> America was unique in the amount of blood we were willing to shed over the
> issue.
What about Haiti, the only country in the world today to originate from a slave rebellion? I can’t find any information on the total number of people who died in the Haitian Revolution. Can anyone tell me if the number of people who died in it as a proportion of the population of Haiti at the time of the Haitian Revolution was greater than the number of people who died in the Civil War as a proportion of the population of the U.S. at the of the Civil War?
Since you’ve just left out the critical problems I noted: white versus black. They didn’t want white slavery on their home soil. That black plantation slavery never got started was a happy accident.
First off, England was different than any other European country aside from France, in that it did have pro-slavery elements. Second, they didn’t have the political ability or desire to seperate, and had no Constitutional compromises to protect them.
Finally, a difference of 20-30 years is rather small in considering the spread of ideas. Some ideas took centuries to cover the same distances.
Thank you for proving my point. Ben Franklin founded the first anti-slave society in North America; he was at the forefront of a new idea in America. And it did spread; just not as fast as you seem to think is required of men.
Except the ideas aren’t new, are they? It’s the same fight, still going on, and the ideas are ones which became the new standard long ago. Even the most racist of men felt cmpelled to cloak their ideas in public during the Jim Crow era, hiding behind “seperate but equal” fantasies.
No way in hell am I joining a Haitian Revolution reenactors group. My back’s never been right since I got talked into reenacting the Nat Turner revolt (who knew that branding irons hurt like that?).
PS- There was one sorta-kinda slave revolt in the U.S. that was sorta-kinda successful, not that that’s a huge recommendation. It was the Black Seminoles revolt under their leader John Horse. The whole story is long but fascinating, but if you want the abstract of the Cliff’s Notes version it’s this: runaway slaves and their descendants who had joined with the Seminole tribes in Floriday also joined in the Seminole wars against Jackson. Ultimately 500 accompanied the Seminoles on their removal to reservations in Oklahoma which sounds like a defeat, BUT it beat the alternative of being restored to slavery (which was the original plan til they fought the government to a standstill). Eventually many of them left the reservation for Mexico where slavery was illegal and they were safe from being re-enslaved by U.S. military or slavers (the U.S. being notoriously backstabbing in its agreements and written treaties with Indian nations- if I’m not mistaken they have a 0% record for honoring 19th century U.S. Indian treaties).
So, correct me here, then: that list that crowmanyclouds linked to earlier-- the one that listed all the European nations that abolished slavery? You’re saying that list is inaccurate, and that only white slavery was specifically illegal in those countries?
If I understand you aright here, you’re arguing that the pro-slavery elements in England and France would have also seceded if they thought they could get away with it? I confess, I’m not sure how to respond to that. I guess that might be the reason Dracula emigrated to England, though.
Curious that it was able to spread to places like Moldavia and Argentina before it could diffuse across the border between Pennsylvania and Virginia. Was there any significant communication across the border at all, or did Virginia maps just have a blank space to the north after the American Revolution? “Here be Quakers?”
Er, what were these ideas that racist men were hiding behind Jim Crow laws in public? The idea that they didn’t really consider blacks as equals? All the laws preventing blacks from attending the same schools, drinking from the same water fountains, eating at the same restaurants-- these laws were white Southerners’ clever way of concealing how they really felt? Because this may not actually have been the successful conspiracy they thought it was at the time.
Another PS- Ben Franklin, founder of the first anti-slavery society as noted above, was a slaveowner, at least four during his lifetime. In fairness he freed at least two, the fate of a fourth is unknown (he did not own her upon his return to the colonies before the Revolution) and the fourth, a man named Bob, he gave to his son-in-law, requesting that the slave be freed several times (to no avail) and again in his will (CTRL + F for Bob if interested).
Much of Franklin’s considerable fortune was based on what we could call franchises of his printing shops that he owned from Georgia up to what is now Maine; he would set up a young journeyman printer in business (supplying the press and the hardcopy of gazettes and almanacs and the like) and in return take a fixed percentage (usually 50%) of the gross proceeds for X number of years, later decreasing to a lesser percentage and ultimately to about 10% after a long period of time (and the owner had the right to buy Franklin out for an agreed upon price). It was a good deal for Franklin, who got a steady return on his investment, and for the journeyman, who got the expense of setting up and the continentally famous Franklin brand. Then as now a major portion of the printing business’s success was advertisements, and a major advertisement was slave related: slave auctions, slaves for sale by their owners, notices/rewards offered for runaway slaves, etc… Til the day he died Franklin received revenue from these advertisements (and not just from the southern states but from NY state, NYC, New Hampshire, etc., and other states where it was legal.
The reason I mention this isn’t to vilify Franklin- he was a mixed bag of good and bad qualities but ultimately I think the credits far outweighed the debits- but just to show how complex and seeping up through everything the issue of slavery was. In 1861 the north was operating textile mills that depended upon slave-picked cotton, their factories sold to southerners whose money was derived from slave labor, for every Frederick Douglass who rose to prominence and earned fortunes there were thousands of free blacks in northern states who encountered prejudice racism as bad as in their home state, northern banks loaned money {which came from northern investors, including abolitionists} to southern planters knowing fully well it would used to buy slaves and or repaid with money derived from slave labor, etc… In short, clink clink, Slavery wasn’t just a “peculiar institution” of the southern economy but a major factor in the national economy, set up by and with “other filthy purse string” still held by the north long after the Triangle Trade was illegalized.
Come on. From 1807 to 1866, the Royal Navy spent huge resources - as in, dozens of ships and thousands of lives - to put a stop the Atlantic slave trade. This was not a profitable enterprise for the Crown. Seems to me that the Brits “had a problem” with slavery.
Or, to put i other words, America was pretty unique in having citizens willing to go to war to defend the practice. Yet you say it as if it was a good thing?
I have no problem with conceding the Civil War was fought (at least from the Southern side) over slavery (and many many other economic and social issues, but slavery ultimately THE major one). However, I don’t think it’s fair to say that most people were willing to spill their blood to protect the practice.
My own ancestors are a microcosm of Southerners of the time. Of my 16 great-great grandparents (the generation in my family in which all were adults at the time- one of my great grandfathers was about 12 when the war ended) one was from a wealthy family (her father [too old to fight] owned real estate worth $80,000 and 48 slaves, the next richest was a man who became a Confederate surgeon who owned 14 slaves and $20,000 in real estate, another was the daughter of a moderately successful Irish mule farmer [i.e. her family bred mules for a living] who owned $4,000 in real estate and 2 slaves, and the rest were non-slaveowning folk who ranged from a day laborer with no land to middle class farmers, so of my own ancestry 3/8 were slaveowners, the rest not. ALL sent troops or supplies to the Confederacy.
Of the 5/8 who fought, I cannot believe it was because they were willing to die to keep the other 3/8 as slaveowners. They fought for a variety of reasons: race would probably have played a part- they really didn’t want to compete with millions of suddenly freed blacks [remember that the carnage of Haiti was very fresh in the minds], but mostly they fought… because there was a war on, and that’s what people do when there’s a war on. Later they fought because the South was being overrun by Yankee troops.
Putting a more modern spin on it, almost 60,000 young U.S. men were killed in Vietnam. I’ve no idea how many of those joined the army voluntarily v. how many were drafted, but either way: how many do you think fought there because they were willing to die to support the freedom from Communism of the residents of a nation that probably not 1% could have pointed to on a blank map of Asia when they were in high school? Updating it to today, how many of the 3,300 Americans who have died in Iraq (all of whom were in the army as volunteers- none were drafted) do you think were there because they were that passionate in their desire to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein? Some I’ll grant probably were, but most more likely fought because there was a war on.
Same with the North: how many northerners do you think died because they were that passionate in their hatred of slavery? Of the Colored Infantry and Colored Naval divisions I’ll grant you it was one hell of a lot, but of the white draft and volunteer forces, how many would have risked their lives to help end slavery before the war? Most fought because there was a war on, and for some believe it or not the $13 or $16 or $21 per month they received or $100 enlistment bonus offered or $300 to fight in another’s place, etc., provided the incentive, and for others it seemed like a good idea at the time and Appomattox Courthouse was a place they’d never heard of and they had no idea how the war would turn out.
In any case, on the social level and the economic and political level I think the war was about slavery first and foremost. On the individual level, it was way more varied.
After having to apologize to the Right Reverend Al(phaeus) Sharpton for his early attempts to use slaves as rocking chairs and to more equitably distribute heat from the fireplace, he was loathe to continue his experiments.
Just be glad I didn’t tell you how to summon Franklin’s African slave, Kandimann.
I was just going to post that phrase! I heard it from an older gal at Mercer House in Savannah (she was leading our tour of the home and gardens). I thought it was hilarious, but it sailed right over many people’s heads.
Oh, no debate there. I think it can be fairly said that slavery was the driving political motive behind secession - the war was triggered by secession, but once the bullets start flying, the individual soldiers each have their different motives. I’ve no problem considering a good part of the Confederate soldiers victims of the machinations of their rulers - then again, old assholes telling young men to go off to die is a story as old as warfare. As you say, a lot of young men signed up simply because there was a war on - immigrants from Europe in the 1800s would be likely to know of war, after all.
I did want to express my disagreement with smiling bandit’s statement, because it appeared to be spinning the Civil War as something for America to take pride in - where, frankly, I think it’s not.
Thank God this is all about the Civil War! I’d been drinking a bit this weekend and when I saw the thread title, I thought maybe Canada invaded and I missed it!
No, Oliver Stone’s version said that Lincoln wanted to end the war so he was killed by a cabal that included Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Allan Pinkerton, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Oscar Wilde.
I’m a Southerner. I first heard the expression “The War of Northern Aggression” used in the 1950’s. It was said then in jest and that is the only use I’ve known it to have. Yes, even little old ladies like me can say it straight-faced.
And I won’t buy any diamonds and I won’t buy any clothes at Wal-Mart…
(Your post is perfect.)
Isn’t Savannah lovely? It’s my favorite Southern city. If there is any place that loves history, it is this treasure. I don’t expect Northern historical sites to give biased information. I don’t know why you expected anything less than the truth in Savannah.
You know that I like you, so I’m just going to tell you. Where I live it is rude to address a group of people as “People.” It is not as offenseive as “You People,” but it’s getting there. It’s very condescending. So if you are going to tell all of us Southerners what we should be doing, you might want to be sneakier about it.
It would be impossible to “let it go.” An interest in the Civil War does not mean that we are supporters of the Confederacy, racial bigots, hillbillies, members of the Klan, historically biased, and likely to eat Moon Pies and RC Colas. It means that we are interested in the history of the land we live on and the people who came before us.
Our houses are often built on battlefields. Sometimes we find relics in our yards. Sometimes we find explosives in our yards – although I can remember only one time in the last few years that that happened in our general area. We live close to monuments and markers and streets that are affiliated with the war. Sometimes people we know live in ante-bellum houses. That’s not as common here as in the North. “Getting over it” means one thing to you – and for most Southerners that one thing is not a problem. It’s one thing to be interested in the Civil War. It’s another thing to wrap ourselves in the Confederate Battle Flag and be obnoxious to people from the North.
I can honestly say that most of the time it is Northerners who are rude to Southerners. Some Northerners mock the way we talk and assume that it reflects ignorance and bias. Most Northerners are quite nice though.
Elendil’s Heir, I like the piece on Washington. Well presented. Just a bit of trivia: Have you ever noticed that Edward M. Kennedy was born two hundred years to the day after Washington – February 22, 1932?
Minnesota actually put it’s abolition laws into effect in 1858 and Oregon followed in 1859. You can’t quite paint the North as free in 1857.
I have declined membership in the UDC even though my father was a true son of a Confederate. I turned down money from them in college.
The DAR is more appealing, but I really just don’t like war. I have no children and I never got around to joining anyway.
I disagree with those who thought Lee should have been hanged. He did what any soldier does. His beloved Virginia split from the Union, and he felt he had no choice but to support his birthpace. By the way, at the outset of hostilities, Lincoln offered command of the Federal Army to Lee, who had been first in his class at West Point. Lee, of course, turned him down, and was eventually defeated by Grant, who had been last in the same class at West Point. Whatever he decided, though, Lee would have been a hero of the war. If he’d been born in New Jersey he would have led the Army of the Patomac, and the war might have been over sooner.
