Another can of worms

[Savez]

I'm about to open another can of worms but its something that I've wanted to post about for a while and the post in the blogs forum made me decide it was time. This article was posted in there...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/men-at-war/

Here is the first of it...

Most historians now argue — and contemporary documents bear them out — that the leaders of the Confederacy were, above all, motivated by a desire to protect their system of slavery. Leaving the Union, they believed, was the surest way to preserve an institution that was now threatened by the newly-elected, and self-proclaimed anti-slavery, president, Abraham Lincoln.
But if slavery motivated the leaders — almost all of them slave-owners — where did that leave the vast majority of Southerners, the men who owned no slaves but filled the ranks of the Confederate army? For them, the answer was less about the slave economy or states' rights than the perceived threat that abolition posed to their very identity as white men.

How could a free slave threaten their identity as white men? Who came up with this ****? I've heard this often repeated by historians and prof. in college but I've rarely seen any evidence of this. I would have to see many many comments by the average southerner admitting this before I would even begin to believe it. The article states the above but this ignorant lady only quotes the aristocracy and slave owners in the article. What academic historian came up with this myth? I believe it is not enough for some that the secession movement was caused by slavery, they want to make sure everyone knows that everyone in the South was fighting for slavery. Its a treasury of virtue myth at its best. Its always coupled with the idea that the average southerners that weren't of the elite could always say "at least I'm not a slave". This is based on another myth that the South was made up of the planter class, then poor whites. I've always had a problem with that theory too and since my research has taken me waist deep into the cenus, I have no doubt that theory is hogwash now! And even if it were correct the deep rooted racism in those days would have never made a white man feel that he was lower than a black man, free or slave. It takes pure common sense to realize these theories are just another way to try to lump the entire South under the umbrella of slavery and one more chance from some liberal prof. from Boston U. to vilify the South. Why would the poor whites in the North not be worried about free blacks and their status compared to them? Oh right, I forgot! Northerners weren't racist and loved the idea of being on the same social status of a black man. We have the myth of the Lost Cause, its time we started exposing the Yankee myths also.

 

[Dugger]

Well the North did not have slavery but racism was, arguably, just as prevelent in the North as in the South. Not as vicious generally and it took different forms but it was there...no slavery but segregation did exist even though it was not legally on the books. Institutional racism as some have called it. In my home town here in Ohio the elementary schools were segregated until 1948. Yes. One school for blacks and one for whites. Not the high school however. This is a can of worms as you put it and that's all I will say about it at this point. I would like to read what others have to say. The majority of Northerners did NOT like or want to be on the same "social status" with blacks as you put it. Economic/housing segregation was partly the nature of the Northern brand of racism, and, of course, to cover my azz, not all Southerners were racist nor were all Northerners. One size don't fit all. The issue is so complex.

 

[Savez]

Well the North did not have slavery but racism was, arguably, just as prevelent in the North as in the South. Not as vicious generally and it took different forms but it was there...no slavery but segregation did exist even though it was not legally on the books. Institutional racism as some have called it. In my home town here in Ohio the elementary schools were segregated until 1948. Yes. One school for blacks and one for whites. Not the high school however. This is a can of worms as you put it and that's all I will say about it at this point. I would like to read what others have to say. The majority of Northerners did NOT like or want to be on the same "social status" with blacks as you put it. Economic/housing segregation was partly the nature of the Northern brand of racism, and, of course, to cover my azz, not all Southerners were racist nor were all Northerners. One size don't fit all. The issue is so complex.

This brings up another question, although I'm kind of highjacking my own thread. I could see where southerners would be worried about blacks taking thier jobs but his was kind of already happening because many slaves were rented out. But I've always heard that northerners were worried about emancipated blacks migrating north and taking their jobs but like in my first post i've never seen much evidence of that either; was that an issue?

 

[NedBaldwin]

...
How could a free slave threaten their identity as white men? Who came up with this ****? I've heard this often repeated by historians and prof. in college but I've rarely seen any evidence of this. I would have to see many many comments by the average southerner admitting this before I would even begin to believe it. The article states the above but this ignorant lady only quotes the aristocracy and slave owners in the article. What academic historian came up with this myth?

In the years before the civil war, James DeBow published a magazine in Charleston South Carolina called 'DeBow's Review'.
In the January 1861 issue he had an essay about the views of the non-slaveholder. In it he wrote:

"The non-slaveholder of the South preserves the status of the white man, and is not regarded as an inferior or a dependant. He is not told that the Declaration of Independence, when it says that all men are born free and equal, refers to the negro equally with himself. It is not proposed to him that the free negro's vote shall weigh equally with his own at the ballot-box, and that the little children of both colors shall be mixed in the classes and benches of the schoolhouse, and embrace each other filially in its outside sports. It never occurs to him that a white man could be degraded enough to boast in a public assembly, as was recently done in New-York, of having actually slept with a negro. And his patriotic ire would crush with a blow the free negro who would dare, in his presence, as is done in the free States, to characterize the father of the country as a "scoundrel." No white man at the South serves another as a body-servant, to clean his boots, wait on his table, and perform the menial services of his household! His blood revolts against this, and his necessities never drive him to it. He is a companion and an equal. When in the employ of the slaveholder, or in intercourse with him, he enters his hall, and has a seat at his table. If a distinction exists, it is only that which education and refinement may give, and this is so courteously exhibited as scarcely to strike attention. The poor white laborer at the North is at the bottom of the social ladder, while his brother here has ascended several steps, and can look down upon those who are beneath him at an infinite remove!"

I think that is where what you are upset about is coming from.

It takes pure common sense to realize these theories are just another way to try to lump the entire South under the umbrella of slavery and one more chance from some liberal prof. from Boston U. to vilify the South.

I think this comment says more about your own personal issues rather than the views of any BU professor.

Why would the poor whites in the North not be worried about free blacks and their status compared to them?

Some of them were.

 

[NedBaldwin]

This brings up another question, although I'm kind of highjacking my own thread. I could see where southerners would be worried about blacks taking thier jobs but his was kind of already happening because many slaves were rented out. But I've always heard that northerners were worried about emancipated blacks migrating north and taking their jobs but like in my first post i've never seen much evidence of that either; was that an issue?

Sure, for some people it was an issue. I think it became more of an issue much later when there was more black migration.

 

[NedBaldwin]

In the years before the civil war, James DeBow published a magazine in Charleston South Carolina called 'DeBow's Review'.
In the January 1861 issue he had an essay about the views of the non-slaveholder. In it he wrote:

Here is another paragraph from DeBow's essay:

"If emancipation be brought about, as will, undoubtedly be the case, unless the encroachments of the fanatical majorities of the North are resisted now, the slaveholders, in the main, will escape the degrading equality which must result, by emigration, for which they have the means, by disposing of their personal chattels, while the non-slaveholders, without these resources, would be compelled to remain and endure the degradation. This is a startling consideration. In Northern communities, where the free negro is one in a hundred of the total population, he is recognized and acknowledged often as a pest, and in many cases even his presence is prohibited by law. What would be the case in many of our States, where every other inhabitant is a negro, or in many of our communities, as, for example, the parishes around and about Charleston, and in the vicinity of New-Orleans, where there are from twenty to one hundred negroes to each white inhabitant? Low as would this class of people sink by emancipation in idleness, superstition, and vice, the white man compelled to live among them would, by the power exerted over him, sink even lower, unless, as is to be supposed, he would prefer to suffer death instead."

 

[ForeverFree]

This brings up another question, although I'm kind of highjacking my own thread. I could see where southerners would be worried about blacks taking thier jobs but his was kind of already happening because many slaves were rented out. But I've always heard that northerners were worried about emancipated blacks migrating north and taking their jobs but like in my first post i've never seen much evidence of that either; was that an issue?

Savez, Are you being tongue in cheek?

Yes, it was a big issue, especially to the Copperhead faction of the Democratic Party. Those Democrats argued that the emancipationist policies of President Lincoln and the Republican Party would cause a "stampede" of freed blacks to the North that would undercut and devalue white labor.

As historian James McPherson noted in his book Battle Cry of Freedom,

With the [heated and racist] rhetoric from their leaders, it was little wonder that some white workingmen took their prejudices into the streets. In a half-dozen or more cities, anti-black riots broke out during the summer of 1862. Some of the worst violence occurred in Cincinnati, where the replacement of striking Irish dockworkers by Negroes set off a wave of attacks on black neighborhoods. In Brooklyn a mob of Irish-Americans tried to burn down a tobacco factory where two dozen black women and children were working.

The nightmare vision of blacks invading the North seemed to be coming true in southern Illinois, where the War Department transported several cars of contrabands to help with the harvest. Despite the desperate need to gather crops, riots forced the government to return most of the blacks to contraband camps south of the Ohio River.

This lead in part to the ridiculous theory of isothermalism, as discussed by historian Mark Neely, in his essay Colonization, from the book Lincoln's Proclamation:

Emphasis on colonization has obscured a real argument used by Republicans to anticipate or meet criticism of the Emancipation Proclamation: they embraced isothermalism. That is, Republicans insisted that because of climate, African Americans were suited only to tropical climes and would never come north. In fact, Republicans argued, the only reason African Americans came north now was to escape slavery. Abolish slavery and no more would leave the South, and those in the North would depart for the South.

Even the radical Republican nominee for governor in New York, Gen James Wadsworth, stated the typical Republican position: "The emancipation, once affected, the Northern States would be forever relieved, as it is right that they should be, from the fears of a great influx of African laborers… This done, and the whole African population will drift to the South, where it will find a congenial climate, and vast tracts of land never cultivated." Commenting on Wadsworth's idea, the newspaper in Oneida, New York, observed: "This is truth and common sense… Were the institutions of the South rendered tolerant to the black man, not a person of African blood would remain in our northern climate… The way to clear the North of blacks is to guarantee freedom to them at the South."

 

[brass napoleon]

This brings up another question, although I'm kind of highjacking my own thread. I could see where southerners would be worried about blacks taking thier jobs but his was kind of already happening because many slaves were rented out. But I've always heard that northerners were worried about emancipated blacks migrating north and taking their jobs but like in my first post i've never seen much evidence of that either; was that an issue?

Yes it was. Professor David Williams, on pages 346-347 of his book, A People's History of the Civil War, tells how Illinois voters by a 2-to-1 majority vote amended their state constitution in 1862 to keep blacks from settling there, and how Indiana passed a law barring blacks from entering the state at all, and how citizens in two counties in Iowa resolved to "resist the introduction of free negroes into Iowa; first by lawful means, and when that fails, we will drive them, together with such whites as may be engaged in bringing them in, out of the State or afford them 'hospitable graves.'" On pages 348 and 349 he continues to talk about similar feelings in Ohio, New York and New England.

 

[Savez]

I think this comment says more about your own personal issues rather than the views of any BU professor.

I have no idea what you are taking about. Please clarify since you seem to know my personal issues. My issues are with revisionist history based on ****spoor evidence.

 

[Savez]

Here is another paragraph from DeBow's essay:

"If emancipation be brought about, as will, undoubtedly be the case, unless the encroachments of the fanatical majorities of the North are resisted now, the slaveholders, in the main, will escape the degrading equality which must result, by emigration, for which they have the means, by disposing of their personal chattels, while the non-slaveholders, without these resources, would be compelled to remain and endure the degradation. This is a startling consideration. In Northern communities, where the free negro is one in a hundred of the total population, he is recognized and acknowledged often as a pest, and in many cases even his presence is prohibited by law. What would be the case in many of our States, where every other inhabitant is a negro, or in many of our communities, as, for example, the parishes around and about Charleston, and in the vicinity of New-Orleans, where there are from twenty to one hundred negroes to each white inhabitant? Low as would this class of people sink by emancipation in idleness, superstition, and vice, the white man compelled to live among them would, by the power exerted over him, sink even lower, unless, as is to be supposed, he would prefer to suffer death instead."

Another quote from another fire-eater. I understand it was widely circulated but I wonder how many folks in the farmlands of Northern Alabama actually read Debow's Review. Also the first article you posted seems to be saying the same thing I am; White people of 1860 never believed the black man could be equal to or replace him socially. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I have no idea what you are taking about. Please clarify since you seem to know my personal issues. My issues are with revisionist history based on ****spoor evidence.

I dont know your personal issues but your rants suggest to me that there are some.

What seems to me like revisionist history is all the contortions and venom necessary to deny protecting slavery was a motive for action.

 

[Savez]

Savez, Are you being tongue in cheek?

Yes, it was a big issue, especially to the Copperhead faction of the Democratic Party. Those Democrats argued that the emancipationist policies of President Lincoln and the Republican Party would cause a "stampede" of freed blacks to the North that would undercut and devalue white labor.

As historian James McPherson noted in his book Battle Cry of Freedom,



This lead in part to the ridiculous theory of isothermalism, as discussed by historian Mark Neely, in his essay Colonization, from the book Lincoln's Proclamation:

No I was serious. I've always heard it but I just thought it might be another overblown "Lost Cause" point. It makes sense but I just wondered how much the average Northern citizen really worried about it.

 

[Savez]

I dont know your personal issues but your rants suggest to me that there are some.

What seems to me like revisionist history is all the contortions and venom necessary to deny protecting slavery was a motive for action.

You are right. Only the southern point of view can be revisionist histroy. I'm sorry. I forgot that that any northern bias is a delusion made up by us "southern apologists, neo-cons". Also note that I have never denied slavery as a motive for action. What I deny is that slavery was a motive for action by every southerner loyal to the Confederacy, which is pretty much what the article above is saying and pretty much what you believe whether you admit it here or not. Treasury of Virtue duly noted.

 

[Savez]

Yes it was. Professor David Williams, on pages 346-347 of his book, A People's History of the Civil War, tells how Illinois voters by a 2-to-1 majority vote amended their state constitution in 1862 to keep blacks from settling there, and how Indiana passed a law barring blacks from entering the state at all, and how citizens in two counties in Iowa resolved to "resist the introduction of free negroes into Iowa; first by lawful means, and when that fails, we will drive them, together with such whites as may be engaged in bringing them in, out of the State or afford them 'hospitable graves.'" On pages 348 and 349 he continues to talk about similar feelings in Ohio, New York and New England.

Wow! I didn't realize it was that big of a deal.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Another quote from another fire-eater. I understand it was widely circulated but I wonder how many folks in the farmlands of Northern Alabama actually read Debow's Review.

I think the question is not whether they read it but rather whether what Debow said about the view point of the non-slaveowner had some factual basis in society.

Also the first article you posted seems to be saying the same thing I am; White people of 1860 never believed the black man could be equal to or replace him socially. Maybe I am reading it wrong.

I think you are -- DeBow is arguing that emancipation would threaten this white superiority view.

 

[Tin cup]

"How could a free slave threaten their identity as white men? Who came up with this ****?"
I think some of the Confederate soldiers felt that way...it wasn't "****" to them!

German immigrant fighting for the 7th Texas who called on other adopted Southerners to stand by "'your own countrymen and race' against the 'murder and arson, hanging and stealing' that were sure to accompany the 'liberation of the half-civilized cannibal.'"(p. 15 -- Pvt. Joseph Bruckmuller, 7 TX, Address delivered to other prisoners at Ft. Douglas Prison, Chicago, June 1862, Joseph Bruckmuller Notebook, Center for American History, University of Texas, Austin)
Texas soldier warned his wife that Union victory meant abolition, and abolition meant lying "supinely upon our backs," while "the fair daughters of the South [are] reduced to a level with the flat-footed thick-liped Negro."(p. 21 -- Pvt. John Street, 8 TX, to wife, Feb. 25, 1862, Tishomingo Co., MS, John K. and Melinda East Street Papers, Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)

Kevin Dally

 

[Savez]

I think the question is not whether they read it but rather whether what Debow said about the view point of the non-slaveowner had some factual basis in society.




I think you are -- DeBow is arguing that emancipation would threaten this white superiority view.

It didn't seem to threaten the North's white superiority view, so why would it in the South? Because there were so many slaves? I think the real threat would come from the fear of revenge not that the black man might suddenly become superior to whites. It is obvious they were not going to let that happen either way, hence laws denying blacks any rights.

 

[NedBaldwin]

which is pretty much what the article above is saying and pretty much what you believe whether you admit it here or not. Treasury of Virtue duly noted.

So now you can make stuff up about me. Does it make you feel better?

 

[NedBaldwin]

It didn't seem to threaten the North's white superiority view, so why would it in the South?

Who says that for some it didnt?

Because there were so many slaves?

That was DeBow's argument.

 

[Savez]

So now you can make stuff up about me. Does it make you feel better?

You are the one that made it personal, not me.

If you do believe otherwise I have failed to see it.