Dissing History

[RobertP]

Possibly, also I'm not sure your assumption is valid either. Many contemporary sources I've seen post Civil War within a certain time frame have no issue with knowing slavery's true ties to the events that lead to the Civil War. It was common knowledge. How do you come to the conclusion it wasn't pushed, what does that even mean. I'm not just going to take your word on such a general claim, no offense intended.

Additionally I could refer to some political act 10 years ago and the intentions behind it, it's very likely I don't have to cite the actual political verbiage for you to understand the motivations behind it, you probably just remember it.

I don't have a clue as to what political event you are talking about 10 years ago. I remember the banking crisis about that time that cost me a heck of a lot of money.

 

[Mr. King]

So, in boiling down your assumptions you are saying is that they, historians and other knowledgeable people, knew about the Declarations and all the rest but just didn't care enough about it one way or the other to push it?

I believe Shelby Foote gave it plenty of coverage in his 3 volume set. He also expounded upon the subject of arming slaves. He told about the vilification of Pat Cleburne after he dared to openly discuss arming slaves.

 

[RobertP]

Further I'm still trying to understand your actual point and your backing for that point. You seem to flip everything back on others based off a point you seem to be dancing around. Make your point, back it up, and let's talk about that.

Are you claiming it wasn't talked about by people or historians until the last 50 years? Are you claiming slavery wasn't talked about until the last 50 years? Are you suggesting that if those previous assumptions/claims are in fact true it contradicts the declared causes?

What's your point. Please make it.

I'm just trying to understand, Matt. We hear the story about Jubal Early and Margaret Rutherford and how they swayed US opinion in their favor for 100 years, a story that has been repeated so much people actually believe it; how about that for irony? It reminds me of Flip Wilson's Geraldine character saying 'the Devil made me do it,' and it's just an easy excuse. You're a very bright guy, you tell me why Northern historians didn't set the narrative as they do today with the Declaration of Causes. They certainly had the means and opportunity but for whatever reason failed to get it across.

 

[RobertP]

I believe Shelby Foote gave it plenty of coverage in his 3 volume set. He also expounded upon the subject of arming slaves. He told about the vilification of Pat Cleburne after he dared to openly discuss arming slaves.

I'm not sure many of our Northern friends would give Foote credit for much of anything other than being a good story teller. McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom, 2003, was probably the first historian to delve into the subject; 138 years after the end of the war.

 

[cash]

I went to my bookshelf and found Dwight L. Dumond's book, The Secession Movement, 1860-1861. It was published in 1931, so it's not within the past 50 years. In the book, Dumond recounts the movement toward secession. Regarding the reason for secession, he wrote, "It was not the personal liberty laws in themselves, however, nor the denial of the right of slave owners to the protection of their property in the common territories which precipitated the people of the South to effect the separation of the states. These were grievances in the sense that they represented anti-slavery sentiment at the North, and Southerners differed only in the extent to which they believed these aggressions represented the attitude of the Northern majority. Those who favored immediate separation were convinced that there was a deep and abiding hatred in the hearts of the Northern people for Southern institutions. Those who counseled deliberation, proposed compromises, and arranged conferences did so because they felt there was still conservative sentiment enough left at the North to join them and relieve the crisis. Just as rapidly as they became convinced that they were wrong in their estimate of the Northern attitude, they became separationists. Northern antipathy for the Southern people and their institutions had manifested itself in various and more or less active forms, in addition to those already mentioned. Through the three most powerful institutions for the dissemination of propaganda--the churches, the schools, and the press--the rising generation was being taught that slavery was a barbaric institution, degrading alike to master and slave, and a national dishonor." [p. 115] He then goes on to discuss other aspects of the slavery question that led to disunion. Regarding the formation of the confederacy, he wrote, "Slavery was peculiar to the South, and the only hope of its preservation against the assaults of Northern and foreign foes alike lay in the fact that fifteen states sanctioned it and were willing to assert their combined power for its protection. No one state, separate and independent of the rest, would long be able to preserve its institutions." [p. 127]

As he is concentrating on the process, he doesn't spend much time on the why. He devotes one chapter to it, Chapter 7, and concentrates on what was said during conventions, not once the conventions were over, though he does quote from the Texas Declaration of Causes on page 209.

You can read the book here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer...tates/_Topics/history/_Texts/DUMSEC/home.html

 

[Mr. King]

I was born in 1983. I was specifically recall several reenactors in 1995 or 1997 actively promoting the idea that slavery was "not that bad". They pretended that it wasn't the monster that it was. And being a kid in a crowd of adults around a campfire, I found it hard to disagree. Looking back, I was falling right into the traditional "Gone with the Wind" brainwashing.
Even if you can ignore all the evil parts of chattel slavery and the denial of basic human rights, how can you be ok with the devestating effect that slavery had on the economy as a whole? It was extremely hard to prosper without slaves in the South. You could not compete with a guy who had 12 or 1200 slaves. They worked for rags to wear and a shack to sleep in. Their pay was 14 oz of salt pork or chicken a day... how can a small farmer compete.... How can a brick mason compete with a guy who owns 15 artisan/craftsmen slaves...? Impossible

 

[cash]

I'm just trying to understand, Matt. We hear the story about Jubal Early and Margaret Rutherford and how they swayed US opinion in their favor for 100 years, a story that has been repeated so much people actually believe it; how about that for irony? It reminds me of Flip Wilson's Geraldine character saying 'the Devil made me do it,' and it's just an easy excuse. You're a very bright guy, you tell me why Northern historians didn't set the narrative as they do today with the Declaration of Causes. They certainly had the means and opportunity but for whatever reason failed to get it across.

Which "Northern historians" have you read who didn't reference the Declarations of Causes?

 

[cash]

McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom, 2003, was probably the first historian to delve into the subject; 138 years after the end of the war.

Which subject specifically? The subject of slavery as the cause for secession or the Declarations of Causes?

 

[Sid J.]

From my kindle shelf, and a book published in 1900:


"Cotton was ever to be "King" in the Confederacy. Mississippi's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes" justifying secession with perfect honesty announced:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest in the world. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition or a dissolution of the Union."

Keifer, Joseph Warren. Slavery and Four Years of War, Vol. 1-2 A Political History of Slavery in the United States Together With a Narrative of the Campaigns and Battles of the ... In Which the Author Took Part: 1861-1865 (Kindle Locations 1937-1939). Kindle Edition.

 

[wausaubob]

Good discussion. But ignoring that the President of the United States stated in his 2nd inaugural address that slavery was somehow the cause of the Civil War is an act of denial.
The northern states probably accepted the message better than the secessionist states.
Lincoln clearly stated the conduct of the entire United States, in tolerating slavery and profiting from it, was the cause of the war. I state that when the slave trade was re-opened, and slaves were smuggled in through Florida, Louisiana and Texas, and the states of Kentucky and Tennessee were added as slave states, the outcome of a intense political conflict over slavery was invited.
Lincoln was certainly responsible for the Civil War, but so was the entire nation.
Jubal Early and Jefferson Davis were allowed to exercise their 1st amendment rights to write justifications for the war. But that does not excuse people who refused to think for themselves.
Why do you need historians to tell you what to think?
There they are, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. They were enacted by people through political actions and took a legal stance of the issues underlying the Civil War. Read them and come to your own conclusion as to the cause of the Civil War.
But if you are just rhetorically suggesting that someone other than the Lost Cause advocates should have somehow stopped the Lost Cause narrative, then it is just another game to deny responsibility for a false historical narrative.

 

[skb8721]

I was born in 1983. I was specifically recall several reenactors in 1995 or 1997 actively promoting the idea that slavery was "not that bad".

It's not quite the same thing, except that it's about misinformation coming from apparent authorities: About two months ago I toured a Natchez, Miss., plantation home owned and operated by the Daughters of the American Revolution. There were about 15 tourists in our group, of whom I knew only about 3 (my family). The tour guide was excellent until toward the end of the tour, when, interrupting his discussion of the home's decor, promptly declared that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about taxes! (Not even states' rights?!) My family and I knew better and found this incident cringe-worthy. Worse, the guide kept going on and on about it, digging himself in deeper. No one among the tourists corrected him, including me, as I was on vacation and didn't want to cause a scene. But I did write the DAR when I got home and suggest that, if the guide was going to discuss the causes of the war, he at least ought to get it right, and I enclosed a link to this National Park pamphlet on the subject: https://www.nps.gov/fosu/learn/historyculture/upload/SLAVERY-BROCHURE.pdf; but I also suggested that perhaps the tour in question is not the proper venue for broaching a subject that even today is controversial. Again, it was a brief vacation tour, not an in-depth academic lecture, so I saw no need for the guide to go into the issue to begin with.

 

[MattL]

I'm just trying to understand, Matt. We hear the story about Jubal Early and Margaret Rutherford and how they swayed US opinion in their favor for 100 years, a story that has been repeated so much people actually believe it; how about that for irony? It reminds me of Flip Wilson's Geraldine character saying 'the Devil made me do it,' and it's just an easy excuse. You're a very bright guy, you tell me why Northern historians didn't set the narrative as they do today with the Declaration of Causes. They certainly had the means and opportunity but for whatever reason failed to get it across.

Fair enough... Though to be fully fair you need to explain what narrative you think the Northern historian did indeed set for the time periods you are referring to. I personally don't know if they never referred to the declaration of causes, I'm not sure I've seen anyone actually approach that question. You seem to assume this is the case but I'm not sure it is... though a place to start again would be explaining what narrative you view the Northern historians did set and for what time periods you are talking about. Maybe specific Northern prominent historians you used as a source to base your assumption that they didn't talk about the causes of secession.

If they didn't, pure assumption that might be pointless, it might very well be because again common knowledge to them until enough time passed. When you explain WWII do you jump straight to written declarations by the parties involved? Chances are not since there simply is common knowledge of events.

They didn't need to convince anyone the initial states seceded over slavery, it was simply known. Even moreso after the war the direct result was slavery was gone because of the war, in the whole Nation. So the tone already was US victory meant ending slavery. That drives into the other part, which is the Southern counter movement to push slavery behind the scenes. To just refer to States Rights instead of States Rights to protect slave property, etc. To talk about the reasons they fought vs the causes of the war or the results of the war. Further we do know there was a reluctance to keep pushing war topics after a while of Reconstruction. When it became obvious that the South needed continued enforcement (meaning money and political focus) to ensure the rights of Blacks people outside the South just stopped caring. If your assumption is in fact valid then this could indeed be part of it.

What you are referring to with the whole Lost Cause mythos etc and arguments regarding Jubal Early swaying opinions etc... you need to explain your argument against that and what you are arguing much better. Do you mean the entirety of US history, just Southern history etc. There are good threads dedicated to the document trial of that and this certainly isn't an area I'm an expert on and I think it's too broad a topic to just comment on as a whole without some specifics, or at least clarification.

 

[MattL]

Which "Northern historians" have you read who didn't reference the Declarations of Causes?

Basically my post summed up to one sentence lol. Pretty much ignore my ramble, this is my question as well.

 

[johnsneed]

I just got finished writing a master's thesis about the Civil War and there is no doubt slavery was the cause. Think of it this way, if slavery had not existed in the US, there would have been no war.

John Sneed

 

[1NCCAV]

The South fought because they were invaded. And many who were opposed to secession or fence-sitters became ardent supporters of Southern independence.

I believe that is why most Confederate soldiers fought. But I also believe there is a difference between what the war was about and why men fought. They are not the same thing. At least not always.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

I just got finished writing a master's thesis about the Civil War and there is no doubt slavery was the cause. Think of it this way, if slavery had not existed in the US, there would have been no war.

John Sneed

John, I respect your opinion and your thesis about the Civil War but here is the issue, you said " there is no doubt slavery was the cause". My contention is that after your research you have came to YOUR conclusion that this was the cause, in other words your opinion.
Now, some will come and post that I do not know my history, I'm blind to certain facts, this is nonsense, I've heard them all before so it will be nothing new. I believe and my opinion is slavery was a major cause of the war but it was not the only cause to take up arms and go die on a battlefield. Maybe a very high percentage of political members will say slavery was the main issue, maybe the big money plantation owners will even be higher up in a percentage saying they went to war just to save slavery. But.....and a big BUT, I have found through my research tells me that those men that died upon the battlefield on both sides, slavery wasn't the biggest or main issue they died for.

 

[Jimklag]

John, I respect your opinion and your thesis about the Civil War but here is the issue, you said " there is no doubt slavery was the cause". My contention is that after your research you have came to YOUR conclusion that this was the cause, in other words your opinion.
Now, some will come and post that I do not know my history, I'm blind to certain facts, this is nonsense, I've heard them all before so it will be nothing new. I believe and my opinion is slavery was a major cause of the war but it was not the only cause to take up arms and go die on a battlefield. Maybe a very high percentage of political members will say slavery was the main issue, maybe the big money plantation owners will even be higher up in a percentage saying they went to war just to save slavery. But.....and a big BUT, I have found through my research tells me that those men that died upon the battlefield on both sides, slavery wasn't the biggest or main issue they died for.

What the average soldier is fighting for is almost completely unrelated to what causes bring on a war. The war having begun, each man goes to the recruiting station for his own reasons and my guess is that you are right. Not many in the ranks on either side were fighting over slavery. But, the men of the south who were the prime movers in the decisions to secede, and then to go to war, made both decisions, virtually unanimously, with slavery as their primary motivation. They said so themselves. Why do say many not want to believe them. I do.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

But do you just take slavery for a reason to succeed and throw away the other reason they also noted? The Order of Succession is not one sentence long is it? It goes on as to other reason also but again why stop just at slavery, read the rest which does make up the entire reasons for the Southern States pressing the issue to succeed.
If the reason was just stated, " We the States are succeeding to protect slavery." Nothing more written. Then I'm with the saying the Civil War was fought only because of slavery.

 

[Jimklag]

But do you just take slavery for a reason to succeed and throw away the other reason they also noted? The Order of Succession is not one sentence long is it? It goes on as to other reason also but again why stop just at slavery, read the rest which does make up the entire reasons for the Southern States pressing the issue to succeed.
If the reason was just stated, " We the States are succeeding to protect slavery." Nothing more written. Then I'm with the saying the Civil War was fought only because of slavery.

Read the words of the men living at that time. In their ordnances of sececession, their constitution, their laws, their official papers and private letters, those men, unanimously extolled the virtues of slavery and promised to put forth their best efforts to perpetuate the institution, their "peculiar institution." The words of lost causers and revisionist historians who came long after the event do not stand up against the words of the men themselves. States rights, taxes, tariffs are all red herrings designed by the lost causers to distract our gaze from the truth. For 150 years thay have been trying to erase any mention of slavery from the discussion.

 

[John Hartwell]

Just a quick check with one newspaper archive for the Mississippi Declaration finds many examples from all over the country:

[Memphis Commercial Appeal, 5 Feb. 1861]​

I'm sure they were all printed extensively at the time. There is also extensive reporting on the proceedings/deliberations of all conventions, congresses, refferenda ... whatever method was used. It was big news.