The Militant South

[unionblue]

samgrant,

Yep, that's the one.

And I have heard the Civil War Talk Radio interview with the author. That's why I have already advanced ordered the book.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by mobile_96

In "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave", we find that Douglass had several masters.
About the time he reached the age of 14 or 15 he was sent to work on Jan 1, 1833, apparently as a rental, for a Mr. Covey, who was known as a slave breaker. "I was now, for the very first time in my life, a field hand"
Then he relates his experiences at handling a unbroken team of oxen in which it took him a good portion of the day, and a broken gate post before he managed to return a load to wood. Page 102, "He then went to a large gum-tree, and with his ax cut three large switches, and after trimming them up neatly with his pocket knife, he ordered me to take off my clothes. I made him no answer, but stood with my clothes on. He repeated his order. Unon this he rushed at me with the fierceness of a tiger, tore off my clothes, and lashed me till he had worn out his switches, cutting me so avagely as to leave the marks visible for a long time after. This whipping was the first of a number just like it, and for similar offences. (pg 103) I lived with Mr. Covey one year. During the first six months, of that year, scarce a week passed without his whipping me. I was seldom without a sore back. My awkwardness was almost always his excuse for whipping me."
pg105, "We were worked in all weathers. It was never too hot, or too cold: it could never rain, blow, hail, or snow, too hard for us to work in the field. Work, Work, work, was scarcely more the order of the day than of the night. The longest days were too short for him, and the shortest nights too long for him. I was somewhat unmanageable when I first went there, but a few months of this discipline tamed me. Mr. Covey succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit. My natural elasticity was crushed, my intellect langushed, the disposition to read departed, and the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died: the dark night of slavery closed in upon me: a man transformed into a brute"
Although Douglas Did Not spend his entire life under these conditions, it most certainly was long enough for him to understand what it was all about. The final comments of his that I quoted, help underline the total cruelty of slavey. IMHO!

I stand both corrected and better informed. Thank you.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by mobile_96

I think your disagreement is due to not trying to understand a basic fact.
1.Polititions start wars.
2.Soldiers fight them.
Soldiers (both sides) fight them for various reasons, and seldom include the the same reasons for fighting that politicians claim started them.
Soldiers fight them to protect their homes from the "horrors that will fall to their lot if the "enemy" is not defeated. Therefor, many fight to defend homeland, which usually tranlates into their neighborhoods, family and friends. Some fight for adventure. Some fight because they need a job. Some fight because they are bored. And some fight so as to not be called cowards by their friends.
We find this in their letters, diaries, and books written both during, and after the conflict.
The political leaders that managed to create secession, gave us very specific reasons why they wanted free of the Union, and they said it up front. The message has been given many times on previous threads here, so I'll refrain from repeating them.
However a major point is missed by far too many (but not many in this group)..Politicians create a war and give its citizens a cause, which may or may not, be the 'full reasons'. They call to arms to defend their 'position' and men sign up. In effect, even though the war causes and the reasons the men sign up, are different, the soldiers are Actually supporting the cause of the Politicians, whether they believe, or understant, that.
Secession was caused by Slavery, ergo, the soldiers, whether they understood it or not, were fighting for slavery!

Mobile, I think we agree perhaps 98 percent. You didn't seem to give my point about the perspective from the soldier much credence. I believe they understood much, but not necessarily gave a **** about slavery in many cases. I do understand your concept of the link, I just don't believe the common soldier bought all of it. As you clearly relate, many other reasons motivated these southern boys to kill yanks, or die trying.

[SpiritofPickett]

Been frantically busy with our rugby season here in England and have missed the chance to log on. This is a great thread and Union Blue's question intrigues me.

Had the South begun to/abolished slavery, would a civil war still have happened anyway at some future point as the social systems N&S were different? Population growth in the N would swing political power to the N and decisions would be made that would impact on Southern life?

The racial problems suffered in the South post war, did the coloured people suffer, as much because some southerners blamed them for the south's post war plight, as much as just pure racism?

The 'white trash' southern soldier, did he fight to keep slavery? My view is more to defend 'states rights' which, admittedly, included slavery, but that wasn't his prime motive? He wanted to keep his lifestyle as it was. (But then I'm English, what do I know....?)

[larry_cockerham]

Please allow me to throw in my Southern version of a response before our yankees spin their biased notions?

Spirit, you wrote:

"Had the South begun to/abolished slavery, would a civil war still have happened anyway at some future point as the social systems N&S were different? Population growth in the N would swing political power to the N and decisions would be made that would impact on Southern life?"

SLAVERY WOULD HAVE ONLY COME TO A REDUCED END WITH THE ADVENT OF MECHANIZATION (COTTON GIN, TRACTORS, AND THE LIKE) TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR LABOR. SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH WAS ABOUT LABOR, NOT THE NEED TO ACTUALLY OWN ANYONE. SLAVES WERE A MEANS TO HARVEST THE SOURCE OF INCOME. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERHAPS THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST CENTURY BEFORE ANY REAL CHANGE WOULD HAVE COME VOLUNTARILY, ASIDE FROM THE INDUSTRIALIZATION AND OR MECHANIZATION OF THE PLANTATIONS. THE RACE ISSUE HAD SOMEWHAT IT'S OWN LIFEBLOOD, NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON THE SLAVERY ISSUE. TENSIONS WERE THERE AND STILL EXIST IN A VERY SMALL PART TODAY. THE SOUTHERN US HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN JUST THE 50 YEARS I'VE BEEN WATCHING. FOR THE BETTER, I MIGHT ADD.

The racial problems suffered in the South post war, did the coloured people suffer, as much because some southerners blamed them for the south's post war plight, as much as just pure racism?

I DON'T THINK SO. THE REASON FOR THE "PLIGHT" WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT THE SLAVE'S FAULT. RACISM DEVELOPED SLOWLY FROM 1865 UNTIL THE BUBBLE BURST IN THE 1950S AFTER WORLD WAR II. THAT'S WHEN EQUALITY SET IN. TENSIONS GOT A BIT OUT OF HAND.

The 'white trash' southern soldier, did he fight to keep slavery? My view is more to defend 'states rights' which, admittedly, included slavery, but that wasn't his prime motive? He wanted to keep his lifestyle as it was. (But then I'm English, what do I know....?) DON'T FORGET THAT MANY OF OUR 'WHITE TRASH' SOLDIERS WERE DESCENDANTS OF EDWARD I AND MALCOLM III..... MY OWN BELIEF ABOUT YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED (FROM MY PERSPECIVE) IN MY LAST POST. "LIFESTYLE" IS A RATHER HIGH STANDARD FOR A DESCRIPTION OF A SUBSISTANCE FARMER IN THE SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS. BUT YES, THEY WERE REACTING TO BOTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS AND AN "INVADING" ARMY POPULATED TO A GREAT EXTENT BY THEIR BROTHERS AND COUSINS. WE CALLED IT 'CIVIL' WAR.

[ole]

And now for the Yankee spin.

Racism has been with the human race since well before recorded history. It's basically what justified permanent bondage in the first place. No war captives, no indentured servitude, just an inferior race who were better off with superior masters.

Without slavery, would there have been a Civil War? I don't think so. Without slavery, the sections would have been more alike than different. There'd have been no difference between the northern and southern farmer except for the crop. There'd have been no strident abolitionists; the south would have been more industrialized and on an equal footing with northern industry. The peculiar institution crippled the south, stunted it's development, and convinced it that its superiority was a gift of God.

Did the "white trash" Reb fight for slavery? First, I know what you mean, but very much dislike the reference. As I have nothing better to offer than "Joe Six-Pack" or "Bubba," I will accept it as offered. No. He didn't. He signed on for his individual reason. Certainly, a few did fight for the right to keep slaves, but I'd be floored to discover that more than 1 in 50 did. Why does the Englishman enlist? A job? A conviction? A sense of duty? Maybe a bit of adventure away from home? Same for the southern and northern boys. A war on the home front -- you must pick a side. Are you going to fight for the people who will be fighting your kin? No reason required, you will stand with your people.

In short, Johnny didn't fight for slavery. The war was brought on for that reason by politically powerful slaveowners, but Johnny had nothing to do with it.

Post-war racism? Racism is a natural human condition. It has nothing to do with the CW. North or south, it is the same. It takes a conscious effort to overcome the natural aversion to different. The "south" get's a bad rap because post-war that's where all the coloreds were. They didn't fare much better when they moved north.

Ole

[samgrant]

Edward I !

Maybe not "white trash", but wasn't this the same guy who fought with our own "Patriot" (Mel Gibson aka Willam Wallace( "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." Wallace was declared guilty. Following the trial, Wallace was taken from the hall, stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse. He was hanged, drawn and quartered— strangled by hanging but released while still alive, emasculated, eviscerated and his bowels burnt before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head was placed on a pike atop London Bridge) aka Benjamin Martin) just as later that other "white trash" wacko George III, employed the villain William Tavington aka Banastre Tarleton to fight same?

And you think "our white trash soldiers" should be proud of that???

Have a nice day!

[ole]

Sam: Totally out of left field! What the hey did you say that played into the question, "did the common soldier (OK, white trash)fight for slavery?"
Ole

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by samgrant

Edward I !

Maybe not "white trash", but wasn't this the same guy who fought with our own "Patriot" (Mel Gibson aka Willam Wallace( "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." Wallace was declared guilty. Following the trial, Wallace was taken from the hall, stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse. He was hanged, drawn and quartered— strangled by hanging but released while still alive, emasculated, eviscerated and his bowels burnt before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head was placed on a pike atop London Bridge) aka Benjamin Martin) just as later that other "white trash" wacko George III, employed the villain William Tavington aka Banastre Tarleton to fight same?

And you think "our white trash soldiers" should be proud of that???

Have a nice day!

Man, you got into that one! My point was that us white trash are in fact descendants of the Plantagenents and the Scots, 'royalty' if you will, which was more or less important to the English and apparently still is. Many of these same civil war folks' grandpas started the ruckus up in Massachusetts in 1776 and continued the fight down in the South until after 1781. White trash, but tough trash. I commend Ole's dissertation on racism and the reasons for fighting. He's learning.

[unionblue]

Larry,

In reply to your post #25 above, where you state:

'SLAVERY WOULD HAVE ONLY COME TO A REDUCED END WITH THE ADVENT OF MECHANIZATION (COTTON GIN, TRACTORS, AND THE LIKE) TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR LABOR.'

How quickly we forget other threads on this very same topic.

Was Slavery On The Way Out?

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/civil-war-history-secession-politics/23363-slavery-way-out.html

'RACISM DEVELOPED SLOWLY FROM 1865 UNTIL THE BUBBLE BURST IN THE 1950S AFTER WORLD WAR II. THAT'S WHEN EQUALITY SET IN. TENSIONS GOT A BIT OUT OF HAND.'

Larry, racisms bubble burst in the 1950s? Tensions got a bit out of hand? I'm glad nothing serious happened in Watts, Chicago, Little Rock, Selma, and Washington D.C. during that long hot summer thing during the 60's! I'm afraid your timing is a bit off on this one.

Sincerely,
Unionblue