Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
In the most current New Yorker Magazine, in a review of Charles Frazier's (Cold Mountain) new book, Louis Menand makes an interesting observation which I think might possibly have rolled around in my mind, but I have not yet been able to articulate.
I wonder what you all think?
"Americans love Civil War stories, and many Americans especially love Civil War stories from the Southern point of view. “The Southern point of view,” in popular fiction like “Cold Mountain,” means something like “the point of view of people in local communities everywhere, making a living in the traditional ways, about to be flattened by the bulldozer of modern life.” Casting the story in this light turns the Civil War into an allegory for the defeat of the crafted by the machine-made, the hearth by the factory, the folk by the mass. “One man I knew had been north to the big cities,” Inman remarks at one point, “and he said it was every feature of such places that we were fighting to prevent.”
The Southern point of view must not be confused with the Confederate point of view, which was a vision of an expanding slave empire in which businessmen operate vast plantations on assembly-line principles and hold absolute power over people whose ancestors had once, on another continent, belonged to local communities, made a living in the traditional ways, and so on. This elision—the suppression of a Confederate agenda that was at least as techno-imperialist as the Northern agenda is frequently accused of being—is an adjustment that white Americans grew comfortable with long ago."
It makes nice reading but questions the reasons for a subscription to the New Yorker. He makes far too sweeping a generalization of the Confederate bent with the "expanding slave empire" comment. There was no intent to expand the empire, only to keep it as it was, is, and always shall be.
Today's America loves the rebel. Jesse James, Robin Hood, Dillinger, William Tell, Johnny Yuma, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nathan Hale, the Joads, Timothy O'Leary... It doesn't seem necessary to complicate that basic understanding with psychobabble. Don't you just love those effete, nattering nabobs?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
It makes nice reading but questions the reasons for a subscription to the New Yorker. He makes far too sweeping a generalization of the Confederate bent with the "expanding slave empire" comment. There was no intent to expand the empire, only to keep it as it was, is, and always shall be.
Today's America loves the rebel. Jesse James, Robin Hood, Dillinger, William Tell, Johnny Yuma, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Nathan Hale, the Joads, Timothy O'Leary... It doesn't seem necessary to complicate that basic understanding with psychobabble. Don't you just love those effete, nattering nabobs?
Ole
Ole,
The point is probably a bit over-stated for dramatic effect, but it is not without basis in fact.
The Confederacy did intend to expand "the slave empire". It was one of the ideas espoused by the Fire-Eaters in the 1850s. It was an idea thrown about in 1860 campaign speeches by men like John B. Gordon in 1860, when he spoke of Southern slaves playing banjos in Nicaraugua and Mexico in the future, of a Confederate banner waving from Delaware Bay to the Pacific.
Jefferson Davis had long been an advocate of expanding slavery. He spoke of it forcefully while a US Senator and Secretary of War. He was a strong backer of attempts to buy or conquer Cuba. He was offered command of one filibustering expedition, but turned it down; he suggested Robert E. Lee, and Lee declined. When the expedition failed and the Spanish were after the head of the leaders, he gave a speech in which he said "I want Cuba, and I intend to have her!"
His spots did not change once he became President of the Confederacy. In the early days in Montgomery in 1861, when the Confederacy desperately wanted international recognition, Mexico sent an ambassador to discuss the situation, prepared to extend recognition. This would have been the very first nation to recognize the Confederacy. Davis refused to meet the man because, as he said, it might prove embarassing if he had to invade Mexico within a year or two.
Even as the Civil War raged, Confederate government agents conspired to pave the way for extension to the Pacific by bribing the governors of states in northern Mexico. Plans -- not very realistic ones, but plans -- were laid on how to do that. Agents were dispatched through Mexico to California to foment revolt there. There was also, of course the Confederate attempt on what we now see as the states of New Mexico and Arizona, which was to be followed by the occupation of southern California.
All of this fits in neatly with Davis' pre-war career. He had been the mover and shaker behind the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico after the Mexican War. He was promoting a RR route from New Orleans to the Pacific, and wanted that land to build it on. His idea stayed with him, and all signs were he would have tried to implement it if he could.
I don't know how many people in the South felt this way, but it was a widely and hotly discussed topic in the 1850s. We might quibble over whether or not it was supported by "many" or "most" Southerners, but it was certainly a favored idea of "a lot" at the time. When the term "Manifest Destiny" was coined in the 1840s, it was mainly a theme for aggressive expansion held most ardently by Southerners, by any means necessary.
The South had seen years of more "states rights" and far less interest in industrialization.
By ceding to the "states rights" and seceding, the Confederacy was greatly destroyed by modern industrialization of the United States.
The great fault of the Confederate leadership was never seeing the industrial shortcomings of the southern states and their effect over a long war.
The Confederate private marching towards Pennsylvania, without shoes, surely by then, understood the bleak industrial deficit of the southern states.
Ironic that the final destination at Gettysburg for the Confederates, was a place no modern industrialist would ever build a state of the art shoe factory. Only a practiced grifter would put forth the idea, that Gettysburg was a place to find shoes.
The Southern point of view must not be confused with the Confederate point of view
What Menand ignores is that the Confederacy WAS Southern people with a Southern point of view. But, of course, his narrow minded psycho-analysis of the Confederacy is c***. I do not believe you can put much distance between the Confederacy and the Southern people who strongly supported it.
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
The South had seen years of more "states rights" and far less interest in industrialization.
By ceding to the "states rights" and seceding, the Confederacy was greatly destroyed by modern industrialization of the United States.
The great fault of the Confederate leadership was never seeing the industrial shortcomings of the southern states and their effect over a long war.
The Confederate private marching towards Pennsylvania, without shoes, surely by then, understood the bleak industrial deficit of the southern states.
Ironic that the final destination at Gettysburg for the Confederates, was a place no modern industrialist would ever build a state of the art shoe factory. Only a practiced grifter would put forth the idea, that Gettysburg was a place to find shoes.
One of the ideas being bandied about as secession came was that in the new Confederacy, the state of Virginia -- protected against Northern competition by new tariffs of the Confederacy -- would become the industrial heart of the new nation. Representatives of the seceding states tried to sell this concept to the Virginia secession convention before Ft. Sumter was attacked.
I don't say the idea was particularly well-thought-out. I merely say that a fair number of the leaders of the day were willing to think in those terms. Much of the concept that the North would inevitably conquer because of their industrial and population advantage is more apparent in hindsight than in the minds of those living in 1861. European military analysts were quite astonished at the logistical achievement that allowed Sherman to march through the mountains and take Atlanta, supported over a single RR line for the last 100 miles or so. After the war, Longstreet and other Confederate officers tried to show that their chances of success were very good when the war started -- they considered that they would be justly criticized if the Confederacy had been doomed from the start.
I don't know whether I'm amused or aggravated by people who try to specifically define or categorize what it means... how it feels to be "Southern"... particularly those who don't know, yet pontificate over the issue... those certainly push me toward the "aggravated" end of the scale.
Invaribly when you seen this sort of postulation, it's a clueless preacher pandering to his clueless choir.
But it is amusing to watch that preacher suggest that he's got it all figured out, and those who already know see that he's not even close.
What Menand ignores is that the Confederacy WAS Southern people with a Southern point of view. But, of course, his narrow minded psycho-analysis of the Confederacy is c***. I do not believe you can put much distance between the Confederacy and the Southern people who strongly supported it.
Rose
Rose,
There were a lot of Southern people. Not all of them held to any particular view. Some had to be forced to secede, and forced to serve a government they opposed. Some sought exactly the sort of expansion and conquest you seem to feel they never did. Some, merely caught in a nightmare others had created for them, went along with secession to do what they could when all choices left to them looked bad. Some honestly thought they were being forced into it by Northern aggression and oppression. And some deliberately manipulated the situation to bring about secession, sure their vision was correct and that those who opposed them were misguided and had to be dragged or coerced or stampeded into secession for their own good.
I don't know whether I'm amused or aggravated by people who try to specifically define or categorize what it means... how it feels to be "Southern"... particularly those who don't know, yet pontificate over the issue... those certainly push me toward the "aggravated" end of the scale.
Do you mean that ideas of the "South" or "being Southern" are impossible to express or explain? Is Southern history, or the varying interests and ideologies of people within the South, something beyond definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeith21
But it is amusing to watch that preacher suggest that he's got it all figured out, and those who already know see that he's not even close.
Who are "those who already know"? Is it some sort of elite club that knows all about Southern history?
Do you mean that ideas of the "South" or "being Southern" are impossible to express or explain? Is Southern history, or the varying interests and ideologies of people within the South, something beyond definition?
Who are "those who already know"? Is it some sort of elite club that knows all about Southern history?
Scots, you and I have already walked some of this path together and it seems to be a walk you cannot take without getting a bit wadded up for reasons I cannot understand. So allow me to back away from the core conversation here and try to answer your 2 questions by asking you 2 questions:
Are the ideas of "Scotsman" or "being Scotsman"" possible to express or explain? Is being "Scotsman" or the varying interests and ideologies of "Scotsman", something beyond definition?
Since "Scotsman" does know what it feels like and what it means to be "Scotsman" he could be considered "one who already knows". Is he in some sort of elite club?
Ponder the concept of explaining to my satisfaction and full understanding who you are and what it feels like to be you. Possible?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
A Southern vs. a Confederate Point of View? 
Linear Mode
