Washington Post Article dispels these five incorrect statements:

1. The South seceded over states' rights.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.
4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.
5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.

Great article, Chucky!  Karma.  That's gonna really rattle the redneck cage!
:)

I remember one time in college, I think it was in a Psych class and we were using the Civil War topic as an example (can't remember an example for what.  :-\\ )  We were supposed to list all the reasons for the war. After slavery, I didn't THINK there were any other reasons. I still don't. To quote John McCain (yeah, yeah, I know  ::) ) you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.



Cat

I am into the war a bit and it is very interesting.  If you read the articles of secession it is all about slavery.  The south was a stratified society, the slaveholders owned and ran the government.  The couldn't sell the retention of slavery so they came up with "states rights" which was actually slaveholders rights.

I am into the war a bit and it is very interesting.  If you read the articles of secession it is all about slavery.  The south was a stratified society, the slaveholders owned and ran the government.  The couldn't sell the retention of slavery so they came up with "states rights" which was actually slaveholders rights.


You should read (if you haven't already) the articles Marx wrote for the English press on the cause and on why "the union must be preserved" - slavery and expansion - "the south must have it's territory"

You should read (if you haven't already) the articles Marx wrote for the English press on the cause and on why "the union must be preserved" - slavery and expansion - "the south must have it's territory"


Haven't read it, going to the top of the list.

5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.


Actually, while I agree with most of the article, I do take exception to this one.

There are several things that have to be considered here.  For one, is the international climate.  The main reason the Confederacy never got the international recognition they desired is because they were still a slave nation.  And during the Civil War they not only withheld their recognition largely over slavery, but they were actively looking for replacement sources of cotton.  For England, this meant massive increases in their foreign agricultural holdings, including India and Egypt.  For France, this meant research into other materials, like Rayon.

This meant that even if they had won the war, the value of their cotton exports was rapidly shrinking.  Then you also had the double blow of mechanization.

The 2 most manpower intensive parts of growing and processing cotton are harvesting and removing the seeds.  The latter part was solved by the Cotton Gin, which revitalized the industry.  But the other was about to be solved by the invention of the first efficient cotton picking machines in the 1870's.  Plus even before then (1861), farmers in Missouri had found that it was faster and easier to harvest the entire cotton plant with McCormick reepers used for wheat, then thresh it later (as opposed to the way it was done in the South, by picking individual boles from the plant).  This is one of the things that revolutionized the industry post-Civil War in the South.  By doing this, the labor needed to harvest was cut to a fraction of what was needed before.

No, slavery was a dying institution that in the 1860's was going through it's last really profitable period.  Modernization would have ended it by the turn of the century one way or another.  The major European nations would have been unlikely to give them the lines of credit needed to modernize their industries, and they lacked many of the raw materials to modernize themselves.  Add to that the many problems of the Confederation politically, and it would not have lasted more then a few decades before sinking into civil war and seperation.

Actually, while I agree with most of the article, I do take exception to this one.

There are several things that have to be considered here.  For one, is the international climate.  The main reason the Confederacy never got the international recognition they desired is because they were still a slave nation.  And during the Civil War they not only withheld their recognition largely over slavery, but they were actively looking for replacement sources of cotton.  For England, this meant massive increases in their foreign agricultural holdings, including India and Egypt.  For France, this meant research into other materials, like Rayon.

This meant that even if they had won the war, the value of their cotton exports was rapidly shrinking.  Then you also had the double blow of mechanization.

The 2 most manpower intensive parts of growing and processing cotton are harvesting and removing the seeds.  The latter part was solved by the Cotton Gin, which revitalized the industry.  But the other was about to be solved by the invention of the first efficient cotton picking machines in the 1870's.  Plus even before then (1861), farmers in Missouri had found that it was faster and easier to harvest the entire cotton plant with McCormick reepers used for wheat, then thresh it later (as opposed to the way it was done in the South, by picking individual boles from the plant).  This is one of the things that revolutionized the industry post-Civil War in the South.  By doing this, the labor needed to harvest was cut to a fraction of what was needed before.

No, slavery was a dying institution that in the 1860's was going through it's last really profitable period.  Modernization would have ended it by the turn of the century one way or another.  The major European nations would have been unlikely to give them the lines of credit needed to modernize their industries, and they lacked many of the raw materials to modernize themselves.  Add to that the many problems of the Confederation politically, and it would not have lasted more then a few decades before sinking into civil war and seperation.


That's an interesting analysis, but it is highly mechanistic and ahistorical.  It assumes that slave holders recognized even half of it.  It also ignores the socio-cultural aspect of slavery, which was at least as important as the economic.  There is an interesting anthology called The Causes of the Civil War (I'm away from my library so I can't give a citation, but one of the articles is by a southerner who, in the 1870's or '80's advances a cultural analysis of a jealous northern money grubbing aristocracy that, and I remember this passage "stuffed their homes with fine furnishings, but could not subdue a sneaking feeling of their own inferiority in comparison to the genteel society of the south" or close to that.  Which, he goes on to say, was attributable to the labor of our kindly treated negro slaves.  This attitude was so ingrained, even in 1776, before the cotton gin, when slavery was far from economical, that Jefferson's anti-slavery passages had to be removed, not for economic reasons, but because it was "our peculiar institution".  History is only partially made by economic man

That's an interesting analysis, but it is highly mechanistic and ahistorical.  It assumes that slave holders recognized even half of it.  It also ignores the socio-cultural aspect of slavery, which was at least as important as the economic. 

But you also have to read more into what I put at the end.

Add to that the many problems of the Confederation politically, and it would not have lasted more then a few decades before sinking into civil war and seperation.

One thing that the South constantly worried about was slave revolts.  Between 1712 and 1859, there were at least 12 slave rebellions in the United States, 9 of these after 1800.  And with the tightening of laws forbidding manumission, and the creation of laws forbidding slaves from learning to read, the pressure cooker was only increasing.

And the result of the Civil War is rather obvious when looking at it.  Slavery largely gave way to Share Cropping.  This actually gave the land owners more profit then the old slavery system.  Then the Share Croppers were thrown out as mechanization took hold.

However, you also had the relief by then of the black exodus from the Southern States.  If the South had won, this would not have happened.  And the South would have been stuck with the vast majority of blacks in the country.  Each decade the number of slaves would have increased.  And as mechanization increased, you would then have had the inverse of the mid 1800's, where slave prices would have dropped, and there would not have been enough actual labor to keep them "employed".

Add to this the decreasing state of poor whites.  You already had a large number of poor whites, who would complain because slaves took all the jobs they would have done in other areas of the country.  This would have continued to drive down the price of labor, making even the free whites virtual slaves.

This situation could not have survived more then a few decades.  By the 1890's, the Confederacy would likely have torn itself apart.  But even before this, you have to look at who would most likely have followed Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederacy.

General Robert E. Lee.  Who would have been a war hero, wildly popular, and an opponant of slavery (he thought it a "moral and political evil"), and even said after the war was over:

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.

This, comming from the man who would likely have been the second President.  Is there much question that he would have fought during his entire 6 year tenure to see it eventually abolished?

General Robert E. Lee.  Who would have been a war hero, wildly popular, and an opponant of slavery (he thought it a "moral and political evil"),




This is one of those statements I have heard before that drives me crazy.  Granny Lee may have opposed slavery, but he thought it necessary for the good of blacks.

Letter to his wife on slavery (selections; December 27, 1856)

by Robert E. Lee

The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race,& I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?

So, as opposed to it as he said he was, he felt it necessary and that to civilize blacks could possible take a thousand years give or take a year or two.  The letter taken as a whole is pretty....well...awful to put it mildly.