south saw the growing control of the north, say like modern northern Democrats being afraid of the growing influence and unity of the south and Texas. It would be nice to examine what other issues came to play in the Congress besides slavery issues. I suppose it was a simpler time, but there wasn't just one issue of disagreement on the table.
[ Parent ]
its been pretty effective in the north too (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
oh boy, here we go again (4.00 / 1)
I've really disliked this series, but I do have to agree with Paul that this comment by Krell is utter nonsense. The South was scared shitless about losing slavery as it would mean economic ruin.

as for this cultural myopia stuff I really wish Paul would give up his particular brand of it.  

~* the * Will * to go on *~

economic ruin for about (4.00 / 6)
0.5% of the population. But a pretty damn good development for everyone else.  
[ Parent ]
not just economic ruin (4.00 / 3)
I've long thought one of the most incredibly potent - and at the same time almost entirely unspoken - political motivators in this country's history has been white fear of "slave rebellion" - either literally, when slavery existed; or metaphorically - a vestigial but very real (if unjustified) fear of blacks violently rising up against whites.

So I think it went far beyond fear of economic ruin for southern whites - it was fear about what an empowered class of former slaves might do to settle the score.

[ Parent ]
I will just add (4.00 / 7)
Historian Eric Rauchway's Slavery Did Too Cause the Civil War


On a basic theory of causation, we're talking about that x without which no y, where y is the Civil War. It is profoundly difficult to believe any Civil War would have occurred without slavery, or if you want to be precise, without slavery concentrated in one part of the country. Even if you think some version of the states'-rights debate would have occurred without a geographically concentrated slave interest (which I don't) it's hard to believe it would have come to war.


Lincoln said it best (4.00 / 5)
Lincoln said many of the best things that have ever been said about the American nation and the American people. When it came to the causes of the Civil War, it is harder to do better than this, from his Second Inaugural Address:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'.

Frederick Douglass quoted this very passage in his tribute to Lincoln, and for a very good reason: everyone in the country, black and white, knew it to be true. I think even white Southerners, under their pain and sense of loss, knew it as well. Their hatred of the North both during and long after Reconstruction may have been due in part to the indignities they suffered in the immediate aftermath of the war, but I don't believe that I'm wrong in thinking that a guilty conscience was at least partly responsible for the virulence of that hatred.

You know they almost never called their slaves (4.00 / 4)
"slaves?" They preferred the euphemism, "people." As in "my people are sick" or "I had to sell some of my people."

To me this suggests that on some level they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
What sick impulse (4.00 / 5)
drives people to deny that the Southern revolt was about anything but slavery? Seriously, this is Holocaust denial territory - except that instead of denying the fact of the tragedy, you're denying the motivations behind it.

The white Southerners who rebelled not only believed in their inalienable right to own human beings as property, they started the bloodiest war in American history in order to protect that "right." It was a monstrous act, and anyone who looks back on it with anything but shame has something wrong with them.  

It's pride. (4.00 / 5)
Southerners are proud of their Southern heritage, and I don't think it's right to fault them for that.  However, there's a difference between being proud of your heritage and denying the sins of the past (and present.)  All American citizens should be ashamed of the way that the United States expanded into Native American territory, killed them, relocated them, and frequently reneged on treaties with them.  I'm ashamed of that part of our past, but I am still proud of my American heritage.

In the South, a lot of folks think that if you are to be proud of something, then it should be perfect.  Rather than recognizing that what they are proud of isn't perfect and then abandoning that pride, they make up stories about how it's perfect anyway.

[ Parent ]
Boy Howdy! (4.00 / 1)
Pretty remarkable, no?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Byron Shafer? (0.00 / 0)
Paul, in another diary - maybe yours, maybe someone else's - we exchanged briefly on some of my research and reading of late.  

All of your writing on Southern politics, or more appropriately, politics vis a vis sociology-culture, got me wondering...

Have you read much by Byron Shafer and the Black brothers (Earl and Merle)?

I'm taking a course from Byron this coming semester on contemporary American politics as per realignments, and especially through the lens of Southern partisan change.  He's a serious expert on Southern politics, and realignments in general (as well as party as a sub-discipline in polisci).  I'm reading the monstrous book "The Rise of Southern Republicans" by the Black bros for the class.

Just curious if you're familiar with their work and any take you have, especially on Byron's latest book.

Sorry, No (0.00 / 0)
I am familiar with Shafer's thesis, which seems pretty sound to me, and want to read The End of Southern Exceptionalism, but I haven't gotten to it yet.  I've mostly just read a few papers in the area.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Shafer (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, this is his latest book.  Very good stuff on the data and academic political science.  Ultimately, I think he's made some fundamentally flawed assumptions (and I can't wait to toss them out to him) and he does not flesh out much in the way of an explanatory story.  But it's really good stuff, especially in tandem with the Black's "The Rise of Southern Republicans."

I think you might like them.  Both are dense books (plan a few days or a week for both).  

[ Parent ]
I've never understood (4.00 / 1)
why there are those who engage in the pretense that was about something other than slavery.  States' rights, the rule of law, etc. - all euphemisms for a political system in which states would be permitted to recognize slavery if they so chose.  If I recall correctly, the Dred Scott decision was in part a ham-handed attempt to placate the South, and thereby avoid hostilities, by the Supreme Court.  
All the alternative explanations (4.00 / 7)
lead back around to slavery. It was about states' rights ... the states' right to protect slavery. It was about economics ... the economics of slavery. It was about the right to secede ... which the South only wanted to do because of slavery. And so on.
[ Parent ]
Some counter-argument (4.00 / 1)
As Darren Hutchinson notes at Dissenting Justice, Lincoln wasn't strongly anti-slavery - he was conservative and "pragmatic" and even the Emancipation Proclamation was issued belatedly as an effective economic and military force war tool as much as principle, and only after Congress had started the ball rolling.

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

You have to acknowledge that moral principle was spun just as effectively in those days as now. You have to include interesting anecdotes, like while we were busy stealing land from Mexico in the Mexican-American War, we held up at only about 1/3 of their territory so as not to give more votes to the slavery-holding-and-promoting South. Now, is that a moral stance or a calculating political stance or a bit of both? Considering the brutality and unfairness of that war, I find ascribing morality to its intent peculiar perhaps from an anachronistic modern perspective.

Michael Streich gives a small amount of data from the 1860 census, noting the 3:1 discrepancy of white population in north and south, the small number of blacks in the north (only twice the number of free-but-movement-restricted blacks in the south), and the few number of southern whites who owned slaves. He concludes that much of the issue is about lifestyle and culture, that slavery itself cannot be just removed from the 385,000 slaveowners and the rest of the culture will continue as is.

http://us-civil-war.suite101.c...

I'll give you some modern analogies. The Republicans beat Democrats over the head about terrorism, security and financial restraint these last 8 years. Well, excuse me if I don't believe they're so concerned about these as issues as they are at finding an effective weapon to bludgeon the opposition with, judging from their incompetent results and blatantly flawed methodologies.

Or perhaps a better analogy. Obama can represent the non-slave-owning north in his perch in Illinois' state senate, and Hillary can represent the slave-owning south. Hillary voted for AUMF (had slaves) and Obama supporters will never forgive her for it. (Obama living in Illinois never had a chance to own slaves/vote for the AUMF, so is spared some of the moral dilemma). Of course we see in this case that Obama on entering the US Senate (becoming a slave owner or just moving to a slave-owning state? Willkommen nach Irak!!!) adopts the same support for war funding as everyone else, and accommodates the President and Republicans on many more issues like Retroactive Immunity since while making another slave ownder/AUMF voter his VP, so we might guess that morals are slippery, malleable qualities, but no, we have the eternal AUMF to fall back on - Obama is golden, Hillary is evil, and we will bludgeon the difference, ride that fatal mortal bespotted sin all the way to the Democratic nomination and the Presidency.

Now, I know some really believe the AUMF/slavery was a critical mistake worth punishing, and believe that there are many others who would use any device to push their chosen candidate ignoring the moral issue at the heart of it.

I also know that some people will hate the south even if racism were magically removed. They have pickups! Eat at diners! Talk funny! Like hunting! Move slow! Take the Bible seriously! Many of these same people would gladly spend a year with primitive people in Papua scratching the dirt with sticks and praise the backwards beauty of their existence and note the need to preserve that endangered culture. Sadly, there's seldom the barbed humor and love of Randy Newman's Good Old Boys that can pick at the most painful scabs with earnestness but good will. Instead we've got the redneck belt, that intrudes into the Appalachians but gets its inspiration from the deep car-racing gun-owning south. And I just have a sense that this same bias against the south existed 150 years ago, and inflated and used the issue of slavery as part of this hatred even while the immorality of slavery was properly being condemned and curtailed (in the US and Europe). Perhaps it might be worth paying attention to the folks from the south and noting that if they feel this attitude that perhaps it's not just self-justification for their guilt about slavery, but that perhaps real-life issues like this are more complicated than single-factor analysis, even if on review we might conclude that slavery itself was more of a defining issue than threat to culture. The people themselves might be conflicted. Reading some about Faulkner, he had some very confused and self-contradictory pieces and statements during the 1950's, whip-sawwing from one viewpoint and analysis to another. And you might expect him to be one of the more understanding and insightful voices.

I've also argued that some of what we judge as "racism" should be better allocated as attitudes against migrant workers - that white Italians and Poles and Irish moving to big US cities to take work was greeted with almost as much hatred and discrimination as towards newly moved-in blacks, and that internal movement within the south and out to the north was a huge phenomenon from the end of the Civil War up to WWII, some periods with bigger waves of movement than others. I would guess that "northern racism" falls more into this category than in the "lower creatures" type of racism that would be more likely found in the south. I don't have a large fount of research to back this up, just a bit of reading and some potentially flawed gut feelings.


These Aren't Counter-Arguments (4.00 / 2)
They're further attempts at obfuscation.

Which only further proves my point.

Thanks!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It's only obfuscation (0.00 / 0)
if you won't bother to read and reason.

I gave analogies and arguments. Of course you can wave your hands at everything and say, "see, it only furthers my point". Your unified field theory of southern behavior, racism 24x7. Thanks for playing.

[ Parent ]
The curious part (0.00 / 0)
is that I was partially supporting your thesis in noting that what people might point at as equivalent northern racism is actually a different more economic and less racial phenomenon than the racism in the south. Oh well, try to reason and just get pre-conceived notions back.
[ Parent ]
Pretty unconvincing (4.00 / 2)
Such as:


I also know that some people will hate the south even if racism were magically removed. They have pickups! Eat at diners! Talk funny! Like hunting! Move slow! Take the Bible seriously! Many of these same people would gladly spend a year with primitive people in Papua scratching the dirt with sticks and praise the backwards beauty of their existence and note the need to preserve that endangered culture.

Those "primitive" people in Papua haven't dragged down the politics and living standard of the entire world the way the South has perverted US politics since its founding.  It wouldn't surprise me if their politics would be a poor fit for running a nation state, but until that happens I'm really a lot less concerned about how they run their affairs.

Everything I hate about the South comes down to conservative politics.  Take the bible seriously? You mean, the parts of the bible they want to use to rationalize hatred and bigotry.  Please tell me about all the southerners who take the beatitudes seriously.  You can't really seperate the racism from that - bigots tend to be bigoted about all groups not like them.

The South has fought equality and progress in every meaningful way for generations and you don't get to write off that as being over the accent or love of NASCAR.  

Also, progressives oppose brutal practices among other cultures (how about female genital mutilation for example) but it is no surprise that the rotting compost heap in America's yard gets more attention than one a world away.

[ Parent ]
Woo hoo, let it all out. (0.00 / 0)
Didn't realize we had such a southern problem around here, but the dialog might be worthwhile. Lessee, we killed Christ and sank the Titanic and tore up the Magna Carta and promoted obesity and corn syrup throughout the world. Your move.
[ Parent ]
considering the propensity for lynchings... (4.00 / 3)
I wouldn't talk about Christ if I were you.  And last I checked, an adopted southerner is still in the White House trying to tear up the best parts of Magna Carta, most notably habeas corpus but also I think he likes the divine right of kings.

Even if you want to disavow Bush as a northerner, it hasn't been the south leading the charge against his deeds in this regard.

Even your sarcasm fails.  Shall we examine the history of the filibuster and and find out that the South probably has opposed fighting obesity and probably opposed safety regulations on cruise ships after the Titantic sank?  Care to lay odds?

Do you really think anyone would have a problem with the south if it was just an accent and a deep fried diet?  Crap, that describes England and no one has a problem with them.


[ Parent ]
Texas is not the South (0.00 / 0)
and Bush of course is not a Southerner or much of a Texan, even if he buys a ranch. And I can use whatever satire I want, thanks. And there are a lot of other places to drop Bush support at the feet of as well (how about those midwest corn syrup states? Wyoming? Ohio?)
[ Parent ]
Texas isn't the South? (4.00 / 3)
Texas wasn't part of the Confederacy?
[ Parent ]
Texas wasn't a big part of slavery (0.00 / 0)
Texas had its share of problems, but didn't really share the slave culture (just for a few years), was much more of a semi-Hispanic/gaucho culture, and basically was its own thing, a Republic-become-state.

I'd love to claim all the good deeds of LBJ as part of the south, and while there are some similarities in terms of hospitality and a bit of the drawl, they're different.

Of course I'll claim Bill Clinton and Arkansas, including all the good he did for blacks in the 90's before he was proclaimed a racist. A good advance from the National Guard in Little Rock under Eisenhower, not that we don't get Huckabee in the bargain. Oh well, no clear-cut wins in this world. Lessee, Missouri was a slave state, so perhaps Harry Truman, but then again, KC is more of a western state than say St. Louis would be.

For me the shame of our slaughter of Indians at Horseshoe Bend, the Trail of Tears and other atrocities in the same light as the stain of slavery. The US legacy from about 1810-1865 is pretty horrific.

[ Parent ]
Nit picks (4.00 / 3)
Neither Texas nor Florida were major states in 1860.

One of the reasons that Texas seceded from Mexico was that Americans coming into Texas (mostly from the South) wanted slavery and the big plantations slavery made easier.  The Mesican constitution IIRC forbade slavery.  Of course there were other reasons.

Texas was one southern state that first voted against secession.  The part that LBJ came from had a notable and influential German population (New Braunfels, the Klebergs) and both LBJ and his father, Sam, were allied with German-American politicians.  Sam Early Johnson fought in the state legislature aginst the ticky tacky garbage of anti-German legislation (changing the name of sauerkraut to "liberty cabbage" or officially using salisbury steak in all cases instead of hamburger) that came with US entry into WWI.

Kansas City was far more pro-southern at the time than St. Louis.  It was also smaller. The results were pretty bad. The Independence jail, all two cells, was crowded with 160 prisoners, mostly those who refused to sign a loyalty oath.  Truman's ancestors were clearly pro-southern.  His mother in-law would not stay in the Lincoln bedroom when Truman was President.

Slavery, because of its size, was unique.  With the notable exception of the Cherokees forced migration, massacres of Indians were in the hundreds.  

[ Parent ]
Cool, I'll take Kansas City, blues and all (0.00 / 0)
You can keep Texas - as I said, a weird state, not southern, more Mexican, and now with all that oil? Now about the excesses of both the Texas War of Independence and the Mexican-American War, wouldn't want to hold those up as shining examples of progressive behavior.  
[ Parent ]
Daniel, you're too funny. England? (0.00 / 0)
Let's see, how much slavery did England take on in Jamaica? 311,000 by abolition in 1838, at which time they imported Indians to do the hard work? What about the atrocities England committed in Iraq in the 1920's? How about how England abandoned it's little Burmese province, leaving the half that's Kirin tribes to complain that their plebiscite never happened? What did the English do in Tasmania? A line of colonists stretched across the island to wipe out all the aboriginals? God Save the Queen and all that bloody rot? Speak with a stiff upper lip and Oxford accent and all is forgiven?

Did you know that 90% of American slavery was outside of the US? Do you find yourself muttering that the Spanish and Portuguese need to do more to atone for their sins as slave traders say in Brazil? Or they're European, so they must be educated slave owners summering in Mallorca and Ibiza, while southerners are just ignorant rednecks? Let's see, the Danish immigrants were quite brutal at killing in the Plains states, and then we get the official US anti-Indian policy (wave 2). Who gets the blame for the treatment of Chinese immigrants? Poles, Irish and Italians?

It was a very dirty period. We've all got the stink on us, some more, some less, but it all stinks. Even some of the black tribes that sold off other black tribes share in the stink. This idea that southerners must live in permanent atonement while the cultivated north will waltz around in judgment is just absurd. There's enough sin to go around. Even now. You're an American, you get to go through absolution for our excesses in Latin America, the CIA's School of the Americas, our free-fire zones and napalming of Vietnam, our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and firebombing Dresden and Cologne, our hamlet razing in Korea, our support for Mobutu and Savimbi, propping up the Shah and his Savak. Soak it in.

A famous Southerner once said, "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something." Not one for innocents.

He also said, "If you could not accept the past and its burden there was no future, for without one there cannot be the other, and how if you could accept the past you might hope for the future, for only out of the past can you make the future."

And "Dirt's a funny thing, come to think of it, there ain't a thing but dirt on this green God's globe except what's under water, and that's dirt too. It's dirt makes the grass grow. A diamond ain't a thing in the world but a piece of dirt that got awful hot. And God-a-Mighty picked up a handful of dirt and blew on it and made you and me and George Washington and mankind blessed in faculty and apprehension. It all depends on what you do with the dirt."

There you go. We've all got a bit of dirt on us. Some more, some less. But it's not about how much. It's about what you do with the dirt.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, didn't mean to leave out the French (0.00 / 0)
French slavery in Haiti and elsewhere around the
Caribbean was certainly an important part of the equation.
But they're so sophisticated these days (post-Algeria?)
who but a ruffian would bring it up.
[ Parent ]
One has only to look (4.00 / 2)
at the official declarations of the seceeding southern states to see that, first and foremost, they perceived the long-standing northern abolitionist movement coming to a head with Lincoln's election (which he won without a single southern electoral vote), and that the conflict over slavery was the stated primary reason for their separation from the Union.

It's a simple matter of history. Slavery was the reason for the Civil War.  

I agree (4.00 / 2)
However, I had a college 200-level "History" course with multiple lectures giving "other" reasons for the Civil War, many of which I've since found out were constructed well after the Civil War ended.

Let's just state that Lies My Teacher Told Me was an eye-opener on the subject.

I would be surprised if I were the only person mis-educated about the reasons for the Civil War.

[ Parent ]
My 2 cents (4.00 / 2)
I think the structural racism that has polluted the South since the Civil War spells out pretty clearly what the war was about.  While the South did attempt to maintain its agrarian culture after the war, the sole surviving institution that predated the war and has lasted until this day is the racism.  I think that pretty well spells out what one of the deepest and most dearly held beliefs was in the South.

Times are changing thankfully and in time Southern culture may completely rid itself of the worst of this affliction, but to deny it is to be blind.  I grew up in the South and have seen all the contortions to defend Southern treason.  I guess I was a born skeptic because it didn't take much digging to see the truth (truth-be-told, slavery was always noted as the root cause of the Civil War in all my K-12 history classes).

Racism is an institution? (0.00 / 0)
Really? Where do I sign up? The Institute for Applied Racism, now in its 170th year?

Can the Southern Drawl be counted as a surviving institution? How about bass fishing? Cotton picking? Snipe hunts? The Debutante's Ball? Chewin' tabakky? How about smiling real nice and saying, "Mornin', how's y'all doin'?" How about diners with grits and the waitress that calls you honey?

When Tom DeLay was busy helping Texas gerrymander its districts, I don't recall them announcing that their intent was to destroy the electoral possibilities of the Democrats. So could it be true without him saying so? Might people who hate the south only see racism through their tiny focused lens? A few years ago a judge unilaterally imposed busing on Boston, resulting in white-flight to the suburbs that radically changed the city. Might someone have noted that, "hey, it's not just opposing slavery and racism, it's also how you oppose it, how you implement it". Real people, real lives, real jobs, real cultures. Everyone talks about reforming schools, for decades and decades, and the results are always mediocre. Can someone be excused for being pessimistic about other efforts?

Martin Luther King specifically chose Bull Connor as the jerk to protest against. Why? Because he knew Connor would call out the dogs, make a better photo-op. Wouldn't have happened in some other places. So now everyone "knows" that all the south is is a place where sheriffs will sic dobermans on black people. Of course that type of thing happened in enough places that it was way too common, but is that all southerners or even close to a majority? There are good ol' boy football jocks down south too - is that everyone? Beware conceptions of history that fit easily on a 3x5 card.


[ Parent ]
No one is denying Northern racism (4.00 / 2)
and no one is denying that the South is full of non-racists. Probably the vast majority of Southerners are not racists. Possibly, there are no more racists in the South than there are in the North.

But the South's heritage is to a large extent that of institutionalized racism. This is, to be sure, true of the North as well, but simply not to the extent that it is true for the South. An analogy is Europe and anti-Semitism: few European countries treated their Jewish residents very well, but when it comes to a legacy of anti-Jewish savagery, none of them holds a candle to Germany.

The history of the United States as a whole is drenched in racism, there is no doubt about it. But racism looms particularly large over the legacy of the South.

[ Parent ]
NPR had a med. length art. about Racism in Germany today. (0.00 / 0)
Modern Racism.  So no, we are not the only ones dealing with it either.  In fact they noted that the East German populace was more prone to racial violence.  It's a human tribal social thing that bigger than US.
[ Parent ]
Funny, but I was (0.00 / 0)
just looking through archives at Dissident Justice today where Alec Baldwin was claiming that the election of Obama would end racism and the need for the civil rights movement. Some people are a little over-optimistic, methinks.  
[ Parent ]
You Already Have, Good Ole Boy! (4.00 / 2)
Racism is an institution?

Really? Where do I sign up?

You already have.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You should know better (4.00 / 1)
As I said before, you write some good stuff, so try to get a grip on your snarkiness. Some asshole dismisses the south with "the only institution to survive is racism", and then you insult me with this good old boy shit.

No wonder people in the south think progressives are assholes. The south has a lot of traditions, of literature, of music, of religion, of behavior, of nature, and so on. Most southerners are well aware of their racist and slave-using history and the various complications and immorality of it, as a sadly large and important part of their heritage. But they're also well aware of the tradition of northerners looking at them as sub-humans. So shove your superiority in your desk drawer and try to figure out better what makes southerners and rural people tick if you want in some way to communicate progressiveness on a bigger scale than college campuses and large cities. It can be done.

[ Parent ]
What Can I Say? You're Exhibiting A Level of Unconsciousness That Leaves Me Speechless With Wonder! (4.00 / 2)
You mock the notion of Southern institutional racism, and then proceed to demonstrate the way it functions!

Hysterical!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I mock the notion that racism is the only surviving institution (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't that obvious?
[ Parent ]
But Paul (4.00 / 1)
he said "you write some good stuff." Doesn't that level of condescension mean you have to grovel, now?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Of Course You're Right, Sadie (4.00 / 1)
I should grovel.

But I'm just an uncouth Yankee Jew Boy with no manners whatsoever.

So what do you expect?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Sorry, by "you write some good stuff" (0.00 / 0)
I simply meant you write some good stuff. No groveling required or expected or desired.

Throwing nasty crap my way doesn't mean I have to insult you personally, ethnically, culturally, regionally, politically. I like a good number of your posts.  

[ Parent ]
If you were a Southerner (4.00 / 1)
you would catch the subtext of saying something like "you write good stuff," or "I like a good number of your posts." Only a Yankee thinks he can somehow balance out insults with a sprinkling of compliments.

You probably don't even know the true meaning of the phrase "bless your heart."

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Exactly who did I insult? (0.00 / 0)
I think it was the one person who said that the only institution to survive in the south was racism. Other than that, I don't see that I insulted anyone. Or do you have thin skin and take offense when someone questions your world view?
[ Parent ]
Oh right (4.00 / 2)
"you should know better" and "try to get a grip" are not insulting."

Bless your heart.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
"Try to get a grip on your snarkiness" (0.00 / 0)
Quite different than "try to get a grip".

And somehow "you should know better"
seems like a mild retort to someone calling
me "Good Ole Boy".

What exactly is it that talking about issues
of the south gives people the right to insult
so much?

[ Parent ]
I've gotta admit (4.00 / 2)
you've got the victimization part down cold.

But it takes more than that to make a Southerner.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yankee Jew maybe (4.00 / 2)
but you do know how to throw a party.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Nullification (0.00 / 0)
Here's a Wikipedia article on Nullification Crisis - preceded by earlier Embargo Act (1807) and Non-Intercourse Act (1809) crises that harmed the south greatly - likely just a few of a number of non-slavery issues that created animosity between north and south, industrial and agricultural societies. You certainly can't ignore slavery or likely even shove it to 2nd place, but ignoring other causes such as major differences in economic approaches and benefits seems like willful ignorance. There were states rights movements that attacked the sedition acts as well as treaties with Indian tribes and other areas - some morally in the wrong by today's standards, but not specifically tied to slavery.

Nullification Crisis
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820 through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily dependent upon trade, the almost entirely agricultural and export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured needs from Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.
In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states, but that were detrimental to the South. Southerners vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to the "Tariff of Abominations". Exposition and Protest was the work of South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.
South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared the tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. It began the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending government ground troops to enforce the tariffs.

[ Parent ]
This Is Idiotic (4.00 / 2)
The Embargo Act was signed by Jefferson, was passed by a solid Democratic-Republican majority (the opposition Federalists were the party of New England at the time), and was much more damaging to the much more trade-oriented economy of New England than it was to the South, yet you cite it as a Southern grievance to somehow prove that the Civil War 40+ years later wasn't just about slavery!

The reality is that New England politicians were talking about secession in response to the Embargo Act--it produced the only notable wave secessionist sentiment ever to sweep that region.

Ooops!

What the Embargo Act and the Nullifaction Crisis together go to show is that--surprise! surprise!--the North and South had somewhat divergent economic interests that sometimes lead some politicians so far as to consider seccession, but that until the issue was slavery there was never anything close to the level of motivation that could threaten the union.

Thus, this history only strenghtens the obvious point that slavery was the cause of the Civil War.

You really ought to look into the werewolf angle.  It's a lot more promising as an alternative explanation.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
From somewhere: (0.00 / 0)
"At that period the commerce of the country was much less localized than at present. The total exports from 1791 to 1813 aggregated, in round numbers, two hundred and ninety-nine millions of dollars from the Eastern section, five hundred and thirty-four millions from the Middle, and five hundred and nine millions from the Southern section. The shipping of New England was more abundant, yet it was not much in excess of that of the Middle and Southern States. The distress from loss of commerce, therefore, must have been somewhat evenly distributed. Yet the vigorous opposition to the war came from the New England States. It had become a party sentiment, and was manifested most strongly where the Federal party was in excess. "

Elsewhere: "At that period the commerce of the country was much less localized than at present. The total exports from 1791 to 1813 aggregated, in round numbers, two hundred and ninety-nine millions of dollars from the Eastern section, five hundred and thirty-four millions from the Middle, and five hundred and nine millions from the Southern section. The shipping of New England was more abundant, yet it was not much in excess of that of the Middle and Southern States. The distress from loss of commerce, therefore, must have been somewhat evenly distributed. Yet the vigorous opposition to the war came from the New England States. It had become a party sentiment, and was manifested most strongly where the Federal party was in excess."

After the embargoes were dropped, it seems the south did better with its agriculture shipping to the north, the north had more trouble with competing external goods from overseas, and deep resentment of the Democrat-Republicans and by default the south was left.

[ Parent ]
Ever heard of Jim Crow? (4.00 / 2)
I am still amazed that people get their panties in a wad over comparing someone or something to the Nazis, yet they act like Jim Crow never existed.  Those laws were still in effect just 40 years ago!  And just like after slavery ended, the negative effects of Jim Crow are still evident today in the South.

I just don't understand why people can't separate the culture and policies from the individual.  You have probably been on here bashing Bush policies and complaining about how horribly he has portrayed our country to the rest of the world.  Bush is one evil SOB that our country has elected to represent us.  While he deserves condemnation, we as a country deserve equal backlash from the rest of the world for electing him just like Southern racist culture and the majority that keep those values in place deserve condemnation.  Just because I didn't vote for Bush doesn't mean that I don't share some blame for the shortcomings of our culture that not only allowed him into power but kept him there after it was evident he is a bastard.

Southern racism deserves greater opprobrium because unlike Bush and today's America, the South hasn't repudiated, much less recognized the disgusting flaw in the culture.  Our country is full of racists and bigots but only the South seems to have a problem in keeping them and their enablers from running most of their governments.  You do yourself no credit in defending the South just because not all of them are ready to vote for bigots at the drop of a hat, by not recognizing the fact that a majority regularly do vote for the bigots says much more than your apologia.  It would be better to acknowledge the the positive aspects of the culture and make a plea to keep some of the culture intact while making a even louder call to end the ugly aspects than acting defensive.

[ Parent ]
Equal districting laws (0.00 / 0)
I was amazed to find out that as recently as 1964 or so that states could have completely unequal districts say with some districts 40 times more populous than others - what a nice way to disenfranchise people.

What do you mean "the South hasn't repudiated, much less recognized the disgusting flaw in the culture"? Do you hear more than a smattering of southerners saying slavery was great? Would you like to see more self-flagellation? Do we need to institute reparations? What exactly are the ugly aspects that you think I need to call louder for the end to? I don't think white sheets are as common as when I was a kid. I think there's been an improvement in educational and employment opportunities - not enough, but improvement. I think (but don't know) that incarceration of blacks is lower in the south than in some places like Illinois (and I don't include Texas as part of the south).

Ever read a southern novel? One that addressed racism?

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 2)
What do the polls look like on issues like flying a Confederate flag at the Statehouse?  
[ Parent ]
Uncertain origins for the state flag (0.00 / 0)
Either Rucker's Brigade or the Confederate Flag or the Cross of St. Andrew's. Or the Cross of Burgundy. If you can't beat 'em, dazzle 'em with footwork.
[ Parent ]
And if you can do neither . . . (4.00 / 2)
regardless of where the flag came from it means one thing today, and that is "fuck you."

White Southerners know it, black Southerners know it, Northerners know it. You're not kidding anyone but yourself.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I think the dramatic shift from the Dixiecrats to the GOP says it all... (4.00 / 3)
The South will need to atone for its sins so long as it embraces the racism inherent in modern conservative politics.  The South's switch from Democrat to Republican in the post Jim Crow era is rather stunning in its brevity. The racial calling cards used to draw voters from the Democrats to the Republicans is just too apparent to see it any other way.

As I have said, there are many individuals in the South who don't make themselves part of the problem and there are many who fight to change the culture.  But just because there are Southerners who eloquently decry racism in their writing, doesn't mean their cultural milieu isn't corrupt.  The polling record is there for the world to see.  If a majority continues to elect people who look first and foremost to keep minorities down (especially when it is poor whites who vote to their own economic detriment to try and ensure the castes remain in place), they deserve the scorn of those who value freedom and liberty for all.  

P.S. I grew up in Texas.  It is part of the South!  Louisiana is the state that probably has the most longstanding distinct cultural institutions in the Old South.  From my experience it is no less racist, but is decidedly different.

[ Parent ]
Folks in the South (0.00 / 0)
don't consider Texas part of the South. It's out west somewhere. And from what my Texan relatives say, they don't consider themselves southerners either.

Louisiana? On the Mississippi. In the SEC. 'Nuff said.

[ Parent ]
When you're at home... (4.00 / 3)
When you're at home you'll identify differently than when abroad.  Most Texans like to cast themselves as something different (the only state to have been a sovereign nation unto itself, was the one I always liked best), but since I have moved up North I have never heard a non-liberal Texan not defend the South when push came to shove.  They'll quickly dump on the Western Red Staters as a bunch of tree-hugging hippies, but they'll defend the confederate flag like a cornered bear.  

While Southerners may not consider Texas part of the South, I imagine that has more to do with the fact that Texas was a johnny-come-lately in 1860 and certainly didn't suffer the indignities and destruction the deep South suffered during the war.  Of all the CSA, Texas came out in the best shape after the Civil War so there is likely to be some residual jealousy for getting off so lightly for their treason.

[ Parent ]
From my end (0.00 / 0)
it's simply that Texas feels different, has its own ethos, has its own priorities. Sure, there can be some similarities, and Johnny Winter and ZZ Top almost belong to southern rock, but it's not quite the same. When you're headed to New Orleans on spring break, you're not leaving the south. Dallas? Houston? Headed out west.
[ Parent ]
I grew up in Dallas (4.00 / 3)
As late as 1970, I remember seeing water fountains and bathrooms for "colored only." My high school choir created a big controversy by singing Hanuka songs at a Country Clup that it turned out did't allow Jews (in 1974!). My Mom, who grew up in Montana, got into a big dispute with a Neiman Marcus manager because our maid, who was black, wasn't able to try on a dress my Mom was trying to buy for her because blacks weren't allowed to to do that. My Dad was an attorney and one of his top clients would invite us to parties at his "plantation" where blacks who worked the man's land and still lived on the premises referred to themselves as "Mistuh Baker's n_____ers." When President Kennedy was shot, many people openly rejoiced in the streets. Don't tell me Texas ain't Southern.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
You'll have to forgive Desider, (4.00 / 2)
he's in his first year at Ole Miss and has just pledged KA, he's all eat up with it. Probably has a rebel flag hanging in his dorm room, because you can't get away with that in New Jersey, or wherever the hell he grew up. Freedom!

Believe it or not we see these little wannabes all the time around here.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Hey Sadie (0.00 / 0)
When you were little, did you wannabe intelligent?
When did you realize you'd never make it?
Still reeling over the pain, or did your diet of Tylenol and wine coolers get you through it? Anyway, my sympathies for your better half.
[ Parent ]
I take that back. (4.00 / 2)
I'm thinking Clemson, now.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Don't worry your pretty little head (0.00 / 0)
You've got more important problems to deal with
[ Parent ]
Ooo...cheap sexism. That always wins arguments. (0.00 / 0)
My sympathies to Sadie's better half as well; she is uppity.
[ Parent ]
But as it turns out, (4.00 / 1)
real men like that.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Also note that the South had to be dragged kicking and screaming (4.00 / 3)
out of the Jim Crow era. Not only was racism officially institutionalized in the South not that long ago, it's not like they gave it up voluntarily. For Christ's sake, the federal government had to send troops down there just so little kids could go to school.  
[ Parent ]
As they did in Boston? (0.00 / 0)
Seems like Massachusetts went kicking and screaming into the busing age as well. Not that I don't see busing as a screwed up solution to a problem while basic integration of schools isn't. But then again, how come those South Side Chicago schools are in such bad shape? East St. Louis? Isn't it the land of wine and roses? Are the schools in Compton integrated? Damn those southerners - if they weren't there, racism and racial problems would just all disappear.
[ Parent ]
Loser! (4.00 / 2)
They didn't send FEDERAL troops into Boston, or any other Northern city to integrate the schools.  This diary is a response to a response to a diary I wrote titled "Northern Racism--Yes, I Know It Exists", so there is no way that bringing up Northern racism is introducing anything new into the mix.

So when you do introduce Northern racism, (a) only to lie about it, and (b) to pretend that this is something none of the rest of us knows about or acknowledges, you are once again illustrating my point about the special sickness of Southern political culture, rather than refuting it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I said "went kicking and screaming" (0.00 / 0)
I didn't say "sent FEDERAL troops" in. It was state police that handled the busing job in Boston, National Guard in Kentucky. Does that make the kicking and screaming less valid or intrinsically different?
[ Parent ]
Paul, I think you owe me an apology (0.00 / 0)
The "I'm just a New York Jew boy" bit is rather unbecoming, implying either I was slurring you in an ugly way or that be being a southerner would naturally call you such a thing. Calling southerners "Good Ol' Boy"? Do you use standard slurs for other ethnic or regional groups?

In any case, I don't appreciate it. This is typically a progressive site and today it feels rather nasty and unhospitable. Where's the Open in OpenLeft?

Oh for crying out loud. (4.00 / 2)
If you aren't the whiniest little candyass I have ever seen. It's a good thing you're not from the South, because growing up here you would've had your ass whipped every day, just for general principles.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Southern Civil War Excuses: Proving My Point While Thinking You're Refuting It | 141 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox