Civil War Myths

tmh10

Major
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Location
Pipestem,WV
Myths of the American Civil WarBy Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"

The Civil War (1861-5) has spawned numerous myths and falsities.

The Republicans did not intend to abolish slavery - just to "contain" it, i.e., limit it to the 15 states where it had already existed. Most of the Democrats accepted this solution.

This led to a schism in the Democratic party. The "fire eaters" left it and established their own pro-secession political organization. Growing constituencies in the south - such as urban immigrants and mountain farmers - opposed slavery as a form of unfair competition. Less than one quarter of southern families owned slaves in 1861. Slave-based, mainly cotton raising, enterprises, were so profitable that slave prices almost doubled in the 1850s. This rendered slaves - as well as land - out of the reach of everyone but the wealthiest citizens.

Cotton represented three fifths of all United States exports in 1860. Southerners, dependent on industrial imports as they were, supported free trade. Northerners were vehement trade protectionists. The federal government derived most of its income from custom duties. Income tax and corporate profit tax were yet to be invented.

The states seceded one by one, following secession conventions and state-wide votes. The Confederacy (Confederate States of America) was born only later. Not all the constituents of the Confederacy seceded at once. Seven - the "core" - seceded between December 20, 1860 and February 1, 1861. They were: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Another four - Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas - joined them only after the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. Two - Kentucky and Missouri - seceded but were controlled by the Union's army throughout the war. Maryland and Delaware were slave states but did not secede.

President James Buchanan who preceded Abraham Lincoln, made clear that the federal government would not use force to prevent secession. Secession was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court only in 1869 (in Texas vs. White) - four years after the Civil War ended. New England almost seceded in 1812, during the Anglo- American conflict, in order to protect its trade with Britain.

The constitution of the Confederacy prohibited African slave trade (buying slaves from Africa), though it allowed interstate trade in slaves. The first Confederate capital was in Montgomery, Alabama - not in Richmond, Virginia. The term of office of the Confederate president - Jefferson Davis was the first elected - was six years, not four as was the case in the Union.

Fort Sumter was not the first attack of the Confederacy on the Union. It was preceded by attacks on 11 forts and military installations on Confederate territory.

Lincoln won only 40 percent of the popular vote in 1860. Hence the South's fierce resistance to his abolitionist agenda. In 1864, the Republicans became so unpopular, they had to change their name to the Union Party. Lincoln's vice-president, Johnson, actually was a Democrat and hailed from Tennessee, a seceding state.

He was the only senator from a seceded state to remain in the Senate.

Reconstruction started long before the war ended, in Union-occupied Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Slave tax was an important source of state revenue in the South (up to 60 percent in South Carolina). Emancipation led to near bankruptcy.

The Union states of Connecticut, Minnesota, and Wisconsin refused to pass constitutional amendments to confer suffrage on black males. The Union army consigned black labor gangs to work on the plantations of loyal Southerners and forcibly separated the black workers from their families.

Contrary to myth, nearly two thirds of black families were headed by both parents. Slave marriages were legally meaningless in the antebellum South, though. But nearly 90 percent of slave households remained intact till death or forced separation. The average age of childbirth for women was 20.

Segregation was initiated by blacks. The freedmen lobbied hard and long for separate black churches and educational facilities. Nor was lynching confined to blacks. For instance, a white mob lynched, in September 1862, forty four Union supporters in Gainesville, Texas. Similar events took place in Shelton Laurel, North Carolina. The Ku Klux Klan was the paramilitary arm of the Democratic party in the South, though never officially endorsed by it. It was used to "discipline" the workforce in the plantations - but also targeted Republicans.

The Democrats changed their name after the war to the Conservative Party. By 1877 they have regained power in all formerly Confederate states.

http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/civil_war2.htm
 
He is in error with regards to Kentucky and Missouri--neither had a representative secession vote. Kentucky had a rump session, not representative of the state, that called itself into convention.

Missouri's secession convention (actually a constitutional convention) rejected it overwhelmingly, 98-1. This was the body that the legislature had appointed to determine the issue, and it was elected to do so by popular vote. It wasn't until AFTER the governor and secessionist legislators had been chased into the corner of the state and been replaced by a provisional govt (the constitutional convention above declaring their offices vacant!!) that the ex-legislature took the matter up. There is inadequate documentation of a quorum in both houses, although what exists shows that at least the senate had a quorum. The evidence for the house having a quorum is at best in dispute, with one voting member who claimed he voted against claiming a quorum was not present. Regardless, without public ratification of it via convention, and with the ex-legislators interests being at odds with the common citizen, it doesn't carry much weight.

The really amusing thing about Missouri is that the convention proposed by the governor and legislature as a means of leaving the Union, instead kicked the governor and legislature out of office and replaced them! :D
 
He is in error with regards to Kentucky and Missouri--neither had a representative secession vote. Kentucky had a rump session, not representative of the state, that called itself into convention.

Missouri's secession convention (actually a constitutional convention) rejected it overwhelmingly, 98-1. This was the body that the legislature had appointed to determine the issue, and it was elected to do so by popular vote. It wasn't until AFTER the governor and secessionist legislators had been chased into the corner of the state and been replaced by a provisional govt (the constitutional convention above declaring their offices vacant!!) that the ex-legislature took the matter up. There is inadequate documentation of a quorum in both houses, although what exists shows that at least the senate had a quorum. The evidence for the house having a quorum is at best in dispute, with one voting member who claimed he voted against claiming a quorum was not present. Regardless, without public ratification of it via convention, and with the ex-legislators interests being at odds with the common citizen, it doesn't carry much weight.

The really amusing thing about Missouri is that the convention proposed by the governor and legislature as a means of leaving the Union, instead kicked the governor and legislature out of office and replaced them! :D
Good research. I am also looking into some of his claims.:smile:
 
The Missouri secession saga is so convoluted as to confuse anyone. I have to go back and reread portions of it periodically in an attempt to get it right and I'm still not sure I have it all correct. Truth is definitely stranger than fiction. The legality of it all is up in the air, but the creation of constitutional convention proved to be disastrous to a legislature primarily composed of landed Southerners with a vested interest in slavery. It is only fitting, since the governor ran as a conditional unionist...essentially flying a false flag for election.
 
He is in error with regards to Kentucky and Missouri--neither had a representative secession vote. Kentucky had a rump session, not representative of the state, that called itself into convention.

Missouri's secession convention (actually a constitutional convention) rejected it overwhelmingly, 98-1. This was the body that the legislature had appointed to determine the issue, and it was elected to do so by popular vote. It wasn't until AFTER the governor and secessionist legislators had been chased into the corner of the state and been replaced by a provisional govt (the constitutional convention above declaring their offices vacant!!) that the ex-legislature took the matter up. There is inadequate documentation of a quorum in both houses, although what exists shows that at least the senate had a quorum. The evidence for the house having a quorum is at best in dispute, with one voting member who claimed he voted against claiming a quorum was not present. Regardless, without public ratification of it via convention, and with the ex-legislators interests being at odds with the common citizen, it doesn't carry much weight.

The really amusing thing about Missouri is that the convention proposed by the governor and legislature as a means of leaving the Union, instead kicked the governor and legislature out of office and replaced them! :D
In reference to what you found I ran accross this.

Political mayhem in Missouri did not subside once Jackson left the state. While Unionists had control over the Missouri government, they bickered over emancipation, disenfranchisement, the re-framing and rewriting of the state constitution, and negro suffrage. Years of political strife split parties and loyalties. Charles D. Drake emerged as a political leader in Missouri in 1863. His wavering political views caused many to distrust him and added to much of the problems that plagued politics in the post war years. Drake proposed a new Missouri constitution and an Iron Clad oath that would alienate anyone in Missouri with ties to the Confederacy. Confederates could not hold public offices, teach or preach in Missouri. These radical ideas, as well as opposition to negro suffrage, may have contributed to the return of the violence in post-war Missouri. On January 11, 1865, the Missouri state convention, meeting in St. Louis, passed an emancipation ordinance immediately freeing all slaves in Missouri.

http://www.ozarkscivilwar.org/themes/politics-and-government
 
Found another interesting bit on the subject.

Missouri

An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved.

Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and
Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth.
This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

Approved, October 31, 1861.
Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, pp. 752-53.
[This act was passed by a rump legislature called into session in Neosho, by Gov. C.F. Jackson (who had been removed from office by the State Convention
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm#Missouri
 
Ted,

Going through the primary sources and paying attention to dates is what I did a few years back. This along with various interpretations from both sides proved helpful in at least appreciating the timeline. Missouri's secession adventure is not something that anyone can easily explain in a sentence or two. The quorum issue for that rump legislature is the most vexing issue--wish there was some indisputable evidence yea or nay, whether or not it agrees with my preferred POV.

The problem is, even if there was a quorum, there are at least two major objections to the vote being valid: 1. Did the legislature have the authority absent a convention vote or public referendum? 2. Were they even a legitimate body--having already had their offices vacated by the constitutional convention? That's not to say that the provisional govt. was legitimate either...the state was a tragic mess, hence the earlier electorally expressed wishes of the vast majority of Missouri citizens not to get directly embroiled in the crisis.
 
Ted,

Going through the primary sources and paying attention to dates is what I did a few years back. This along with various interpretations from both sides proved helpful in at least appreciating the timeline. Missouri's secession adventure is not something that anyone can easily explain in a sentence or two. The quorum issue for that rump legislature is the most vexing issue--wish there was some indisputable evidence yea or nay, whether or not it agrees with my preferred POV.

The problem is, even if there was a quorum, there are at least two major objections to the vote being valid: 1. Did the legislature have the authority absent a convention vote or public referendum? 2. Were they even a legitimate body--having already had their offices vacated by the constitutional convention? That's not to say that the provisional govt. was legitimate either...the state was a tragic mess, hence the earlier electorally expressed wishes of the vast majority of Missouri citizens not to get directly embroiled in the crisis.
Ha, There in lies the rub. Did the politicians represent the feelings of the people they were to represent or was the whole thing screwed by opposing political factions? What a mess. Also I loved your quote about
The really amusing thing about Missouri is that the convention proposed by the governor and legislature as a means of leaving the Union, instead kicked the governor and legislature out of office and replaced them!
 
Secession in Kentucky


Unlike its neighbor to the south, Kentucky's state government never approved an act of secession, placing it alongside Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware as slave states whose constituted governments declined to secede. In the Bluegrass State, however, an extra-constitutional secession associated with the Russellville Convention was recognized by the Confederacy.7


The governor, Beriah Magoffin, was an advocate of secession. Opposing him was an anti-secession majority in the legislature. When the States of the Deep South began their exodus, a special legislative session was called by Magoffin to promote a sovereignty convention. This was defeated by Unionist legislators who feared a convention might result in Kentucky secession. Unionists opposed a referendum on the convention call because without it there was no danger of the state's seceding. An affirmative vote on the referendum, conversely, suggests secession sympathies. Delegates from the seven coastal plain (Jackson Purchase) counties all favored the referendum, while those from central (Pennyroyal and Bluegrass) counties opposed the referendum. Cumberland Plateau counties were evenly divided on the question.8


At this early stage of the secession crisis, it may now be noted that Kentucky Unionists had blocked a statewide referendum. Their counterparts in Tennessee, while unable to accomplish such a block, were nonetheless heartened when the state's electorate spurned an opportunity to convene a sovereignty convention.9


Lincoln's call for volunteers in the aftermath of Fort Sumter put Kentucky Unionists on the defensive. The strategy they adopted at this point became a passive one. Rather than seek a ringing affirmation of union, they opted for much less, a position of neutrality. This would at least keep Kentucky from considering an ordinance of secession in the near term. Once intense secession spirit had waned, neutrality could evolve into Unionism. Significantly, the state's secessionists were the ones who opposed the neutrality resolution adopted May 16, 1861. Geographic analysis of this final action taken by the legislature reveals that the greatest opposition to neutrality came from the (Western) First Congressional District counties, proclaimed by Lincoln to be in rebellion on September 1, 1861. The fact that Kentucky, in contrast to Tennessee, was never to vote in a statewide election on secession necessitates the establishment of another criterion for determining wartime allegiance--spatial variation in volunteering for service in the Union Army. Illinois (12.56%) led the free states in percentage of its population volunteering, and New Jersey (8.95%) was lowest. Tennessee had a 3.19% rate of Union volunteering, highest among the seceded states. It may be noted that there were few federal soldiers from Kentucky's western counties. Fulton, Hickman, Calloway, Union, McCracken, Graves, Livingston, and Ballard counties had less than 2% of the total white population in Union service. At the other extreme, Ohio, Russell, Greenup, Monroe, Boyd, Metcalfe, Lewis, Carter, McLean, Jackson, Clinton, Clay, Estill, and Owsley counties contributed over 10% of their population to the effort to preserve the Union.10


Extremely Unionists or extremely secessionists counties in the two states may thus be identified on the basis of a referendum (Tennessee) or military service (Kentucky). At the polls thirty-one of eighty-one Tennessee counties, primarily in the eastern grand division, opposed withdrawal from the United States; in Kentucky twenty-seven counties, primarily in the eastern end of the state, supported the Union Army with higher percentages of Union volunteers than that of the northern state, New Jersey, which had the lowest rate of voluntary enlistment.


Forty-four other Tennessee counties approved secession by more than two-thirds margin. In seventeen other Kentucky counties, extreme secessionism was inferred--less than 3% of the total white population voluntarily enlisting in the Union army.


http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/htallant/border/bs11/fr-cope.htm
 
Myths of the American Civil WarBy Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"

The Civil War (1861-5) has spawned numerous myths and falsities.

The Republicans did not intend to abolish slavery - just to "contain" it, i.e., limit it to the 15 states where it had already existed. Most of the Democrats accepted this solution.

This led to a schism in the Democratic party. The "fire eaters" left it and established their own pro-secession political organization. Growing constituencies in the south - such as urban immigrants and mountain farmers - opposed slavery as a form of unfair competition. Less than one quarter of southern families owned slaves in 1861. Slave-based, mainly cotton raising, enterprises, were so profitable that slave prices almost doubled in the 1850s. This rendered slaves - as well as land - out of the reach of everyone but the wealthiest citizens.

Cotton represented three fifths of all United States exports in 1860. Southerners, dependent on industrial imports as they were, supported free trade. Northerners were vehement trade protectionists. The federal government derived most of its income from custom duties. Income tax and corporate profit tax were yet to be invented.

The states seceded one by one, following secession conventions and state-wide votes. The Confederacy (Confederate States of America) was born only later. Not all the constituents of the Confederacy seceded at once. Seven - the "core" - seceded between December 20, 1860 and February 1, 1861. They were: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

Another four - Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas - joined them only after the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. Two - Kentucky and Missouri - seceded but were controlled by the Union's army throughout the war. Maryland and Delaware were slave states but did not secede.

President James Buchanan who preceded Abraham Lincoln, made clear that the federal government would not use force to prevent secession. Secession was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court only in 1869 (in Texas vs. White) - four years after the Civil War ended. New England almost seceded in 1812, during the Anglo- American conflict, in order to protect its trade with Britain.

The constitution of the Confederacy prohibited African slave trade (buying slaves from Africa), though it allowed interstate trade in slaves. The first Confederate capital was in Montgomery, Alabama - not in Richmond, Virginia. The term of office of the Confederate president - Jefferson Davis was the first elected - was six years, not four as was the case in the Union.

Fort Sumter was not the first attack of the Confederacy on the Union. It was preceded by attacks on 11 forts and military installations on Confederate territory.

Lincoln won only 40 percent of the popular vote in 1860. Hence the South's fierce resistance to his abolitionist agenda. In 1864, the Republicans became so unpopular, they had to change their name to the Union Party. Lincoln's vice-president, Johnson, actually was a Democrat and hailed from Tennessee, a seceding state.

He was the only senator from a seceded state to remain in the Senate.

Reconstruction started long before the war ended, in Union-occupied Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Slave tax was an important source of state revenue in the South (up to 60 percent in South Carolina). Emancipation led to near bankruptcy.

The Union states of Connecticut, Minnesota, and Wisconsin refused to pass constitutional amendments to confer suffrage on black males. The Union army consigned black labor gangs to work on the plantations of loyal Southerners and forcibly separated the black workers from their families.

Contrary to myth, nearly two thirds of black families were headed by both parents. Slave marriages were legally meaningless in the antebellum South, though. But nearly 90 percent of slave households remained intact till death or forced separation. The average age of childbirth for women was 20.

Segregation was initiated by blacks. The freedmen lobbied hard and long for separate black churches and educational facilities. Nor was lynching confined to blacks. For instance, a white mob lynched, in September 1862, forty four Union supporters in Gainesville, Texas. Similar events took place in Shelton Laurel, North Carolina. The Ku Klux Klan was the paramilitary arm of the Democratic party in the South, though never officially endorsed by it. It was used to "discipline" the workforce in the plantations - but also targeted Republicans.

The Democrats changed their name after the war to the Conservative Party. By 1877 they have regained power in all formerly Confederate states.

http://www.matrixbookstore.biz/civil_war2.htm[/quote]

Great post and read Ted.

Jess.
 
The Republicans did not intend to abolish slavery - just to "contain" it, i.e., limit it to the 15 states where it had already existed. Most of the Democrats accepted this solution.

....

Lincoln won only 40 percent of the popular vote in 1860. Hence the South's fierce resistance to his abolitionist agenda.

But... but... I thought the Republicans didn't intend to abolish slavery, only to contain it. ;)

Surely there was some disingeniousness in the claim that they only wanted to contain it, since many people realized that if slavery was contained, it might eventually implode on its own, when slave-owners could no longer emigrate with their property to new fertile soil in the west, as they'd always done before, and slaves reproduced faster than their labor was needed.

Good article, by the way.
 
Myths of the American Civil WarBy Sam Vaknin

Segregation was initiated by blacks. The freedmen lobbied hard and long for separate black churches and educational facilities.

This is not quite accurate. Segregation was pretty much the norm throughout the nation. Witness the black community in Philadelphia which had its own institutions. After emancipation there was no inclination anywhere in the country to include Freedmen in white institutions. All this was reinforced by the Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction. The embracing of a distinct Negro society as advocated by AA leaders in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries was a means of survival. There was no other option.
 
The goal of containment was two fold: one to preserve the West for free labor, two to put slavery on the road to eventual extinction. So in that sense, Lincoln was an abolitionist. The federal government lacked to authority to abolish slavery in the states where it existed, short of a constitutional amendment.

Of course once the fighting started, abolishing slavery became a war goal, with the EP issued as part of the president's war making powers, as predicted by John Quincy Adams decades before.

One quibble about the article, New England was never "almost seceding." The Hartford Convention, which the author I believe is refering to, has been, IMO, blow out of proportion.
 
Myths of the American Civil WarBy Sam Vaknin

For instance, a white mob lynched, in September 1862, forty four Union supporters in Gainesville, Texas. Similar events took place in Shelton Laurel, North Carolina.

IIRC, as discussed here, the Gainesville episode was a function of the local justice system with convictions and sentences handed down by the local courts, not a lynch mob.
 
This is not quite accurate. Segregation was pretty much the norm throughout the nation. Witness the black community in Philadelphia which had its own institutions. After emancipation there was no inclination anywhere in the country to include Freedmen in white institutions. All this was reinforced by the Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction. The embracing of a distinct Negro society as advocated by AA leaders in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries was a means of survival. There was no other option.

I agree. I believe nonsegregated public school were established during Reconstruction, but became slowly segregated as white parents withdraw their children.
 
Myths of the American Civil WarBy Sam Vaknin

The Ku Klux Klan was the paramilitary arm of the Democratic party in the South, though never officially endorsed by it. It was used to "discipline" the workforce in the plantations - but also targeted Republicans.

This is a mixing of half truth with fiction. A bunch of Democrats get together and form a resistance group and it becomes the party's "paramilitary arm?" Is Vaknin on a cable talk show or something?

Resistance grew up all over the occupied states . Some of the resistance died, some was crushed, and some endured to take control of politics once the U.S. Army withdrew. I suspect that the Crescent City White League never heard of the KKK. Republicans did indeed suffer from resistance groups, but the main purpose was to suppress black suffrage and reestablish Democrat control of state and local government.

(Send a defeated army home and expect them to just go find jobs and cooperate with the occupiers? Does this sound familiar?)
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top