Common Misconceptions/Myths

[Saphroneth]

Also, I hate to break it to ya but, you're whole statement about Lee's estate at Arlington is VERY misleading. We've been over this a number of times, & had a couple threads on it. For starters, they took the property, & in 1864 started burying Union dead on it. This was intentional, & a poke in Lee's eye. It was later they tried to pull a fast one, & make the seizure "legal" by, declaring back taxes owed. In 1862 the US Congress passed legislation imposing a property tax on properties that were in "areas of insurrection" within the US. In 1863 a tax of $92.07 was imposed on the estate which according to the amended legislation had to be paid in person. Mary Lee who wasn't fit to travel, & behind Confederate lines at the time, gave the payment to her cousin who lived in Arlington. They refused the payment & auctioned the property in Jan 1864. The only bidder was the US government. Sounds legit....

At one time I had an alternate-history timeline where the CSA got Maryland out of a short war, and I had Robert E. Lee spend most of 1863 trying to talk with contractors to get an enormous artillery fort taken off his front lawn...

Though I do also remember that one of the Lee family holdings was the White House (near Richmond) ,and that was a major US supply base at least once.

2. Have never seen a single person claim such.

The closest I would be willing to argue is that most slaves were more okay with being slaves than with dying in the pursuit of freedom, because if they were more okay with dying in the pursuit of freedom then they all would have kept trying to escape until killed. This seems to me really obvious on a logical level, and in no way equates with people being happy with slavery.

 

[Lubliner]

"Lincoln the Railsplitter" is a myth begun in the party platform of Chicago.
Lubliner.

 

[Lost Cause]

Another myth, the EP freed the slaves in the Confederate controlled states, and garnered overwhelming support from the northern populous.

 

[Saphroneth]

Another myth, the EP freed the slaves in the Confederate controlled states, and garnered overwhelming support from the northern populous.

A friend and I also wrote a joke about that one in the past, or at least the first part*; the second part has the lie given to it from Lincoln's own disappointment (not to mention the subsequent election results, which were a bit ****).


* if the EP can free southern slaves, then surely Britain during a Trent war can free Northern slaves? And for that matter, emancipate the Russian serfs, end slavery in the Ottoman empire, declare an end to foot-binding in China and abolish some of the more restrictive rules on football players transferring from one club to another.

 

[leftyhunter]

1. The myth is to deny, that for many Confederates "protecting their home" was reality. Only a few of my Confederate ancestors enlisted in the spring of 1861. Some only enlisted only when invasion became reality. Well into 1862 is the most common enlistment date for my Virginia ancestors. March '62 - 22yrs old, his brother: Oct '63 - 20yrs old. One VA GGG Grandfather enlisted in late 1864 at 60yrs old.

In fairness, I did have some that enlisted early. The earliest I know of was April 22nd, 1861. However, plenty enlisted much later. To prote my Maryland, Missouri, & Louisiana Confederate ancestors.

Also, I hate to break it to ya but, you're whole statement about Lee's estate at Arlington is VERY misleading. We've been over this a number of times, & had a couple threads on it. For starters, they took the property, & in 1864 started burying Union dead on it. This was intentional, & a poke in Lee's eye. It was later they tried to pull a fast one, & make the (May 1861) seizure "legal" by, declaring back taxes owed. In 1862 the US Congress passed legislation imposing a property tax on properties that were in "areas of insurrection" within the US. In 1863 a tax of $92.07 was imposed on the estate which according to the amended legislation had to be paid in person. Mary Lee who wasn't fit to travel, & behind Confederate lines at the time, gave the payment to her cousin who lived in Arlington. They refused the payment & auctioned the property in Jan 1864. The only bidder was the US government. Sounds legit....

To say they (Lee family) were, "compensated for the property". Doesn't tell the whole story either. It wasn't until nearly 20yrs later (May 1883), that the Lee family received payment. Keeping in mind of course, once the Supreme Court finally ruled in the Lee family's favor, not only could they have retaken physical possession of the property, they could've forced the US government to remove all of the buried soldiers on their property. The Lee family, having much more class than that, agreed to sell the property to the US government, more than 20yrs after they had taken defacto possession of the place.

2. Have never seen a single person claim such.

3. They had some. The word substantial is subjective. I'll stick with some.

4. Again, have never seen a single person claim what you state. However, you're statement ignores the fact that, it was the US government who had actually policies to remove the Indians, by any means necessary to include killing them. I always read these statements as an attempt to ignore, or minimize the US Governments actual policies towards Native Americans. I get it though. It's a dark spot on US History that many would like to forget, or pretend didn't happen. Especially when so many of the US Civil War Heroes are on the record as not only willfully taking part but, putting some incredible statements to paper about the subject. I won't bother to quote them as, I don't want to derail this thread.

1. Before the bombardment of Ft.Sumter there was no plan by the federal government to send troops to the South. Union troops didn't seize property in the South and force the owners to flee after confiscating said property. The only exception was the Lee Plantation in Arlington which eventually the Lee family was compensated.
The Lee family would of faced a tremendous backlash if they requested the disinterment of the thousands of Union dead better to just take the money.
2. There were many books published in the South plus newspaper articles arguing that slaves were deleriously happy to be slaves and slaves were far better off then Irish immigrants. We have had past threads where this was argued as well .
3. Some of our posters have argued that Northeners and Northeners only were cruel to Indians when in fact Southeners had no problems with US Indian policy and eagerly participated in it . The Confedracy itself massacred Indian Civilians and I have a whole sourced thread on it" The Confederate's were not nicer to the Indians".
Future Confedrate leaders such has Davis, Lee and Steward fought against the Indians and didn't resign their commissions over the plight of the Indians.
4. The SCV and others have claimed tens of thousands of African American men have fought for the Confedracy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Another myth, the EP freed the slaves in the Confederate controlled states, and garnered overwhelming support from the northern populous.

Not true at all because the Union Army did free slaves in areas it liberated from the Confedracy and slaves escaped if Union soldiers were nearby.
Leftyhunter

 

[Lost Cause]

Not true at all because the Union Army did free slaves in areas it liberated from the Confedracy and slaves escaped if Union soldiers were nearby.
Leftyhunter

I refer you back to my original post. I was referring to the EP and areas controlled by the Confederacy.

Edit: the Union Amy's policy of handling freed slaves did not always end well.

 

[leftyhunter]

I refer you back to my original post. I was referring to the EP and areas controlled by the Confederacy.

Edit: the Union Amy's policy of handling freed slaves did not always end well.

It is true that Lincoln couldn't magically free all if the slaves at once with the stroke if a pen but slaves did self liberated if Union troops were nearby. It's true that the Union Army often didn't have and adequate amount of food and shelter for freed slaves.
Is the argument that the Union Army didn't always attend well to freed slaves be" if slave owners were just left alone the slaves would be better off?"
Leftyhunter

 

[GwilymT]

The most common myth I hear is that the Union went to war to free slaves...........and indirectly by those who try to ignore the US was also a slave country throughout the ACW, the implication that arises from only mentioning or condemning one, that US slavery was somehow better then Confederate slavery.

No other myth gets remotely the level of airtime as that old one does.

Not sure it's a myth......but whenever mentioning abolition or civil rights.....going to Harriet Tubman or Frederick Douglass and ignoring the countless white people who championed the cause, and ultimately sponsored and passed the legislation to make the actual changes is one of greater disservices.

I don't know a single person who believes that the Union went to war to free the slaves. They did free the slaves but that's not why they sought to suppress the rebellion.

 

[GwilymT]

I refer you back to my original post. I was referring to the EP and areas controlled by the Confederacy.

Edit: the Union Amy's policy of handling freed slaves did not always end well.

Of course it didn't always end well but it was light years better than the confederate policy of fighting a war to keep people in chains.

 

[GwilymT]

Another myth, the EP freed the slaves in the Confederate controlled states, and garnered overwhelming support from the northern populous.

Who ever said that there was "overwhelming support" for the EP? I've never heard anyone claiming that.

 

[GwilymT]

The number one myth is that the main cause of difference between the sections, secession and the following war was anything other than slavery. It's at the heart of it all. Regardless of motivations of individual soldiers (they can be as varied as the soldiers themselves) the cause of the entire confederate endeavor starting with secession and rebellion was to protect and expand African slavery. This doesn't mean the north were a bunch of saints or were racially enlightened but it is plain fact.

 

[Belle Montgomery]

I can tell you after reading many diaries, letters and journals of the Confederate women they repeatedly complain about wanting to live life in their own free nation without "invaders" from up North dictating to them about how wrong slavery is yet ignore their own impoverished people. When I quoted Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas exposing General Sherman's alleged moral hypocrisy it appeared to ignite a firestorm. Hence the "myth" that the Yankees were superior and treated all people equally, especially African Americans (especially women) with respect. Here is the link: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/ju...eh-shermans-mulatto-wife.165616/#post-2158560

 

[Viper21]

I don't know a single person who believes that the Union went to war to free the slaves. They did free the slaves but that's not why they sought to suppress the rebellion.

While like you, I don't personally know anybody who believes that myth, there are untold numbers of our uninformed population who believe that. From social media, to "news" programs, to random people interviewed on the street. I've seen more instances than I can count, of folks who actually believe, the Union went to war, to free the slaves.

I believe it is literally, the most common misconception/myth relating to the war.

 

[GwilymT]

While like you, I don't personally know anybody who believes that myth, there are untold numbers of our uninformed population who believe that. From social media, to "news" programs, to random people interviewed on the street. I've seen more instances than I can count, of folks who actually believe, the Union went to war, to free the slaves.

I believe it is literally, the most common misconception/myth relating to the war.

If it is, then we should see lots of people saying that and writing it. We don't.

Contrarily, the idea that a bunch of people out there think that the Union went to war to free slaves is a myth. A myth trotted out on these boards a lot, but a myth nonetheless.

I just did a quick google search "why did the Union fight" and went through the first two pages of articles. Not one claimed that the Union went to war to free the slaves. If this myth were so prevalent, wouldn't we see evidence of it?

Also, would you deny that ending slavery did become a war aim of the Union?

 

[Viper21]

1. Before the bombardment of Ft.Sumter there was no plan by the federal government to send troops to the South. Union troops didn't seize property in the South and force the owners to flee after confiscating said property. The only exception was the Lee Plantation in Arlington which eventually the Lee family was compensated.
The Lee family would of faced a tremendous backlash if they requested the disinterment of the thousands of Union dead better to just take the money.
2. There were many books published in the South plus newspaper articles arguing that slaves were deleriously happy to be slaves and slaves were far better off then Irish immigrants. We have had past threads where this was argued as well .
3. Some of our posters have argued that Northeners and Northeners only were cruel to Indians when in fact Southeners had no problems with US Indian policy and eagerly participated in it . The Confedracy itself massacred Indian Civilians and I have a whole sourced thread on it" The Confederate's were not nicer to the Indians".
Future Confedrate leaders such has Davis, Lee and Steward fought against the Indians and didn't resign their commissions over the plight of the Indians.
4. The SCV and others have claimed tens of thousands of African American men have fought for the Confedracy.
Leftyhunter

1. Didn't seize property..? Are you serious, or splitting hairs..? One of my very own Grandfathers had his property occupied, & turned into a contraband camp. A wealthy man in 1860, he died broke in 1867. Besides having most of his personal property seized, his home was burned as well.

How many Southerners had their homes looted..? Everything from their servants, their livestock, their crops, & their personal belongings confiscated, then their home torched. They may not have had the deed to their land rewritten to the federal government but, everything they had was taken, or destroyed. This isn't a myth. It really happened.

2. I thought we were talking about common myths/misconceptions in place today ? How about just on this forum. Can you point me to a current member who says that..? Or where that is a common statement by anybody today..?

3. Can you show me where it was Official CSA policy to exterminate Native Americans..? We know Sherman & Sheridan were very enthusiastic to carry out the US policy of such. Their written words on the subject are telling.

4. The SCV has claimed that tens of thousands of Black men served in the Confederate war effort. I believe their published estimates were 60,000 total, in various roles, with as many as 13,000 seeing combat. I don't believe those are ridiculous guesses. Out of roughly 4 million, 60K seems plausible to me. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the number was higher.

 

[Viper21]

If it is, then we should see lots of people saying that and writing it. We don't.

Contrarily, the idea that a bunch of people out there think that the Union went to war to free slaves is a myth. A myth trotted out on these boards a lot, but a myth nonetheless.

I just did a quick google search "why did the Union fight" and went through the first two pages of articles. Not one claimed that the Union went to war to free the slaves. If this myth were so prevalent, wouldn't we see evidence of it?

We must visit different news sites, & follow different programs on social media. I can't count how many times I've heard it.

Ask a random young person. Ask somebody who isn't as informed, as most here are. We forget sometimes (as history nerds), not everybody cares about this subject, or the war in general. As important as this particular field of study is to plenty of us, it's right up there with watching paint dry, or watching grass grow, to LOTS of people. I'd dare say, the majority of people.

 

[GwilymT]

We must visit different news sites, & follow different programs on social media. I can't count how many times I've heard it.

Ask a random young person. Ask somebody who isn't as informed, as most here are. We forget sometimes (as history nerds), not everybody cares about this subject, or the war in general. As important as this particular field of study is to plenty of us, it's right up there with watching paint dry, or watching grass grow, to LOTS of people. I'd dare say, the majority of people.

I have yet to see any evidence only claims.

 

[Saphroneth]

Here's one - that the Union had an army of over a million men.

It did not. There is one point in the war when very slightly over one million men are on the rolls, but at that time approximately 350,000 men were absent with or without leave (overwhelmingly the latter).

 

[A. Roy]

I think the idea that the ACW is the war where modernity blossoms is probably a common misconception in and of itself. I think there's an argument to be made that the period as a whole (1854-71) sees the transition, and there's an argument to be made that the Franco-Prussian War sees several elements of modern war appearing and becoming in some way standard, but I don't think the ACW is the one which is "the" transition - if you're going to point to one war in the period it's not this one.

We've had discussions here about 'myths and misconceptions' before. Many that get mentioned are interesting corrections of anecdotes and small-scale details. Then there are the claims about slavery and secession that spark ideological debates and kind of take the fun out of these discussions.

But the one that you mention here seems like a valuable big-picture correction that's well worth thinking about. Thanks for bringing this up!

Roy B.