“And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No -- they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.”
But is it fair to lable all Confederate soldiers as "domestic terrorist"? Now I could bring up the fact there were the tariffs that were imposed on the Southern States by the Federal Government. Or the fact that even though Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery when he became President he wasn’t going to interfere with it. In fact when the Civil War broke out in 1861 President Lincoln ordered that Union Generals were not to free slaves even in captured area under Union control. In 1862 in a letter to New York Tribune Lincoln said,
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Then a month later he issues the Emancipation Proclamation. But in 1863 Lincoln wrote a letter to James Conkling who was have a meeting of loyal Northern Unionist in Illinois, which at the time Lincoln could not come to the meeting and in his letter he addressed the frustration and anger about the length of the war and the Emancipation Proclamation that many Unionists had. Lincoln said,
“You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then, exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.”
This shows that even Northerners had issues about fighting to free slaves. Many Union soldiers went AWOL when Lincoln issued Emancipation Proclamation.
What’s my point? Well, the fact is that when we look at history we always make the mistake to put our views, values and morals of today on those of history yesteryears. Yes today we know slavery is evil and wrong and with strong convictions, even though it continues in many countries in the world today, but in the 1800’s it was a different mind set. Many Northern States took up to 50 + years after abolishing slavery in their State to actually eliminating it from their State and the elimination of slavery for several States was only 15 years before the war and I believe New Jersey still had slaves into the war.
First, back in those days cheap labor was important and a worker rights wasn’t. In the South slavery was the norm but in the North child labor was a norm. Children worked in factories and mines. Today we would say it was wrong. During the time before and after the Civil War the Government was in the West forcing Indians on reservations and those who refused were hunted down like animals. Today we say that is wrong. Plus during the Civil War Indians on reservations were shorted on supplies and money promised to them because the Government need to use it to fight the Civil War. Was that right?
Just to understand the majority of Southern Confederate soldiers did not have slaves. Slaves were a rich mans luxury. Yes many Officers in the Confederacy did have slaves and many Officers did not. Wealthy slave owners did not have to fight because they had slaves so they were exempt from fighting. Wealthy Northerners were able to pay to get out of the War. So this is why the Civil War was known as the poor man’s war. Many in boarder states had to chose sides and sometimes this divided families.
Why would poor Southerners fight in a war about slavery when they don’t own slaves? See whether you like it or not the culture of slavery was the norm for many of these men even though they didn’t own slaves, it was just the way it was to them. They didn’t know any better. The times were different then. For them they were fighting for what they saw as a States Rights issues and yes slavery was part of that States Right at the time. Another reason was conscription and draft. Even though many may have originally volunteered but their enlistments was extended. Then many were eventually drafted. In the beginning both sides thought it would be a short war, about a yearlong was the general view. But by 1962 both sides knew this was not going to be the case.
Another reason was out of State loyalty. We must remember in those days loyalty to ones State trumps the loyalty to the Federal Government. Most people of those days identified themselves with great pride by the State they came from. Your State was your home. Even Union Troops units were identified by their States. This was a custom that went back before the Revolution War with State militias. But after the end of the Civil War this custom people once had has became less and less the case.
We have to remember that in those days there was no radios, TV, Internet, Twitter, Blogging or any form of instant mass communication accept maybe telegraph. News from other parts of the country could take days to reach most people. Newspapers of those days were typically local and probably written by a local journalist who came from the same culture as the reader, that’s of course if you could read. Most information was word of mouth or it came from local politician or your local minister and typically their views reflect the normal cultural understanding of that community.
Not only is it important to remember the horrors that Blacks had to endure has slaves in the south but also as free men in the north. History should never be simplified, it needs be kept honest and kept in it’s proper context of time. History should be complex because it’s about people and people are complex.
The Civil War is one of the most important wars in American history. My solution to all this is simple instead of April being Confederate History Month it should be declared Civil War History Month and all aspect should be reviewed honestly whether it be good and bad for all this is an important part of American History.
UR
9 comments:
UR what you are describing here is called "presentism" in historical circles. Precisely as you said, people are projecting current values, morals and interpretations on the past. Usually this is a subtle way of one saying they are "morally superior" or are more "enlightened." The truth is, if those people had been brought up in that time and in those cultures, they would not have held the high and mighty views they have today. They would have been like everyone else.
Also their points are not usually valid. Case in point is calling Confederate soldiers "terrorists." This is just stupid and foolish. Confederates were part of a uniformed military force that operated against an opposing uniformed military force. You could call the Confederates "rebels" and perhaps even "traitors" at least certain leaders, but they operated nothing like Al Quiada, Hamas or Hezbollah or the IRA. Period, end of story.
A more legitimate comparison to "terrorism", would be the KKK. They operated in secret, they operated against civilians and their goal was indeed to terrorize blacks, Catholics and Jews and any one else they viewed dimly.
Quite frankly, Roland Martin and most CNN commentators seem murky on history to me. Precisely because their analogies of the past are based on their views of the present. In fact, their efforts to disparage Confederate soldiers is creating a backlash among the descendants of those people.
I say this as one who believes that slavery is a dark stain on America's history. I believe it is a positive thing that the Union won the war and that black slavery was ended (now we have sex slavery and migrant workers who are virtual slaves) Lincoln, Frank Blair, and General Nathanial Lyon are my Civil War heroes. I think the South was wrong. But as a historian I do not demean, attack and belittle Confederates. When we do that we will only stoke whatever embers still exist concerning the war. It happened, it was ugly and there a million causalities in four years. Avoiding the topic because we don't like one side or the other is rather silly.
I have given many school programs and was appalled to find that many middle school students know nothing at all about the Civil War. The United States of America does one the crappiest jobs in the world of teaching its own history to its youth. Elites are too fearful of some side they don't like being "honored" or someone being "offended" or saying "It's ugly and I don't want to see it." Well history is good, bad and ugly. And if we don't know our past, we're sure not going to have any guide or measuring stick to see how e are fdoing in the future. Have "Confederate Day". Talk in schools about what exactly the Confederacy believed, practiced and envisioned. The documentation in their own words is extensive enough for reasonable people to understand what it was about.
My rant's done.
Gator said,
“My rant's done.”
And good rant it was.
Gator said,
“I have given many school programs and was appalled to find that many middle school students know nothing at all about the Civil War. The United States of America does one the crappiest jobs in the world of teaching its own history to its youth.”
First I’m glad that there are Historians like you are out there working with our youth. Yes you’re right about the teaching of our history. It wasn’t until I got out of school that I began learning things about our history that was never taught in school.
I remember my mom was telling about her father (my grandfather) who was a southerner and she told me that back in the 40’s and 50’s he worked on helping blacks in his community by getting sidewalks or utilities in their neighborhoods. He believed blacks should have all the same things that a white neighborhood had. Now he believed that blacks should be equal but separate which today is very racist but in his days that was considered pretty liberal. Now my mom is who is southern rasied us to treat all people regadless of race as equals and I never had a problem being friends with non-white people. We picked our friends based on character no color. When my dad moved us up north my mom would always comment about how racist northerners were. She was amazed by the comments that northerners would make about blacks. She on a number of times told me that she believes that northerners are far more racist than southerners are.
UR, when the KKK was at the height of its power and influence in the 1920s, its strongest enclave was in Mississippi, oops, no. Alabama, sorry wrong again, Tennessee, wait nope that's not right, oh it had to be Texas, uhhhh nope. It was INDIANA of all places!
The landmark court case Brown v. Board of Education which formally spelled the end of segregation occurred in 1954 in Louisiana...sorry I mean Arkansas. No I think South Carolina, wait a minute it has to be Virginia! No, it was KANSAS.
Some of the worst racial violence perpetrated against blacks by white in the 19th century occurred in New York City. Make no mistake, I am not an apologist for the South or the Confederacy. But this "head in the sand" approach to history by the politically correct in this country helps no one understand or be reconciled to what really went on and why. And because of that, they often fail to see the improvements and changes that have occurred, especially in the last 50 years.
"Not only is it important to remember the horrors that Blacks had to endure has slaves in the south but also as free men in the north. History should never be simplified, it needs be kept honest and kept in it’s proper context of time. History should be complex because it’s about people and people are complex."
I couldn't agree more. However, while comparison is permissible, even necessary, equation is not. Nobody can tell me that CHATTEL slavery can be equated with indentured labour or hard working conditions, however abusive and exploitative. And nobody can tell me either that the blacks were not very well aware of that. Frankly, it boggles the mind (at least MY mind) that something like that was possible in the 19th century, during the lifetime of my great grandparents. One could actually OWN a human being like a house, a horse or a carriage. If you didn't like it anymore, you could destroy it without consequences, sell it, give it away. Even animals have more protection nowadays. That was not, like exploitative working conditions, social injustice, that was a flagrant violation of natural law. And what made it worse, unlike social injustice, it wasn't considered injustice, let alone a crime, but an important part of a well-functioning system that nobody (save a few isolated idealists) ever questioned. Any comparison with modern conditions, e.g. human trafficking, are, for that very reason, irrelevant.
What I find REALLY scandalous is the fact that the (chattel) enslavement of millions of whites over many centuries by Muslims has been totally neglected by historiography. Slave traders even went as far as northern Europe to catch their prey. But who cares? Whites can only be perpetrators, never victims.
Let me tell a story that even most Americans do not know.
In America children didn’t have any legal rights or protection until the 1900’s. The story starts about 9 years after the Civil War. The first child abuse case that brought public attention to abused children started in December of 1873 in New York. A church worker Mrs. Wheeler was asked to check in on a family only to find a severely abused and beaten 9 year old child named Mary-Ellen. Mrs. Wheeler turned to the authorities but no one was able to intervene because there were no laws protecting children. In April of 1874 Mrs. Wheeler attempted to see if the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) could do something. Yes that’s right ASCPA. At this time in an America animals had more protection and rights than children. Mrs. Wheeler presented it to the ASPCA as that since the law or authorities do not recognize the child as human adults then she must be an animal. The ASPCA did intervene and saved the girl. The girl went on to adulthood got married and lived into her 90’s. In 1874 the first SPCC (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) was started and in 1877 the American Humane Association was started.
You can read Mrs. Wheeler’s story here http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/etta-wheeler-account.html
The_Editrix said...
"What I find REALLY scandalous is the fact that the (chattel) enslavement of millions of whites over many centuries by Muslims has been totally neglected by historiography. Slave traders even went as far as northern Europe to catch their prey. But who cares? Whites can only be perpetrators, never victims."
Your right about this. But not only that but the fact that slavery still exist today and no one wants to stop it. Oh sure there are those that make feel good speeches but no one does anything. In America the discussion about slavery never seem to get passed 1865.
Fascinating story about Mrs. Wheeler! Thanks for letting me know.
"But not only that [i.e. the fact that whites had been victims of chattel slavery as well] but the fact that slavery still exist today and no one wants to stop it."
You are right. Let me rephrase my statement: What I find REALLY scandalous is the fact that the (chattel) enslavement of millions of whites over many centuries by Muslims has been totally neglected by historiography. Slave traders even went as far as northern Europe to catch their prey. But who cares? Whites can only be perpetrators, never victims. That is not just because nobody in interested in whites as victims of slavery, but nobody has an interest in non-whites as slaveholders either, not back then, not now when they are still enslaving black Africans. While there is never an end to the slavery-in-the-American-South debate, nobody cares for those who are still enslaved today. The perpetrators are, after all, not white.
Does that make more sense now?
Oh yes I agree.
I never quite understood why. I believe that for some reason you can’t criticize any culture that is not western culture (European/North American) when it’s particularly non-whites.
Such is he case that even though there is documentation that shows that African tribes provided other Africans such as prisoners or captured Africans by Africans in raids were handed over to whites Slave traders in exchange for goods. It’s only the whites who are responsible.
No one care that English in the early 1600’s were shipping Irish rebels and Irish political prisoners as well as many picked up off the street to the Caribbean as slaves to pick tobacco. Approximately 300,000 were sold into slavery; men women and children. They were branded and whipped just like there African counterparts. The difference between a African slave and Irish slave was price. Irish were cheaper about 5 Sterling apposed to 50 Sterling for and African. So the Irish were cheaper to replace. Why does no one talk about this? Well, because the English and the Irish are “white”. But there is plenty of discussions about the English bring Africans to the West Indies.
You are right about Muslim slave traders as well as other non-white groups but I don’t get why whites are held to a different standard. It’s almost like they’re patronizing non-whites. It’s like saying, “Oh those poor non-whites don’t understand what their doing but whites do because we’re a superior people and therefore we should have known better.” I mean that’s what it seems that they are saying. It seems that only those of western culture or “white” can be held responsible and no one else.
"I don’t get why whites are held to a different standard. It’s almost like they’re patronizing non-whites. It’s like saying, “Oh those poor non-whites don’t understand what their doing but whites do because we’re a superior people and therefore we should have known better.”"
Condescendence is certainly one aspect. The other one is "white guilt". Only whites blame themselves for their past, from the crusades via colonialism up to everything America does today. Other races (I'd rather talk about "cultures" in this context) are unfazed by a similar history. It has to do with a psychologic condition, namely the ability to have empathic reactions, which in turn comes from the acceptance and internalisation of the Decalogue, i.e. the human conscience, i.e. God. Of course, this has nothing to do with "race" in the sense of skin clolour, but it evolved within the Judaeo-Christian culture whose members happen to be white. I think to dismiss "white guilt" as nothing but hypocrisy to showcase one's innocence to racism is much too shallow.
Let me drop a fly in the ointment. While many western cultures like to beat themselves up over slavery that has been outlawed and ended more than a century and half ago, they seem to tolerate new forms of slavery quite well.
This is the sex trade involving many women from poor Latin, Asian and East European countries. And it is slavery, as the owners profit from those girls being on their backs and they can do nothing about it. Then white Europeans and Americans foster and support child slavery in the form of pedophilia in places like Thailand.
Another, at least in America is smuggling in migrant workers. "Coyotes" bring these people across the border for a fee and then keep their hooks in them. They get a cut when these people are "employed" in violation of the law at certain ranches or industries. Conditions in which these people live and work in some cases is as bad as the old slave system of the South. But our government does nothing to end this on the border and the "workers" are usually deported while the "employer" get minimal fines.
Then we like to overlook the fact that the most barbaric type of slavery is still practiced in Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East. Servants and "employees" of Saudi businessmen and aristocrats have regularly been abused and even killed.
But in Western and America, we are still too busy beating ourselves up over the past to do something about the evil in the present.
Post a Comment