A Civil War Historian’s Talking Points

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Angry mobs burned Abolitionist's newspapers and meeting places. While there were rescues of fugitive slaves the far more common story is they were returned unremarkably.
Didn't slave owners fear and also bitterly complain of Northerners overt resistance and passive non compliance with the,Fugitive Slave Act? By 1861 was it not apparent that resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act was significant and growing? @gem may wish to comment on this.
Leftyhunter
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Location
Chicagoland
Secession was an act of overconfidence.
I think, rather, secession was an act of panicked overreaction. Southerners or their fellow travelers had controlled the Federal government for most of the 3/4 century since the ratification of the Constitution and they were afraid that the scales were now over balanced in the opposite direction and their influence would be lost. The historian quoted in the OP was right about one thing for certain. Their respective secessions were desperate attempts to safeguard chattel slavery from attacks they feared would be coming from the north.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Didn't slave owners fear and also bitterly complain of Northerners overt resistance and passive non compliance with the,Fugitive Slave Act? By 1861 was it not apparent that resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act was significant and growing? @gem may wish to comment on this.
Leftyhunter
Fear and facts are 2 different things. Seems to me that about 300 blacks went through the 1850 FSL process and maybe 10 or less were freed by mobs.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I think, rather, secession was an act of panicked overreaction. Southerners or their fellow travelers had controlled the Federal government for most of the 3/4 century since the ratification of the Constitution and they were afraid that the scales were now over balanced in the opposite direction and their influence would be lost. The historian quoted in the OP was right about one thing for certain. Their respective secessions were desperate attempts to safeguard chattel slavery from attacks they feared would be coming from the north.
IMHO for the most part victory seems to have been an assumption. Without that, the panic may have been tempered or other options chosen.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Sounds good. Any round number estimates?
Leftyhunter
300,000 sold and then nothing. Demand went to 0.
Publication
In the first year(1851-1852) of publication, 300,000 copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin were sold. At that point, however, "demand came to an unexpected halt...No more copies were produced for many years, and if, as is claimed, Abraham Lincoln greeted Stowe in 1862 as 'the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war,' the work had effectively been out of print for many years." Jewett went out of business, and it was not until Ticknor and Fieldsput the work back in print in November 1862 that demand began again to increase.

Literacy Rate looks like 80% in the 1850s Likely higher in the North.
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/#historical-perspective

p0.png


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

19,553,068 whites. 16,642,545 literate 300,000 sold suggests a 2% readership.

Rough to be sure, but looks interesting and worth an investment of time.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
300,000 sold and then nothing. Demand went to 0.
Publication
In the first year(1851-1852) of publication, 300,000 copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin were sold. At that point, however, "demand came to an unexpected halt...No more copies were produced for many years, and if, as is claimed, Abraham Lincoln greeted Stowe in 1862 as 'the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war,' the work had effectively been out of print for many years." Jewett went out of business, and it was not until Ticknor and Fieldsput the work back in print in November 1862 that demand began again to increase.

Literacy Rate looks like 80% in the 1850s Likely higher in the North.
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/#historical-perspective

View attachment 164536

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

19,553,068 whites. 16,642,545 literate 300,000 sold suggests a 2% readership.

Rough to be sure, but looks interesting and worth an investment of time.
Enough to influence elite decision makers.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
300,000 sold and then nothing. Demand went to 0.
Publication
In the first year(1851-1852) of publication, 300,000 copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin were sold. At that point, however, "demand came to an unexpected halt...No more copies were produced for many years, and if, as is claimed, Abraham Lincoln greeted Stowe in 1862 as 'the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war,' the work had effectively been out of print for many years." Jewett went out of business, and it was not until Ticknor and Fieldsput the work back in print in November 1862 that demand began again to increase.

Literacy Rate looks like 80% in the 1850s Likely higher in the North.
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/#historical-perspective

View attachment 164536

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

19,553,068 whites. 16,642,545 literate 300,000 sold suggests a 2% readership.

Rough to be sure, but looks interesting and worth an investment of time.
Even more important the elite leadership assuming 2% of the white population bought the book they may very well have loaned it to friends and family . Also if two percent of the population can influence the vote of say another two percent of the voters who then by word of mouth influence other voters it can really adds up.
Leftyhunter
 

GS

Retired User
Joined
Jan 31, 2017
While not every white person objectively benefited from or defended slavery equally, the vast, vast majority of non-slaveholding white Southerners viewed the prospect of abolition with horror.
"majority... viewed abolition with horror"? I think you are breaking you own rules here, when you impute these beliefs upon people living in that era.
Maybe they looked with horror at the crimes being committed at the hands of the slaveholders, or at horror of the day when those slaves are freed having had no opportunity to learn independent living, no jobs, no roof over their head, no food or clothing... a tragic state which did happen, as demonstrated quickly in Washington City where thousands immediately gathered.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
"majority... viewed abolition with horror"? I think you are breaking you own rules here, when you impute these beliefs upon people living in that era.
Maybe they looked with horror at the crimes being committed at the hands of the slaveholders, or at horror of the day when those slaves are freed having had no opportunity to learn independent living, no jobs, no roof over their head, no food or clothing... a tragic state which did happen, as demonstrated quickly in Washington City where thousands immediately gathered.
Not my rules, my source's rules.

However period literature in the South supports my source's statement. No imputation just read primary sources.
 
Last edited:

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Those political talking points are not very good.
The talking points could be about 1. demographic change due to immigration, a 2. Physical change to due railroads and telegraph communications, and 3. The sudden addition of a vast western territory in 1848, which made 4. the resolution of which type of labor system the country would use, no longer subject to postponment.
 

rhettbutler1865

Colonel, CSA Cavalry
Silver Patron
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
A Civil War Historian’s Talking Points
Lets discuss.

1. People in the 19th century thought about the world differently than we do today. This is especially true for matters of race, slavery, labor, freedom, economic class, gender and citizenship. We need to understand what people back then thought and avoid the temptation to impose our 21st century values upon 19th century people.

2. People in the past did not know how their stories would end. They made choices they did based on what they valued, what they knew at the time, what they were able to do, and what they hoped or feared would happen. We should respect the drama of their uncertainty as we evaluate their actions.

3. Just as we cannot impose 21st century values back into the 19th century, we cannot and should not teleport our ancestors of the 19th century into our own time. Our ancestors certainly passed down cultural baggage to the following generations and thenceforward through the decades on to us. But that does not mean we should be defined today by plucking people out of the past and using them to make us good or bad people today.

4. If we wish to honor our ancestors, the best way to do so is to learn about them and their lives, their worlds, their hopes and fears, and in their own historical contexts. If we wish to draw inspiration from them, we should look at how they confronted or transcended their own times.

5. Getting to the causes of the Civil War now, we need to think about HOW 19th century white Americans argued about slavery and how those arguments came to dominate politics. That means looking beyond the purely moral arguments advanced by abolitionists, white and black, most of which were bitterly rejected across the North. Those arguments were certainly critical to advancing the anti-slavery cause, but we must be careful not to assume that those who opposed slavery in 1860 agreed with Frederick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison that slavery should be immediately abolished.

6. There is what I like to call the “Northern myth” of the Civil War: that ordinary white Northerners opposed slavery because they believed in racial equality. (And as evidence, every Northern town has a station stop on the Underground Railroad supposedly run by some important white family). The reality is that this view was held by a tiny, though vocal and active minority. Far more important to antislavery as a political position was the view held by men like David Wilmot of Pennsylvania, who said, “I have no squeamish sensitiveness upon the subject of slavery, nor morbid sympathy for the slave. I plead the cause of the rights of white freemen.” He, and the majority of white Northerners who came to oppose slavery and consequently voted for the Republican Party in 1860 did so because they thought slavery was bad for whites. Yes, they thought slavery was bad in the abstract too – Lincoln spoke of the right of a man to the “bread he has earned with the sweat of his brow.” But what animated white antislavery thought was the damage slavery did to white Northerners, not what it did to black Southerners (or black Northerners).

7. White Northerners developed an ideological opposition to slavery as a social and economic system that they felt encouraged laziness, inefficiency, aristocracy, haughty arrogance and entitlement. The presence of slavery meant that labor was to be viewed as a curse. Two direct consequences came from this: slaveholders would occupy the best lands in Kansas and crowd out good white Northern farmers who wanted free soil to labor upon freely. Thus the slavery extension question was critical. Another problem white Northerners identified was the tendency of slaveholders to violate the rights of free speech, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom to petition in the North. No matter how much ordinary white Northerners disliked abolitionists in their midst, they bitterly resented Southerners’ insistence that Northerners become slave catchers under the 1850 Federal Fugitive Slave Act, or abstain from peacefully agitating on matters of conscience. They felt that the “Slave Power Conspiracy” was violating the rights of free white Northerners.

8. Turning to what I call the great “Southern myth,” we need to think about what the majority of white Southerners who did not own slaves thought about slavery. While there were free soil-style objections (and occasional outright abolitionist) sentiments among white Southerners in the early 19th century, by the 1840s and 1850s very few white Southerners expressed anything like opposition to slavery as a whole. They might bitterly resent the planter class. But if they publicly rejected the slave system, on either moral (like John Fee of Kentucky) or economic (like Hinton Rowan Helper of North Carolina) grounds, they were hounded out as dangerous traitors. Non-slaveholding whites supported slavery because it shielded them from falling into the true bottom of the social order (Herrenvolk Democracy), buttressed the entire economic order (slaves as labor and as valuable chattel property), provided employment as overseers, and prevented the prospect of a Haiti-style violent insurrection. Slaveholders absolutely dominated the political system, both regionally and nationally in the 1850s, and non-slaveholders looked to them for assistance in bad harvests, or aspired to join them and become slaveholders. While not every white person objectively benefited from or defended slavery equally, the vast, vast majority of non-slaveholding white Southerners viewed the prospect of abolition with horror. Note here that even in East Tennessee, future Unionists like Andrew Johnson and William Parson Brownlow vigorously defended slavery right up through 1860.

9. Turning now to the Civil War itself, the immediate turn to war in April 1861 had to do with preserving the Union. Remember that seven Deep South states (SC, MS, AL, LA, FL, GA and TX) seceded after Lincoln’s election. Eight other slave states rejected secession at that time. Only after Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s troop call-up did four Upper South states (VA, NC, AR and TN) join the Confederacy. Four remaining border slave states (MO, KY, MD and DE) remained in the Union. Preserving the Union militarily helped convinced the second tier states to secede. But as Lincoln pointed out in his First Inaugural, to fail to keep the Union intact at that point would have meant the death of the experiment of self-government (something European autocrats celebrated) and the likely disintegration of what remained of the Union. Lincoln termed secession a kind of breach of contract, wherein both sides never agreed together to allow for secession. National self-preservation is always the first task of any government. One can argue against these claims today and many did so back then. But the logic of the war-for-Union argument was compelling and obvious. Just as the American colonies did not expect to be allowed to break from Great Britain peacefully, neither did the secessionists believe the Union would really let the Southern states go peacefully. The secessionists figured a war would come. They just thought they would win that war.

10. Secessionists were clear about why they seceded upon Lincoln’s election. They felt the Republican Party would not defend slavery in the territories, would not crack down against future John Browns, would create an anti-slavery party within the less-enslaved parts of the South, and would turn foreign policy toward anti-slavery. Slavery was stronger than ever in 1860. Secession was an act of overconfidence. And secession, as the multiple ordinances and declarations of causes showed, was designed explicitly to protect slavery and white supremacy.

11. Finally, individuals who joined the Confederate (or Union) army had multiple reasons for doing so. But if we are talking about the causes of the Civil War, we must look to the causes of secession and the reason the antislavery Republican Party emerged victorious in the 1860 election.​
BRAVO!!!GREAT post!!! I'm waiting for the book!! Honestly! Write it!
 

1950lemans

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Location
Connecticut
1. People in the 19th century thought about the world differently than we do today. This is especially true for matters of race, slavery, labor, freedom, economic class, gender and citizenship. We need to understand what people back then thought and avoid the temptation to impose our 21st century values upon 19th century people.

Why can't we impose our 21st century values on previous history?
Did't these values get formulated by studying our past? Isn't that's why we have "good" and "bad" past?
Yes we study the past on its own terms but don't we judge those events?
Is that why we say slavery was evil? Look at how we view the people and events that propagated slavery.
Are we neutral in our views concerning the end of slavery? Wouldn't that be the result of just "reading" about 19th c. people?
Are we neutral in viewing the conflagration and host of characters involved in the demise of slavery?
 
Top