The Militant South

[unionblue]

Got a lot of Civil War books for Christmas, and one I fine a bit interesting than most is The Militant South, 1800-1861, by John Hope Franklin.

The book was first published in 1964, but was copyrighted in 1956, so I assume it has been around for a while. The premise is that the South, due to its peculiar environment and culture, that seemed to lead to a violent and militant society. From the preface of the book:

"While considerable attention has been given to the social, cultural, and psychological conditions of the South before 1861, certain aspects are yet incomplete. In the ante-bellum period, large numbers of observers, including Southerners, made more than passing reference to those phases of Southern life and culture that suggested a penchant for militancy which at times assumed excessive proportions. The persistence of the rural environment, the Indian danger, the fear of slaves, an old-world concept of honor, an increasing sensitivity, and an arrogant self-satisfaction with things as they were contributed. Reflected in the culture and conduct of Southerners, it militated against a calm, deliberate approach to their problems. Several years ago, the late Wilbur J. Cash, a distinguished Southern journalist, observed that the ante-bellum Southerner "did not think; he felt." Feeling or groping his way toward a solution of his increasingly complex problems, the Southerner not infrequently reacted militantly, indeed violently."

"This volume seeks to identify and describe those phases of life that won for the ante-bellum South the reputation of being a land of violence. It is concerned, therefore, not merely with the formal and conspicuous revelations of bellicosity but also with those varied conditions of life which not only reflect, but explain this tendency. In the South, for example, militant race superiority evolved out of the defense of plantation slavery, to become an ingredient in the culture. The South's dread of real and fancied Indian scalpers kept many inhabitants trigger-happy, while the persistent fight for Lebensraum added to the flavor of militancy. Growing interest in military education, preoccupation with military activities, and many other phases of everyday life reflected a warm attachment to things of a militant nature."

"This study implies at no point that all Southerners, or even almost all of them, were bellicose or militant. It is mindful of the existence of elements in the South that regarded violence and other forms of precipitate action as revolting. But these elements dominated neither thought nor action in the crucial generation preceding the Civil War. Like the anti-slavery elements, they lost most of their influence as the controversy between the North and South became intense. They were shouted down, voted down, and fought down by those Southerners who--though they might have been in the minority--subscribed to a code of conduct and a plan of action that was the antithesis of moderation and conciliation. These created the climate of militancy."

I have read articles elsewhere that dueling in the South was frequent and common and had produced a mind-set of one's honor being so sensitive that the whole attitude conveyed itself onto the national stage by Southerners who felt their honor impuned during debates over slavery and secession. That this exaggerated sense of honor even led to the war because the South 'felt' with its heart instead of thought with its brain. It will be interesting to see what the book has to say on the subject.

Unionblue

[ole]

<font face="arial,helvetica">
Neil:

Sounds like a book I could get into.

I'd propose that the militancy was a natural adjunct to the aspiration for aristocratic rule. As in England, there were only a few respectable occupations for a nobly born son. The military was one; being an industrialist or merchant were not.

Add the element of aristocratic honor and you get another board in the militaristic platform.

I usually keep four or five books going. Two are The Road to Disunion, Freehling, and America in 1857, Stampp. Both were opened to get a better feel on the tariff situation. Neither, so far, give much weight to tariffs as a cause.

Ole</font>

[unionblue]

Ole,

I found the book cheap on Amazon.com as one of many used books listed for sale there.

Your comments above hit pretty close to the mark. There were many private military academies in the South, far more than in the North (except for West Point). One of the reasons for this fact that was given in the book was that the sons of rich planters could not attend private schools or college without getting into serious trouble (fighting, not going with the rules, did not like the restraints placed on them with other students and teachers, etc.) so military schools were considered the best solution as it forced the students to keep in line and learn military rules and regs as it were.

So in a sense, honor was served.

I have both the books you refer to and have found The Road to Disunion very enlighting and informative. And your right, neither give much weight to the idea of tariffs being a cause of the war and when you read Freehling's take on the Nullification crisis, you see how that tariff was just a 'stalking horse' for the real issue of slavery behind it all. And the way Clay paddled Calhoun over renegotiating the compromise tariff is a real eye-opener!

Unionblue

[samgrant]

Might this give some insight as to the total domination of the ANV over the AOP (until Gettysburg)?

Were the rebs rip roaring ready to fight for several years, at least since the Nullification thing, and the Northern boys had never had fighting in mind?

(It occurs to me that the so called state militias were taken more seriously in the South than in the North - is that so?)

[larry_cockerham]

Neil, you wrote:

"And your right, neither give much weight to the idea of tariffs being a cause of the war and when you read Freehling's take on the Nullification crisis, you see how that tariff was just a 'stalking horse' for the real issue of slavery behind it all. And the way Clay paddled Calhoun over renegotiating the compromise tariff is a real eye-opener!"

You can't seem to impact the notion that slavery was the lead mule in the reason for the unpleasantness. Try to pry that from your brain if possible. Tariffs didn't impact many of our Tennessee boys; they were a bit perturbed with the yankees. Having met a few in my time, I can understand that.

[OpnDownfall]

If Tn. had not seceded, the Tn. boys would not have impacted with as many Yankees as they did.

[unionblue]

Larry,

I can't seem to 'impact' that slavery was the lead reason for the unpleasentness? Try to pry that from my brain if possible?

You want to try that again in plain english?

Unionblue
PS, You ever read the first quote in my signature line?

[larry_cockerham]

Neil, I'll give you three points on that one. I couldn't read my own sentence. Southern folks get a bit fatiqued of hearing about slavery everytime someone jumps on us for being tangled up in a most unfortunate war with a multiplicity of causes, as we and thousands of others have discussed for years. The point earlier about TN suceeding and hence causing the yanks to show up is well taken. That little vote, by the way was far from unanimous. A lot of the 'yanks' who showed up were from Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia and North Carolina, not exactly New Jersey boys. Few folks around here ever take time to acknowledge that one either. Slavery's a nice subject?, it gives the politically correct something to assist the democrats while searching for votes. It would be great, for once, if the world at least tipped their hats to the fact that lots of Southern boys tried to kill Union soldiers because they happened to have them in their sights. Very little else was involved. Slavery might have caused it, but it didn't keep it going. PS, was Fred an authority?

[unionblue]

Larry,

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Was Fred an authority?

Question. Have you and I ever been a slave?

I think being one tends to restrict your viewpoint, especially when it comes to other reasons like the tariff, state's rights, and all the other 'reasons' touted as a cause of the war.

I think the man saw the root of the conflict, not the fertilizer applied after the war was over.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Seems to me that from what I know about Fred (Mr. Frederick C.) Douglas he was a bit of a brown Ben Franklin, that is quick in the mind if not the feet. He certainly never toiled in the cotton or rice fields, nor did he apparently suffer from a cruel slave master. Yet he had a feel for his times and the ability to express his feelings, and at the same time enough quickness to avoid being hung for his trouble.

Life was interesting. Still is.