NF How the South Won the Civil War

Non-Fiction

Joshism

Captain
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
Just heard about this upcoming book today with quite the provocative title: How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America by Heather Cox Richardson (Oxford University Press). Looks like it just released. Amazon page has more details on the contents.

I'm curious to hear what people think of this one.
 
Just heard about this upcoming book today with quite the provocative title: How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America by Heather Cox Richardson (Oxford University Press). Looks like it just released. Amazon page has more details on the contents.

I'm curious to hear what people think of this one.
I was just intrigued by the thread name. I am differently interested in reading.
 
I'm kinda wondering how exactly the south won the Civil War....should be interesting to read.

Heather Cox Richardson is actually pretty well known as a Civil War Era historian. She would probably be considered a left-winger to most of CWT commenters.

We have all heard the old saw "The South lost the war, but won the peace." That's the clue to the meaning of her book title.
 
Heather Cox Richardson is actually pretty well known as a Civil War Era historian. She would probably be considered a left-winger to most of CWT commenters.

We have all heard the old saw "The South lost the war, but won the peace." That's the clue to the meaning of her book title.

I kinda figured it was something along those lines.
 
Here's a description of the contents of the book. Should be an interesting read... but I have a feeling the book may get political at times.

While the North prevailed in the Civil War, ending slavery and giving the country a "new birth of freedom," Heather Cox Richardson argues in this provocative work that democracy's blood-soaked victory was ephemeral. The system that had sustained the defeated South moved westward and there established a foothold. It was a natural fit. Settlers from the East had for decades been pushing into the West, where the seizure of Mexican lands at the end of the Mexican-American War and treatment of Native Americans cemented racial hierarchies. The South and West equally depended on extractive industries-cotton in the former and mining, cattle, and oil in the latter-giving rise a new birth of white male oligarchy, despite the guarantees provided by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the economic opportunities afforded by expansion.

To reveal why this happened, How the South Won the Civil War traces the story of the American paradox, the competing claims of equality and subordination woven into the nation's fabric and identity. At the nation's founding, it was the Eastern "yeoman farmer" who galvanized and symbolized the American Revolution. After the Civil War, that mantle was assumed by the Western cowboy, singlehandedly defending his land against barbarians and savages as well as from a rapacious government. New states entered the Union in the late nineteenth century and western and southern leaders found yet more common ground. As resources and people streamed into the West during the New Deal and World War II, the region's influence grew. "Movement Conservatives," led by westerners Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan, claimed to embody cowboy individualism and worked with Dixiecrats to embrace the ideology of the Confederacy.

Richardson's searing book seizes upon the soul of the country and its ongoing struggle to provide equal opportunity to all. Debunking the myth that the Civil War released the nation from the grip of oligarchy, expunging the sins of the Founding, it reveals how and why the Old South not only survived in the West, but thrived.
 
I have been following her work for some month.

(the following is my attempt at explaining how she see things, based on her daily posting on facebook.)

She basically see the history of the country as a fight between oligarchy and democracy.

In one idea of american it is the few businessmen who should run the country. And the main job of the government is to protect property and keep law and order. (this do obviously also require a military)
And as job creators this will help improve the lives of the general population.

This happened (in her opinion) before the civil war and again in the gilded age and again today.

In the other idea of america everyone should have a say and the government should have an active hand in promoting the general welfare of all citizens.
This is the idea we do see with the republican party around the civil war. (farmsteads act, land grands for building state colleges and so on are good examples of this idea)

Over the last 200 years different political parties have been supporting the two ideas and different points in time.


And yes, since it is pretty clear what idea of american she prefer, she would be considered a left winger by most.

I think she would argue that this question is not something you can put on a left/right scale and is much more fundamental. And point out that there are people in both parties who support both ideas.


She do have a very active facebook page where she also started streaming talks. Last one had something like 4.6k viewers at one point. Pretty good for a historical livestream by a university professor.
 
Heather Cox Richardson is actually pretty well known as a Civil War Era historian. She would probably be considered a left-winger to most of CWT commenters.

We have all heard the old saw "The South lost the war, but won the peace." That's the clue to the meaning of her book title.

Perhaps Ms. Cox can show everyone the winners in the photo below:

Untitled.jpg
 
The proposed connection between the antebellum South and postbellum West being portrayed as much stronger than I have previously heard suggested is interesting.

She basically see the history of the country as a fight between oligarchy and democracy.

While I am generally opposed any grand unifying theory of history, this one is at least a reoccurring motif.

Monarchies are oligarchies. Dictatorships are oligarchies. Several famous 20th century political movements I probably am not allowed to mention by name were in practice oligarchies. The mafia is essentially a criminal oligarchy.
 
I can somewhat agree with what appears to be an understanding of her thesis that was previously unknown to me. I have argued as well as others along similar line of argument for several years. It is a complex issue and please allow a brief summary. The American Elites had a grand depute over the system of slavery from creation of the Nation. The Civil War was a settling of that dispute. Once the system of slavery was destroyed the Great American Elites returned to their former Brotherhood of exploitation as a united capitalist class. Slavery was bad for Business. As the western territories were subdued, they turned upon the World. Now here’s the part that I will seek to know and maybe am wrong to think so: I am wondering if she implies it was the Civil War with the South had corrupted the North and this is the beginning of the evils of American Imperialism. This is not fully truthful, and I am opposed to such position. The Civil War was simply a bloody four year bump in the road for the Ruling Class; and after the dispute the matter was quickly settle. Whereupon they happily hugged and returned to their way of exploitation for which they have lived happily ever since.
 
Just heard about this upcoming book today with quite the provocative title: How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America by Heather Cox Richardson (Oxford University Press). Looks like it just released. Amazon page has more details on the contents.

I'm curious to hear what people think of this one.
It's kind of obvious that the Southern whites won the war in terms of maintaining racial superiority or Apartied but lost the war to establish an independent slave Republic.
Leftyhunter
Perhaps Ms. Cox can show everyone the winners in the photo below:

So your argument is that black and white Southeners were always equal in terms of economic achievement including per capita income and Civil Rights?
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
I’ve read all of her other books. She has written extensively about the west.

@leftyhunter might want to read her works about the Republican Party and Native Americans. Talk about extending Racial Superiority,

Southerners moved Westward after the War in great numbers. Many had nothing to go back home to. Homes destroyed etc. look forward to reading her latest book. Can’t judge a book by its cover.
 
Well now let’s get the bigger picture of the historical process. For decades, non-slaveholder yeomen farmers were economically compelled to go West to seek some farming land, because the Slaveholder Class dominated the South and all prime available farming lands in the South. Their numbers should be significant. Many moved to the Mid West whereupon some of those gave the foundation to the Copperhead movement during the Civil War. At the time period there and about of the Civil War, many of these some type southern yeomen class would stay Unionists and here also a number would be compelled to go West under pressure and duress of the oppressive Slaveholder Elites of the South. Now we may disclose the poor suffering small number of the former Slaveholder Elites who felted insulted and mistreated enough to go West. As well known to most, the southern Slaveholder Elites mostly stayed at their plantation and were restored to their social/economic domination starting fairly quickly with so called President Andrew Johnson with his blanket amnesty and returning plantations to the former Slaveholders. Why should those Slaveholders go West in great numbers?
 
As well known to most, the southern Slaveholder Elites mostly stayed at their plantation and were restored to their social/economic domination starting fairly quickly with so called President Andrew Johnson with his blanket amnesty and returning plantations to the former Slaveholders. Why should those Slaveholders go West in great numbers?
Wasn't the case for my GGG Grandfather in Louisiana. A wealthy Plantation owner, died broke in 1867.

From my reading, his sugar plantation was seized when New Orleans was taken over, & used at the will of a local Yankee officer. I read somewhere his place was used as a contraband camp for awhile.
 
The title of that book would have been a cruel joke to most of my ancestors. It’s absurd and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.

From the description of the book provided by @Pete Longstreet:

At the nation's founding, it was the Eastern "yeoman farmer" who galvanized and symbolized the American Revolution. After the Civil War, that mantle was assumed by the Western cowboy, singlehandedly defending his land against barbarians and savages as well as from a rapacious government. New states entered the Union in the late nineteenth century and western and southern leaders found yet more common ground. As resources and people streamed into the West during the New Deal and World War II, the region's influence grew. "Movement Conservatives," led by westerners Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan, claimed to embody cowboy individualism and worked with Dixiecrats to embrace the ideology of the Confederacy.

Just wrong. If this quote is represenative of the book then the woman obviously can’t separate history from her bias in modern politics. Edited.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point being that Andrew Johnson allowed former Slaveholders to be restored their plantation on a massive level across the South. If they took the oath and accepted amnesty to the Union is all it took. Naturally, you had to pay our taxes and filed the paperwork. During the War, some plantation owners/planters abandon the plantation and refused to pay their local taxes. Lawfully, the Federal occupation forces simply confiscated the plantation for failure to pay said taxes. These plantations in the New Orleans area were turned into farming food stock to fed New Orleans and there were those to grow cotton and related produce of sale in the North. The latter were those who leased the plantations from the Federals usually the Department of Treasury or a Federal military type. Sugar plantations were infamous for the death of Negroes slaves in its very dangerous working conditions. I had read report that the average life span of a slave sugar field laborer was seven years. Therefore, the Master found it easier to simply purchase a new slave than pay extensive medical treatments for a current overworked slave soon to die. I can understand such sugar plantation owners deciding not to return to said plantations due to perhaps very bitter former slaves who may seek revenge even though these types of acts were rare. Many of these hated sugar plantations were burn down.
 
The NEW YORK TIMES is bias itself in its neo-liberalism and neo-conservative ways. I am not surprise that they would find fault with such a thesis. I do not find the TIMES as a great foundation of purity but sometimes they get things right. The Civil War/Reconstruction era conservative/reactionaries were well documented as being harmful to the progressive movement of the Radical Republicans and related parties and that their so call “progressive root” was fairly rotten to the core. It is also documented that they allied with the Democratic Party North/South both to embolden and encourage racist violence. It is they who support Andrew Johnson for the most part. These types were all about the Economy at the expense of democracy and their greed often lead to a depression.
 
My point being that Andrew Johnson allowed former Slaveholders to be restored their plantation on a massive level across the South.

Lincoln's 10% plan was even more lenient. Johnson required that Southerners with $20,000 or more in assets apply directly to the President for a pardon, whereas Lincoln did not. Johnson disliked Southern aristocrats and hoped to get the non-aristocrats in charge in the states of the former Confederacy. When the Radical Republicans replaced the Yeoman farmers with ex-slaves, carpetbaggers and scalawags, Johnson pardoned the wealthier whites more readily.

If they took the oath and accepted amnesty to the Union is all it took.

Not if they had $20,000 or more in property.

Naturally, you had to pay our taxes and filed the paperwork. During the War, some plantation owners/planters abandon the plantation and refused to pay their local taxes. Lawfully, the Federal occupation forces simply confiscated the plantation for failure to pay said taxes.

Actually, they did lose those plantations if they were purchased by someone else during the war. In such cases they were normally purchased by Northerns who often worked the ex-slaves just as hard, if not harder. (See Rehearsal for Reconstruction by Willie Lee Rose)

These plantations in the New Orleans area were turned into farming food stock to fed New Orleans and there were those to grow cotton and related produce of sale in the North. The latter were those who leased the plantations from the Federals usually the Department of Treasury or a Federal military type.

In the Mississippi River Valley the abandoned lands were often leased by Northern fortune hunters who generally discovered they could not grow cotton profitably despite the abundant labor source of ex-slaves. Consequently, the Northerners often abandoned their leases.

More typically, Delta Southerns held on to their land and used blacks to work it under contract terms dictated by the Army or Freedmen's Bureau. After the war they still owned those lands because the never abandoned them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top