At the same time, I should point out that revisionism is and always has been a two-way street. There are those revising history to whitewash the Confederacy, and there are those who revise history to make the Confederacy and Confederates seem one-dimensionally evil. The war over the past started almost as soon as the shooting war ended.
The story of the POW camp at Andersonville provides a good example, I think, of the victorous Union writing history in a slanted way. Yes, Andersonville was a terrible place. On the other hand, putting yourself in the shoes of the camp commandant, what could he have done to remedy the situation? The lack of food was a general problem in the South. It would have been awfully hard for him to argue that more food and medical attention should be provided to prisoners when Confederate troops were starving and dying from disease in the field.
Furthermore, the death rates at Northern prison camps approached that at Andersonville, yet the commandants of those camps were not regarded as war criminals. If memory serves me, the death rate at Elmira in New York was something like 25%, while at Andersonville it was 29%. Yet who has even heard of Elmira? At least Andersonville had the excuse of being located in a war-torn region. The horrors of Elmira occurred amid the relative prosperity and plenty of the North.
Note: Sumbitted without previewing. Hope it looks okay…
First of all, I offer my apologies for my intemperate remarks of the other night. Obviously, I was in a snotty mood.
Yet I never fail to find the arguments of Reeder and his excuse-making ilk to be nonsensically weak, even as rationalizations. After all, what is the proffered reason for all this latter-day glorification of the Confederacy?
“Hmmm, let’s see. There’s roughly 400 years of Southern heritage. We need a good symbol, so we can remember that heritage and honor our ancestors. Hey, I know! Let’s pick the Confederacy! We’ll elevate the symbols and heroes of the Confederacy above everything else in Southern history, then claim it as our cultural inheritance! Never mind that it existed for only one percent of the heritage we’re supposedly celebrating, 'cause the Confederacy symbolizes everything about the South!”
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a pathetic rationalization. Whatever the excuse-makers are celebrating, it is not just “Southern heritage.” Feel free to draw your own conclusions about what that one percent of Souther history really represents.
And Reeder, you seem to have developed an unflattering modus operandi: Whenever somebody disagrees with you, your response is to do this:
[To Captain Amazing] Read a bit more will you please?
Have any of you taken the time to read up on [Nathan Bedford Forrest]? May I suggest that you do?
[/quote]
You’re starting to sound like a broken record. A rather condescending broken record, that is.
I’m in full agreement, and even once did your thought experiment of what I, as commandant at Andersonville, would have done. Pretty much the same as the real one. Camp Douglas in Chicago had been a Union prison, too. The death rate was about 15% according to one reference and almost 22% according to another (this is no place to winter over in a tent, under ANY conditions). Gave me chills to drive past it, but not as much as the front gate of Richmond’s Libby Prison, which had been moved to Chicago as a tourist attraction. CREEPY!
I’m reminded, also, of the prison camps in the Phillipines, where American prisoners were starved on “inhuman” rations that were the same as what their Japanese captors were being fed. Shows the disadvantage, sometimes, of a larger morphology. And I’m reminded of an old Prussian fort that was used as a POW camp in WWII. The cold, wet, and dark “inhuman” conditions under which the Poles were held had been “home” to Prussian soldiers 55 years before. Just shows how it’s all relative.
When the discussion comes up (repeatedly) regarding slavery as the cause of the war, those who oppose that view frequently note that Northerners were not lining up specifically to “free the slaves.” Those posters are generally correct and the point is often ignored in the heat of discussion.
However, even factually correct, that argument tends to miss the point of the issue. The North did not go to war the “free the slaves” (even if you saw that in your seventh grade history book). The North went to war to “preserve the Union.” Slavery did not become a topic of discussion or a rallying cry in the North until the war was well under way. In fact, the Draft Riots in New York City specifically included a number of beatings and murders of blacks, because the “shanty Irish” who were the bulk of the rioters were unhappy with the idea of fighting a war to give blacks equality (and an opportunity to compete with the Irish for scarce jobs).
Still, regardless whether the typical Massachusetts mill-worker or Michigan farmer had any thoughts regarding slavery, the social and political pressures that drove the country to civil war were all predicated on a slave-based agrarian economy in the South. Even if (as is accurately exclaimed) the Northern army was not assembled from millions of active abolitionists, the ultimate cause of the war was the issue of slavery.
Sorry. This is simply the legacy of early “revisionist history.”
The South genuinely suffered following the Civil War. However, the pillaging and plundering was in no way a broad, regional plague that was visited on every person of the South. (For one thing, the Union armies did not even occupy the entire South at the time of the surrender. Many places in the South never saw Union soldiers except as they passed through on their ways home.)
The South suffered because it had expended so much of its wealth fighting the war that it no reserves on which to fall back in the months immediately following the war. The same thing happened in Germany following WWI and in Europe and Japan following WWII. Our current history books spend a good deal of time expressing (justifiable) pride in the efforts that the Allies (read, the U.S.) expended to rebuild Europe and Japan following WWII. However, if you find accounts of the people in the first two years following WWII, you will read of poverty, disease, starvation, and an utter lack of protection from the weather in many parts of the war-ravaged countries. Following the Civil War, there were far fewer organizations similar to the Red Cross, so the suffering was magnified simply because people putting together relief efforts had no experience in dealing with problems of that magnitude. You do not need “pillaging” to bring suffering on a people.
This is not to claim that specific acts of injustice and terror were not inflicted on individuals in the South. I have no reason to doubt the story that Ivorybill related. There is a great leap, however, from realizing that members of the occupying army were capable of cruelty to the total misrepresentation of what occurred during the Reconstruction.
While it is true that scam artists and con men flocked to the South (as they did to the West), hoping to use the social disorder to hide their unscrupulous frauds, the majority of the people who were later labelled carpetbaggers were actually investors, bringing much-needed cash to the South to establish industries so that the South could recover. Something like 80% of the foundries and iron (later steel) mills that enhanced the Southern economy throughout the second half of the 19th century were begun by Northern “carpetbaggers” within two years of the end of the war. Thomas Conway raised $3,000,000 to bring with him to invest in Southern industry within a few months of the war’s end–something that the cash-strapped South sorely needed. One single pair of “carpetbaggers” was responsible for founding or saving the Dixie Portland Cement Co., the Brookside Cotton Mills of Knoxville, and the First National Bank of Chattanooga.
The continuing claim that Reconstruction was a twelve-year-long blight of oppression on the South is simply not sustainable in the light of actual history, and referring to it, even casually, as “true” is simply not in keeping with The Straight Dope.
What parts of my statement aren’t true? (1) That the vast majority of Southerners (black and white) suffered during Reconstruction? or (2) That entire counties (not every county, not the whole South) were disaster areas? or (3) That claims based on the Southern perspective of Reconstruction aren’t always exaggerated?
I’ll agree with your points that (1) not all persons labelled as “carpet baggers” were bent on picking over the bones of the Southern economy and (2) claims that entire South was occupied by the Union Army aren’t accurate and cannot be supported in a review of the historical record. (3) Hi, Opal!
The thoughful aspects of your post are a genuine contribution to this debate. However, I find your implying that my statements are innacurate, revisionist, and <snip>"…simply not in keeping with The Straight Dope"… are not constructive to discussion and do not accurately reflect what I attempted to convey in my post.
Ivorybill, in your post you linked the Reconstruction to a period of suffering in the South and associated it with predations by the Army followed by predations by carpetbaggers. The problem with this, although it fits nicely into Southern Mythology, is that it takes a name given to a 12-year-long period of growth and development and appears to associate tribulations that occurred for approximately the first two years of that period with the entire period. The result is that any number of people actually believe that the South suffered under twelve years of brutal oppression and poverty when in fact, once those mean old carpetbaggers had made their investments (of their money) the South rapidly rebuilt itself.
While sections of Georgia and South Carolina were laid waste by Sherman’s march and his return up the coast, “pillaging” (especially at the level of an entire county) simply did not happen elsewhere. And there is no indication that any county was laid prostrate at the feet of carpetbagges and scalawags.
Even the areas laid bare by Sherman’s forces had made substantial recoveries by 1868.
I do not challenge that people in the South suffered. The manner in which you presented that suffering, however, is more consistent with the revisionist history created for the purpose of effecting the end of Reconstruction in 1877 (and confirmed in mythology afterwards) than with the events as they occurred.
Your specific comments were triggered by Collounsbury’s comment about exaggerated suffering. It is, indeed, part of the mythology that the South “suffered” throughout the entire 12 years of the Reconstruction. That, however, is not historically accurate. Mythology is a powerful tool for society, but the Straight Dope strives for accuracy, even in the face of mythology. Had you pointed out the dire suffering from 1863 to 1867, I would not have been prompted to comment. By linking it to the Reconstruction, you invoked my pedantic nature.
Many thanks for clarifying your comments. As a former professor of mine would say, you “stamped out some ignorance” (or at least pointed out the ignorance in extrapolating 2 years to 12 years).
As for a new flag, I’m all in favor of the pork shoulder. BBQ is one aspect of Southern culture with which many people can identify. While the shoulder flag can represent Southern unity, localities can add burgees to indicate dry rub or wet cooking; vinegar, mustard, or tomato based sauce; and the beverage of choice for cooking and consuming the 'cue; thereby reflecting sub-regional diversity as well.
(And, apologies to Reeder for hijacking his thread.)
Argh! Stupid stack of history books fell on me went I went to pull out my copy of Foner’s book. Damn lack of sufficient bookshelf space ! Oh, wait - This isn’t the Pit, is it? Sorry .
Anyway I did think of something I wanted to make a comment about, in the form of cautionary speculation.
Slavery WAS the ultimate cause of the Civil War. But the terrifying thing is it need not have been. In most of the pre-Civil War period, right up to the mid-1850’s we saw a clear dominance of the Democratic Party through an alliance between the West and South based on a compromise of backing the homestead issue in exchange for support for lower tariffs. But the historian Douglas Hofstadter, and much later political sociologist Barrington Moore, have pointed out that America in this period was always open ( up until near the very end of the pre-war period ) to the possibility of an ultra-reactionary alliance between Northern Big Business and the Southern Agrarian Elite.
It’s not such an outrageous proposition, really. Charles Beard in making his ( incorrect in my, and most professional historians these days, view ) argument that the Civil War was caused by “economics” and not slavery, called the war a triumph of capitalist plutocracy ( the North ) over agrarian autocracy ( the South ). But this kind of misses the point that the Planter class were every bit as profit-driven as the northern industrialists. Frankly, both groups were members of a common class of wealthy capitalists. An alliance predicated on mutual support for control over their respective work forces could have resulted in a very different country.
In fact just such an alliance happened in unified Germany in about this period ( just slightly later ). Granted it’s not an exact analogy, but the alliance between the rising industrialists of West and the old landholding Junkers aristocracy in the East, resulted in a pale, anemic shadow of a democracy. As Berthold Brecht put it, the German middle-class became a “…beast without political conscience.”
Slavery was certainly not inherently inimical to industrialization. Indeed, American slavery probably largely paid for the United States’ remarkably rapid rise as an industrial power. And even at the height of radicalization just before the war, there were no more than a handful of open Abolitionists in the House and Senate. Even the majority of these ‘radicals’ were probably only so insomuch as they were now unwilling to xcompromise on the Freesoil issue. And that probably had less to do ( for most ) with a repugnance for slavery, than it did with a political fear of the extension of the already enormous power of the Southern oligarchs.
Nope - Slavery could have ended up persisting for quite awhile in this country. Oh, it would have inevitably collapsed eventually. Especially as it became less economical and pressure from Europe slowly increased. But I can easily imagine a scenario where it could have become an isolated backwater phenomena, holding out in a few stubborn states until the early 20th century. The Civil Rights movement may have ended up being set back decades. And I think the damage to the American psyche and American character would have been profound. Because no matter the persistent racism that still exists in this country, progress is being made. And no matter the destructiveness of the Civil War, it was a pivotal cleansing moment in American history. After the Revolution, probably the most important one. It NEEDED to happen, for this country to be what it is today.
Tom, let’s not rush to turn the carpetbaggers into white knights, hmmm? Their motives were not noble. They were trying to make money, pure and simple, and the post-war South presented a golden opportunity.
The radical state governments imposed during Reconstruction were filled with office-holders whose previous experience had not prepared them for their positions. They were frequently unsophisticated, and easily manipulated by unscrupulous northern businessmen. The result was that the carpetbaggers and their scalawag counterparts cashed in on sweetheart deals and corrupted state and local officials.
Furthermore, the South was crippled by debt in the post-war years. Under the radical governments, state debts skyrocketed. Florida’s debt, for example, went from 524,000 to 5,621,000 between 1868 and 1871. The taxes that resulted were, as a practical matter, confiscatory. And guess who was there to scoop up property being sold to pay taxes?
Finally, I must take issue with your statement that the South “rapidly rebuilt itself.” To the extent you imply that the South underwent a rapid economiic recovery, your statement could not be further from the truth. In fact, I would say that only within the past 20 years or so has the South finally regained the economic footing it lost as a result of the war. Pockets of the South still contend with crippling poverty and economic stagnation to this day.
Now, I do not blame this poverty on Reconstruction (not entirely, anyway). On the other hand, your implication that Reconstruction and the carpetbaggers magically healed the South’s economic wounds is itself a brand of revisionism.
And BBQ, ladies and gentlemen, is a proud symbol of the totality of Southern heritage that I would be proud to have on a flag! Nice suggestion, Ivorybill!
Spoke: Their motives were not not noble either . The problem is using the word “their”. This was not a monolithic group of people by any means. There was plenty of good mixed in with the bad ( or vice versa ). And it’s instructive to note that many historians have noted that “…corruption in the Reconstruction South paled before that of the Tweed Ring, Credit Mobilier scandal, and the Whiskey Rings in the post-Civil War North.”
I again recommend the Foner book. It’s very even-handed and considered ( at about 612 pages of text ) the definitive single-volume modern synthesis. I have it sitting right here and note that it won: The 1989 Los Angeles Times Book Award, The Bancroft Prize, The Parkman Prize, The Avery O. Craven Prize, and The Trilling prize. It was also nominated for the 1988 National Book Award and the National Book Critics Award. It really is a fine piece of work and very readable.
This debate is so old and so tired and so ridiculous that I cannot believe it has started again. The entire subject hinges on this…IT NO LONGER MATTERS WHO WON OR LOST THAT WAR. IT NO LONGER MATTERS ABOUT “STATES RIGHTS” OR TARRIFS OR ANYTHING ELSE. What matters is that for anyone other than a Southern apologist the “Stars and Bars” represents RACISM of the worst kind. If you are not enlightened enough to realize this then you are either deluding yourself about your “heritage” or you are lying about your own racist sentiments.
Born and raised in the capitol of the Confederacy, Richmond Virgina. Please, please, please stop making ALL SOUTHERNERS look STUPID with these constant defense rants. There are no carpet baggers left here to fight. And the ones that do show up don’t go back home the damned weather is too nice! The South is getting richer and more politically influential by the minute. We’re going to be fine, they’ve rebuilt Atlanta, it’s bigger and richer than ever. Let’s be proud of that. We’ve got plenty of other things to rally around besides that war.
I’m sorry that you’re not pleased that some folks want to discuss this aspect of Southern history and maybe learn a bit about others people’s perspectives on the issues (real and imagined) behind the C.W. and Reconstruction, etcetera. Nobody’s forcing you (at least I hope not) to open this thread. Maybe you ought to hop over to MPSIMS or IMHO.
With very few exceptions, there’s been no ranting here… present company excluded, of course. Might you pick a quote or two so as to focus your criticisms?
Needs2know:
[list=1][li]I believe your major points regarding Confederate emblems and historical revisionism have already been politely and eloquently presented by others.[]The concept of “states’ rights” has been under constant debate since before the ratification of the Constitution. As such, discussions of the civil conflict that defined in such a dramatic fashion the limits to those rights in these United States is always appropriate.[]Hi Opal!The most important reason for continuing the “tired” and “ridiculous” debate over the motivations at work on both sides is to foster an understanding of those aspects of human nature (fundamentally unchanged in the intervening 135 years) that allow sometimes noble and honorable people to fight for ignoble or dishonorable causes.[/list=1][/li]
I’ll agree about the other things to rally 'round, though. (Count me in on the BBQ flag idea!)
All I have to say to that is bullshit…this subject has been discussed to death on this board. Let the new poster use the search feature to find this out. There was a thread still lurking around on this subject about two or three weeks ago. Everyone who is anyone that thinks they have a unique and complete knowlege of the pre and post history of that war has beaten this horse to death. Actually they are kicking a rotting, fly ridden carcass.
No one, certainly not I am suggesting that we ignore history, especially our more embarassing moments in history. Certainly we can learn something from them. But must we Southerners always speak of Robert E. Lee in hushed and reverent tones? It’s makes no sense. Even he, the great and powerful Lee lost the entire 1st Virginia at Gettysburg! Why is it that I am constantly accused of not embracing my “heritage” because I am no longer entralled with tales of the war? I’ve been told by some that I am not really a Southerner because I denounce the public display of that flag. Too bad! You and anyone else that cares to can attempt to make me look like the idiot because I do not believe in romanticizing the “Southern Cause”. The “Southern Cause” is not worth romanticizing. It took it’s toll in human suffering from everyone involved. And it still continues to embarass those of us who know better than to attempt and defend it.