"The South still lies about the Civil War", Does the North lie?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Understood.

And I agree . . . just wondering how long after 1870, should some of these threads (no matter the specific forum) contine ?

I understand it's not your call.

At times, I face the same dilemma in the the Forrest sub forum:

Reconstruction and Forrest

But I guess such question would be moot in relation to Bedford.

Considering the General died during 1877.

Thanks again JG !
I get trapped by the timelines too.
 
I am well aware of the searchable aspect of CWT. Have used it many times. So if one searches your post(s) on Northern Slavery, one will fine you speaking on the Northern Black Laws? On the cruelty, evilness, and vileness of Northern Slavery? On the Northern Slave trade? The punishments of Northern Slaves?

Or will one fine more explanations, excuses, and defending?

When asked about the lash being used on Northern Slaves you answered........

"Yes, but apparently rare in the North, common in the South, even before the North abolished slavery. It had more to do with the plantation setting of the South."

Does the amount of times a slave is beaten with a lash make one regions slavery better than another? Asked the Northern slave who was being beaten if it did! Ask the Northern Slave who is being beaten if it matters to him how often that punishment was used in Cuba, Brazil, the South, or England!


When asked about the Northern Slave Trade you answered.....
"Slaves were traded and sold all over the world, and in every age. Merely a definition slavery itself, having no particular regional differentiation."

Edited. You seem to defend Northern Slave Trade by saying "everyone else did it"

You were asked if you were wishing to state that Northern Slavery was not equal to Southern Slavery, or to any slavery? You answered......
"I'm not wishing it, but yes I am stating it. It's clear that Southern slavery lasted longer, abolition had to be forced there, and in the lower South slavery was demonstrably meaner. What's so upsetting about that? It wasn't anyone today in the South that's responsible for that, and no dead Southerners asked to be defended."

I am shocked but not surprised that you believe Northern Slavery was "better" than slavery, not just the South, but in the world !!!!!

I hope I misunderstood your answer or that you misunderstood my question. Sometimes I am not clear in my questions as I should be.

I can and have many times spoken of the cruelty, evilness, and vileness of slavery in the South. I have many times admitted how wrong it was.

I see ALL slavery as it is and was !!!!! Bad, cruel, Immoral, evil, and vile..................I have also stated before I am glad it was ended, unfortunately not peacefully. Yet I can discuss it and condemn it.

Yet some people in other regions that slavery existed have issues on speaking on it, on ALL of it and calling it as it was.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries

View attachment 293948

Just a few thoughts.

I often see these comparisons of Northern slavery and racism, with Southern slavery and racism. Simply put, the two experiences are not the same.

You say, correctly, "I see ALL slavery as it is and was !!!!! Bad, cruel, Immoral, evil, and vile." This is fair, and we all agree. But I think there is a fair pushback when people criticize the notion that when it comes to slavery, the North and the South were the "same".

As has been noted, the North did in fact abolish slavery over time, and unevenly. But it did happen, and it is momentous that it happened. It was not only important for African Americans themselves. If there had not been "free" states, there would not have been a conflict between the "free" states and the "slave" states... the existence of free states explains why there was a civil war in the first place. I could talk about this in pages and pages and pages, but suffice it to say, the fact that slavery did end in the North is HUGE. If Northern Slavery was about "cruelty, evilness, and vileness," as you correctly state, then the North deserves credit for ending it.

Having said that, I think it's fair to say that while I was in grades k-12, there was almost no discussion of slavery in the North or discrimination against African Americans (I'm in my early 60s) in most Northern schools, although by that time there was some discussion about the fact that Native Americans were getting a rotten deal from the British and Spanish immigrants. (As an aside, many people don't know that the famous Sojourner Truth was a freedwoman from New York. I have seen where she's been re-enacted with a Southern accent.)

It is fair to critique the antebellum North for its racism. At the same time, it is fair to pushback against the notion that racism in the North was as bad as racism in the South. I have made the point many times that racist behavior exists on a continuum, and that, while ALL RACIST BEHAVIOR IS BAD, some behaviors are objectively worse and more consequential than others.

Historian Leon Litwack, in his book, North of Slavery, states:

The position of the Negro in the antebellum North invites obvious comparison with that of the slave in the South. Indeed, many publicists and politicians in both sections repeatedly made and exploited the comparison, claiming that slaves and free Negroes shared an identical existence. Such a position, however, is as gross an oversimplification as is the traditional contrast between northern racial benevolence and southern intolerance.
For as this study suggests, important distinctions did exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves, just as there were fundamental differences between the condition of northern white industrial workers and southern bondsmen.​
Above all, the northern Negro was a free man; he was not subject to the whims and dictates of the master or overseer; he could not be bought and sold; he could not be arbitrarily separated from his family. Although a victim of racial proscription, he could - and on several occasions did - advance his political and economic position in the ante bellum period; he could and did organize and petition, publish newspapers and tracts, even join with white sympathizers to advance his cause; in sum, he was able to carry on a variety of activities directed toward an improvement of his position.
Although subjected to angry white mobs, ridicule, and censure, he made substantial progress in some sections of the North and, at the very least, began to plague the northern conscience with the inconsistency of its antislavery pronouncements and prevailing racial practices. And although confined largely to menial employments, some Negroes did manage to accumulate property and establish thriving businesses; by 1860, northern Negroes shared with white workers the vision of rising into the middle class. Finally, on the eve of the Civil War, an increasing number of Negroes were availing themselves of educational opportunities, either in the small number f integrated schools or in the exclusive and usually inferior Negro schools.​

As Litwack states, "important distinctions (that) exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves." He acknowledges that there was racism in the North/Free States. But clearly, life for enslaved people in the South differed markedly from life for free people in the North, much to the detriment of enslaved people.

To the extent that the existence of slavery in the North, and the existence of racism in the North, is not acknowledged, or not covered in adequate detail, then it is fair to complain about that. I would opine that, not enough is made of the fact that free blacks in the North ~ who, by population, were over-represented in the Union army ~ stated quite often that were fighting not just to end slavery, but also, to gain full equality. That is not really discussed much, much of the focus in civil war discourse has been on anti-slavery, not pro-equality.

But I do think people are right to push back by saying that the North deserves acknowledgement for ending slavery, albeit gradually, in the antebellum era; that they ended slavery without war; that the existence of free labor North was key to the North/South conflict; and that despite racism, life for free blacks in the North was preferable to that for enslaved blacks in the South. That is: people are right to push back against the notion or implication or allusion that the North and South were the "same" when it comes to race and slavery.

Now: I don't know if you were saying that the North and the South were the "same" with respect to these things; but I think it can be taken that way. In any event, I am trying to put these ideas in a way that I think is the proper way to interpret the history.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Agreed.

I just don't know that Southerners get it, that the CW is just not a "thing" in the many places in the "the North." For the most part, the war did not take place on Northern soil, so Northerners never had to deal with ruin and defeat. The North never had to deal with the upheaval in social relations caused by the end of slavery.

I am reminded of the phrase "he's just not into you." Northerners are just not into the war the way that Southerners are. The talks we have about the war on this forum, which is among War-interested people, does not reflect how the larger Northern society views the war, which is that, it's just not something they think about. I don't know if Southerners can relate to how much the war is not just that big a deal to Northerners, like it is to them. Northerners don't feel a need to "lie" about the war, they just don't think about too much.

- Alan

I used to live in Chattanooga which has a number of upscale private schools (Ted Turner went to one). The Chattanooga Civil War Roundtable , at that time, met at one of them and was run by the Chief Historian of the Chickamauga Battlefield Park. I met a man from a northern state who was on the faculty at that school and I mentioned the roundtable. He became somewhat upset. His exact words were "the Civil War was over 100 years ago and doesn't need to be discussed any more".
 
I used to live in Chattanooga which has a number of upscale private schools (Ted Turner went to one). The Chattanooga Civil War Roundtable , at that time, met at one of them and was run by the Chief Historian of the Chickamauga Battlefield Park. I met a man from a northern state who was on the faculty at that school and I mentioned the roundtable. He became somewhat upset. His exact words were "the Civil War was over 100 years ago and doesn't need to be discussed any more".
As a northerner, I disagree with him. But I don't think it's uncommon that many Northerners feel that Southerners are "obsessed" with the Civil War, to use a phrase I've heard. I guess I'm part of the "obsessed" class...

EDIT: That guy would probably have been shocked to know there are CW Roundtables in northern cities too...

- Alan
 
What do you think the motivation behind crediting mostly Lincoln is?

Milly's motivation was to make the South look as glorious as possible. Do you think that is some historian's goal? To make Lincoln look as glorious as possible or is it merely trying to make something complex simple?

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative, and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz
They should be taught it all the way back to colonial days, in all its glory. Not just heaped on the heads of one group. Just because you had stopped sinning for 30 years doesn't discount the other nearly 200 that you sinned mightily!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative, and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz

RE: Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared,

I don't know if that properly captures Brown's depiction/interpretation throughout history or in our common memory. I see him as a controversial and polarizing figure, who has been deified by some and demonized by others.

- Alan
 
On the other hand Lincoln did issue the Emancipation Proclamation which was a huge body blow to the Confederacy. Our friends such has @Lost Cause and @CSA Today have never explained why the Confederacy didn't beat Lincoln to the punch and immediately free their slave's after Ft.Sumtter and enlist them in the Confederate Army. Surely the leader's of the Confederacy remembered that the British Army successfully recruited slaves by offering them freedom.
Leftyhunter
I don’t recall discussing black Confederates in detail at all if that is what you are alluding to. I do see, however, the TOV is alive and well.
 
RE: Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared,

I don't know if that properly captures Brown's depiction/interpretation throughout history or in our common memory. I see him as a controversial and polarizing figure, who has been deified by some and demonized by others.

- Alan
I agree.
 
Just a few thoughts.

I often see these comparisons of Northern slavery and racism, with Southern slavery and racism. Simply put, the two experiences are not the same.

You say, correctly, "I see ALL slavery as it is and was !!!!! Bad, cruel, Immoral, evil, and vile." This is fair, and we all agree. But I think there is a fair pushback when people criticize the notion that when it comes to slavery, the North and the South were the "same".

As has been noted, the North did in fact abolish slavery over time, and unevenly. But it did happen, and it is momentous that it happened. It was not only important for African Americans themselves. If there had not been "free" states, there would not have been a conflict between the "free" states and the "slave" states... the existence of free states explains why there was a civil war in the first place. I could talk about this in pages and pages and pages, but suffice it to say, the fact that slavery did end in the North is HUGE. If Northern Slavery was about "cruelty, evilness, and vileness," as you correctly state, then the North deserves credit for ending it.

Having said that, I think it's fair to say that while I was in grades k-12, there was almost no discussion of slavery in the North or discrimination against African Americans (I'm in my early 60s) in most Northern schools, although by that time there was some discussion about the fact that Native Americans were getting a rotten deal from the British and Spanish immigrants. (As an aside, many people don't know that the famous Sojourner Truth was a freedwoman from New York. I have seen where she's been re-enacted with a Southern accent.)

It is fair to critique the antebellum North for its racism. At the same time, it is fair to pushback against the notion that racism in the North was as bad as racism in the South. I have made the point many times that racist behavior exists on a continuum, and that, while ALL RACIST BEHAVIOR IS BAD, some behaviors are objectively worse and more consequential than others.

Historian Leon Litwack, in his book, North of Slavery, states:

The position of the Negro in the antebellum North invites obvious comparison with that of the slave in the South. Indeed, many publicists and politicians in both sections repeatedly made and exploited the comparison, claiming that slaves and free Negroes shared an identical existence. Such a position, however, is as gross an oversimplification as is the traditional contrast between northern racial benevolence and southern intolerance.
For as this study suggests, important distinctions did exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves, just as there were fundamental differences between the condition of northern white industrial workers and southern bondsmen.​
Above all, the northern Negro was a free man; he was not subject to the whims and dictates of the master or overseer; he could not be bought and sold; he could not be arbitrarily separated from his family. Although a victim of racial proscription, he could - and on several occasions did - advance his political and economic position in the ante bellum period; he could and did organize and petition, publish newspapers and tracts, even join with white sympathizers to advance his cause; in sum, he was able to carry on a variety of activities directed toward an improvement of his position.
Although subjected to angry white mobs, ridicule, and censure, he made substantial progress in some sections of the North and, at the very least, began to plague the northern conscience with the inconsistency of its antislavery pronouncements and prevailing racial practices. And although confined largely to menial employments, some Negroes did manage to accumulate property and establish thriving businesses; by 1860, northern Negroes shared with white workers the vision of rising into the middle class. Finally, on the eve of the Civil War, an increasing number of Negroes were availing themselves of educational opportunities, either in the small number f integrated schools or in the exclusive and usually inferior Negro schools.​

As Litwack states, "important distinctions (that) exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves." He acknowledges that there was racism in the North/Free States. But clearly, life for enslaved people in the South differed markedly from life for free people in the North, much to the detriment of enslaved people.

To the extent that the existence of slavery in the North, and the existence of racism in the North, is not acknowledged, or not covered in adequate detail, then it is fair to complain about that. I would opine that, not enough is made of the fact that free blacks in the North ~ who, by population, were over-represented in the Union army ~ stated quite often that were fighting not just to end slavery, but also, to gain full equality. That is not really discussed much, much of the focus in civil war discourse has been on anti-slavery, not pro-equality.

But I do think people are right to push back by saying that the North deserves acknowledgement for ending slavery, albeit gradually, in the antebellum era; that they ended slavery without war; that the existence of free labor North was key to the North/South conflict; and that despite racism, life for free blacks in the North was preferable to that for enslaved blacks in the South. That is: people are right to push back against the notion or implication or allusion that the North and South were the "same" when it comes to race and slavery.

Now: I don't know if you were saying that the North and the South were the "same" with respect to these things; bu I think it can be taken that way. In any event, I am trying to put these ideas in a way that I think is the proper way to interpret the history.

- Alan


I think we can put it into proper interpretation also. The North. without comparison to any other region, or country with slavery, had Black laws. it had laws for the punishment of slaves, it had the slave trade, it had it's racism, and it had it's abolition. Yet as I have repeatedly said here, until recently speaking/discussing Northern Slavery's "bad" side was a taboo. Northern Abolition, which was great, and the right thing, was not ALL of the history of Northern Slavery, and after all, as wonderful as Abolition was, it was giving in correcting a wrong, a wrong that until the last few years was not talked about, written about as it deserved. The North does deserve credit for their abolition, there is no doubt in that, but when you sit down at the end of the day and you view the facts, they gave abolition to correct their wrong, the wrong of Slavery...........................Slavery, regardless of the region or country, is cruel, evil, vile, and immoral. Those are also facts.................I have not heard Northern Slavery described in those terms, yet I have seen enough "buts" that seem to be attempting to classify Northern Slavery as "good". I say, again without comparisons to other regions or countries who had slavery, call it what it truly was, cruel, vile, evil, and immoral. Wrong is wrong, racism is racism, slavery is slavery, and it all is bad.

Discuss Northern abolition, write about Northern abolition, know about Northern abolition, but understand the WHY of Northern abolition, and WHY it was necessary......................Slavery, the bad, and the ugly.

Don't push the bad aspects of Northern history out of view simply because it is uncomfortable. Step up, own one's history and put it out, ALL of it in view. Then we all can speak of the proper way to interpret history. Until that is done, all one is doing is presenting a cleansed interpretation of history.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think we can put it into proper interpretation also. The North. without comparison to any other region, or country with slavery, had Black laws. it had laws for the punishment of slaves, it had the slave trade, it had it's racism, and it had it's abolition. Yet as I have repeatedly said here, until recently speaking/discussing Northern Slavery's "bad" side was a taboo. Northern Abolition, which was great, and the right thing, was not ALL of the history of Northern Slavery, and after all, as wonderful as Abolition was, it was giving in correcting a wrong, a wrong that until the last few years was not talked about, written about as it deserved. The North does deserve credit for their abolition, there is no doubt in that, but when you sit down at the end of the day and you view the facts, they gave abolition to correct their wrong, the wrong of Slavery...........................Slavery, regardless of the region or country, is cruel, evil, vile, and immoral. Those are also facts.................I have not heard Northern Slavery described in those terms, yet I have seen enough "buts" that seem to be attempting to classify Northern Slavery as "good". I say, again without comparisons to other regions or countries who had slavery, call it what it truly was, cruel, vile, evil, and immoral. Wrong is wrong, racism is racism, slavery is slavery, and it all is bad.

Discuss Northern abolition, write about Northern abolition, know about Northern abolition, but understand the WHY of Northern abolition, and WHY it was necessary......................Slavery, the bad, and the ugly.

Don't push the bad aspects of Northern history out of view simply because it is uncomfortable. Step up, own one's history and put it out, ALL of it in view. Then we all can speak of the proper way to interpret history. Until that is done, all one is doing is presenting a cleansed interpretation of history.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 293961

RE: I have not heard Northern Slavery described in those terms, yet I have seen enough "buts" that seem to be attempting to classify Northern Slavery as "good".

This is where we have to agree to disagree. I don't see anybody attempting to classify Northern Slavery as "good".

I do think the history of slavery in the North is "under-covered," and I also think the history of Northern abolition (history of abolition in the North) is under-covered."

- Alan
 
RE: I have not heard Northern Slavery described in those terms, yet I have seen enough "buts" that seem to be attempting to classify Northern Slavery as "good".

This is where we have to agree to disagree. I don't see anybody attempting to classify Northern Slavery as "good".

I do think the history of slavery in the North is "under-covered," and I also think the history of Northern abolition (history of abolition in the North) is under-covered."

- Alan


So then Alan, you go on the record as saying that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral?

I agree with you on both aspects of Northern Slavery/Abolition being under-covered, but one is less covered than the other. Often I see it going from just bread to toast with jelly. Meaning, it is simply recognized the North had Slavery, but let's talk about the North's Abolition. There is a good deal of history between recognizing the North had Slavery (the bread) and the North's Abolition (the toast with jelly). It is that "between" history that is lacking the most in being covered.

When 40 lashes in the North to a slave was mentioned in another post, and the response back was "it was apparently rare, while in the South it was more numerous" in my opinion that was defending it while attempting to sugarcoat it, and sugarcoating is always an attempt to make something appear to be less bad, and to make something appear to be less bad is to make it appear to be closer to good. Perhaps my opinion is flawed?

Respectfully,

William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Discuss Northern abolition, write about Northern abolition, know about Northern abolition, but understand the WHY of Northern abolition, and WHY it was necessary......................Slavery, the bad, and the ugly.

Don't push the bad aspects of Northern history out of view simply because it is uncomfortable. Step up, own one's history and put it out, ALL of it in view. Then we all can speak of the proper way to interpret history. Until that is done, all one is doing is presenting a cleansed interpretation of history.
Great post.

Northern abolition, & finger pointing at the South, is most commonly used to declare the North as morally superior on the subject. Occasionally it is said but, mostly it is inferred.

Many times when we get into discussions of secession, we are told WHY Southerners desired Independence, regardless of any & all other evidence. WHY becomes the topic. WHY is the "key" from the Yankee narrative. Slavery, Slavery, Slavery being the desired outcome.

When it comes to Northern abolition, rarely do we here the, WHY. Is it as so many pretend, a moral crusade for equality, rainbows, & unicorns...? Or does it come down to the same why, as most other major political issues. Money, & political power. Many common folk have been sacrificed throughout history for the political, & financial gains of politicians, & wealthy power brokers.

It's no secret that politicians often claim moral high ground, or motivations, for positions that are of great financial significance. I have no doubt that people like Frederick Douglas, had moral reasons. However, the politicians, & power brokers of the day, are more driven by finance, & power, than feelings.

The wealth generated by the Southern system..... was it no longer reliant on Northern finance..? With the slave trade outlawed, how much were the Northern Slave traders making now..? How about Northern Shipping..? Had the Southern system grown to a point of financial Independence, & now no longer was willing to share profits with Northern Bankers..?

I'm of the opinion, that the Northern position for abolition, had way more to do with power, & profits, than it did a moral superiority. The virtuous act was driven, like most political actions, by money.
 
So then Alan, you go on the record as saying that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral?

I agree with you on both aspects of Northern Slavery/Abolition being under-covered, but one is less covered than the other. Often I see it going from just bread to toast with jelly. Meaning, it is simply recognized the North had Slavery, but let's talk about the North's Abolition. There is a good deal of history between recognizing the North had Slavery (the bread) and the North's Abolition (the toast with jelly). It is that "between" history that is lacking the most in being covered.

When 40 lashes in the North to a slave was mentioned in another post, and the response back was "it was apparently rare, while in the South it was more numerous" in my opinion that was defending it while attempting to sugarcoat it, and sugarcoating is always an attempt to make something appear to be less bad, and to make something appear to be less bad is to make it appear to be closer to good. Perhaps my opinion is flawed?

Respectfully,

William

One Nation,
Two countries
View attachment 293970

RE: So then Alan, you go on the record as saying that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral?

I cannot tell you... disturbing it makes me feel, that I am asked to "go on the record as saying that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral?" In any event, yes, you can put me on the record.

I agree with you on both aspects of Northern Slavery/Abolition being under-covered, but one is less covered than the other. Often I see it going from just bread to toast with jelly. Meaning, it is simply recognized the North had Slavery, but let's talk about the North's Abolition. There is a good deal of history between recognizing the North had Slavery (the bread) and the North's Abolition (the toast with jelly). It is that "between" history that is lacking the most in being covered.

Actually, I disagree with this. I actually opened a thread on the subject of Abolition in the North to discuss the subject, and there have been several others. I don't think there's been nearly enough discussion about Northern Abolition. James W. Loewen, who wrote Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong once made the point, if I have it right, that slavery has gotten much more attention than anti-slavery in history books, which I agree with.

But I don't know if we need to bang heads on this. I think we both agree that slavery and its end in the North could use more coverage. It is a fact, though, that the scope and extent of slavery in the North did not match the scope and extent of slavery in the South. It can be true, and is in fact true, that slavery in the North and South was "cruel, evil, wrong, and immoral"; and that slavery in the North was much less pervasive and extensive in the North than in the South, AND that the North did engage in a process of gradual emancipation that the South did not, AND that there were Northerners who were complicit in Southern slavery. I hope that our schools address all of these in our public education, and I despair when and if they are not.

When 40 lashes in the North to a slave was mentioned in another post, and the response back was "it was apparently rare, while in the South it was more numerous" in my opinion that was defending it while attempting to sugarcoat it, and sugarcoating is always an attempt to make something appear to be less bad, and to make something appear to be less bad is to make it appear to be closer to good. Perhaps my opinion is flawed.

I will let the person who wrote that defend it. The question is, how many people are saying that? Two foundational history books for me were by Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 by Gordon Wood, and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe. They're both in The Oxford History of the United States. I get no feeling from the books that Northern slavery was "better", nor do I get the sense of this slavery being sugar-coated.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
I don’t recall discussing black Confederates in detail at all if that is what you are alluding to. I do see, however, the TOV is alive and well.

As is its brother the Great Alibi. Please note both TOV and GA are modernisms related to the Civil Rights era.

If you wish to use examples that fine as long as they relate to the Civil War, after all this is a Civil War forum, but just toss it out to see what happens is not useful..
 
Last edited:
Great post.

Northern abolition, & finger pointing at the South, is most commonly used to declare the North as morally superior on the subject. Occasionally it is said but, mostly it is inferred.

Many times when we get into discussions of secession, we are told WHY Southerners desired Independence, regardless of any & all other evidence. WHY becomes the topic. WHY is the "key" from the Yankee narrative. Slavery, Slavery, Slavery being the desired outcome.

When it comes to Northern abolition, rarely do we here the, WHY. Is it as so many pretend, a moral crusade for equality, rainbows, & unicorns...? Or does it come down to the same why, as most other major political issues. Money, & political power. Many common folk have been sacrificed throughout history for the political, & financial gains of politicians, & wealthy power brokers.

It's no secret that politicians often claim moral high ground, or motivations, for positions that are of great financial significance. I have no doubt that people like Frederick Douglas, had moral reasons. However, the politicians, & power brokers of the day, are more driven by finance, & power, than feelings.

The wealth generated by the Southern system..... was it no longer reliant on Northern finance..? With the slave trade outlawed, how much were the Northern Slave traders making now..? How about Northern Shipping..? Had the Southern system grown to a point of financial Independence, & now no longer was willing to share profits with Northern Bankers..?

I'm of the opinion, that the Northern position for abolition, had way more to do with power, & profits, than it did a moral superiority. The virtuous act was driven, like most political actions, by money.

We've discussed these topics in these threads, at least:

Ideological factors partially account for the end of slavery in the North

Northern Abolition: why did they make slavery illegal, vs leaving it alone?

- Alan
 
RE: So then Alan, you go on the record as saying that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral?

I cannot tell you... disturbing it makes me feel, that I am asked to "go on the record as saying that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral?" In any event, yes, you can put me on the record.



Actually, I disagree with this. I actually opened a thread on the subject of Abolition in the North to discuss the subject, and there have been several others. I don't think there's been nearly enough discussion about Northern Abolition. James W. Loewen, who wrote Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong once made the point, if I have it right,
that slavery has gotten much more attention than anti-slavery in history books, which I agree with.

But I don't know if we need to bang heads on this. I think we both agree that slavery and its end in the North could use more coverage. It is a fact, though, that the scope and extent of slavery in the North did not match the scope and extent of slavery in the South. It can be true, and is in fact true, that slavery in the North and South was "cruel, evil, veil, wrong, and immoral"; and that slavery in the North was much less pervasive and extensive in the North than in the South, AND that the North did engage in a process of gradual emancipation that the South did not, AND that there were Northerners who were complicit in Southern slavery. I hope that our schools address all of these in our public education, and I despair when and if they are not.



I will let the person who wrote that defend it. The question is, how many people are saying that? Two foundational history books for me were by Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 by Gordon Wood, and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe. They're both in The Oxford History of the United States. I get no feeling from the books that Northern slavery was "better", nor do I get the sense of this slavery being sugar-coated.

- Alan


Alan,

My only reason for asking if you would go on the record to say that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, vile, wrong, and immoral, was only due to the fact that I have, as of yet, seen you or other's describe it in that way, with those words, the same words that are freely and correctly used about Southern Slavery. We all know that Northern Slavery was cruel, evil, vile, wrong, and immoral. We all also know it was in the South as well, but it appears that no one, including myself has an issue with coming out and calling Southern Slavery what it was, and in those terms. While I see a hesitance to use those same terms for Northern Slavery. Which gives the appearance that perhaps that person views Northern Slavery as "better" or "good".......................I can only state what I see, and what I think.

You are right, there is not reason to bang heads on this subject, for yes, we do agree that slavery in the North could use more coverage. I think that Northern Abolition needs to be discussed more also, but it is attempts by a few to go, as I stated, from bread to toast with jelly, while not speaking of the in between, that presents to me, those who do that, wish to sugarcoat it, or it appears that way. As I said, perhaps my opinion is incorrect.

Thank you, as always Alan, for a civil and informative discussion.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation,
Two countries
Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
I've shared a similar thought about Ulysses S. Grant here ... that sometimes people shine a light on events, and sometimes events shine a light on a person. Circumstances often raise up certain people who would otherwise remain unknown or obscure. The events of the CW shone a light on Grant as they did on Lincoln. Grant was left to carry that torch in the years after Lincoln died.

Giving Lincoln and the North the credit for ending slavery tells a partial story about these events where a rich tapestry underlies so much of the history. As human beings there is a tendency to want to see things at times in black and white, or if we have little time to discover or teach the complexities of events there is an easier route to take in separating things into good or bad, with the emphasis on the good. But there is always further untangling to do. Life is never as simple as that. At least in my opinion.

I also shared one other thought here recently which is that sometimes, in the correction, the pendulum swings further in one direction. And having said that, my sense is that we are as lost if we condemn one people as we are if we condemn another.
Exactly! Well said!
 
This was posted in another thread, but it deserves it's own.

https://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

The above article is from Salon.com. It is a standard fare article complaining about the United Daughters of the Confederacy and their role in glamorizing the South's role in the Civil War. It particularly focuses on keeping the "proper" story in schools. The article speaks of a specific UDC member named Milly.

I'm using this article as a launchpad to discuss some modern university historians practice of glamorizing the North's role in the War while vilifying the South. For example, James McPherson and his heavy emphasis on slavery and race in the War which is a weakness for the South and somewhat of a strength for the North. McPherson tends to shy away from the North's guilt in slavery and racism, but is heavy handed with the South. There are many more examples possible, McPherson is not alone in this practice. Even the Salon article is mostly focused on race more-so than the War itself.

My question is are some modern historians trying to glorify the North, teaching their own "correct" (Northern) version of history while preventing "incorrect" (Southern) versions. Isn't this exactly what Milly is accused of doing for the South?

Are we being taught correctly? Or, are our current history books/lectures just another "Milly" version of history to exalt some people as heroes and make others out to be the villains and no other thought is allowed to be taught?

Going back to the OP: Mention is made in the post of "a specific UDC member named Milly." Milly is Mildred Lewis Rutherford, who was the historian general of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Famously, she wrote the material for a pamphlet that was published in 1920 by the the United Confederate Veterans (UCV), which said in part:

a-measuring-rod-warnings-and-rejects-2-gif-gif-gif.gif


The pamphlet title is A MEASURING ROD To TEST TEXT BOOKS, AND REFERENCE BOOKS In Schools, Colleges and Libraries. An obvious censorship tool, it gave a clear warning concerning books which didn't measure-up to what has been called the Lost Cause standard: they must be Rejected.

I don't know if Rutherford was actually a history scholar (ie, someone who used historical methods, etc) or not. But anyway...

Was there anything close to the above on the Union side? Propagandists come in all sizes, shapes, and colors, and it would not surprise me if there was.

> I hope no offense is taken at the implication of Rutherford being a propagandist, but I think it is appropriate in the case of the above.

- Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top