Monday, January 17, 2011

Faux History

Five myths about why the South seceded
Number of words: 1401
By Sociologist James W. Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me
One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began. 

Makin' shit up here boss Brauchli

The article title got my attention. I wondered whether Loewen would deliver anything worthwhile on the subject, since it's one I've held a lifelong interest in, predating even puberty.  He didn't.  What he calls "myths" are discussions about things that no school kid is ever exposed to unless they major in History.  Subjects like the Nullification Crisis, Southern states loss of clout in the congress, tariffs and taxes, etc.  If there is any popular myth about why the War Between the States,  it's that the slavery issue alone caused it.  Responding to his 1400 word assertion would require me to review the 10 billion words, from 10 thousand books, papers, and private letters I've read on the subject, not to mention reincarnated memory, so I wont. Besides, any author who finds himself compelled to include this passage in a serious historical review gives himself away.

"So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy now.

Filed under pasty-face liberal asshat sociologist.

11 comments:

Chuck Martel said...

Like Milton Friedman said, it's always about the money.

And when they swear it's not about the money, you know it's only about the money.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Spot on Chuck, although there is a meritorious school of thought that it's always about P_ _ _ _.

rickn8or said...

"So poor white Southerners supported slavery..."
Support an institution that they (white laborers) were competing (unsucessfully) with? Isn't that sort of like union rank-and-file being in favor of Right to Work legislation??

Rodger the Real King of France said...

There was this element at work - people in the lower socioeconomic class loved having people whom they felt "superior" to.

Helly said...

History is always rewritten by the losers.

Speaking of money and war: A Northerner invented the cotton gin, and a Southerner invented the grain reaper. Both these devices created the wealth needed to fund the Civil War.

There was so much money generated from these inventions, Abe Lincoln became involved with patent disputes.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the guys up North fought for A, B and C and those down South fought for B, D and E. There is no reason to suppose that two peoples fight for exactly the same reasons.

And someone may start a fight for A, continue it for B and finish it for C.

Never discount human nature. People act for their own self interest but there is no telling if they are right in their evaluation of what is in their own best interest or when they will decide to act.

Laurence

Anonymous said...

Southerners fought because they didn't want Yankees telling them what to do. Yankees fought because of their fundamentalist Christian beliefs relative to slavery, and to preserve the Union. Men fought on both sides because they were either expected or compelled to.

Casca

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Casca, you came closer in 41 words than I could in 100. :)

Wabano said...

Upper class Elite Southerners fought to enslave the lower class like the Romans and the Muslims did.
(Most of the poor just got freed from serfdom and indenture in the anglo world.)

They where racists and thought blacks where worthless and set up Liberia to return them to Africa.

Nearly half the slaves where already white in the south, after four generations of systematic rapes...white travelers where systematically enslaved by southern pressing gangs.

The South of the Democrat party
may have lost the war but they sure, with the KKK and today's hippie bolcheviks, have a lot of control in the USA, like Germany and Japan who emerged as winners after WW II.

"The institution of slavery had existed in every one of the Northern states throughout the colonial period and such slavery was not limited to black slavery. White political prisoners and petty criminals from Britain were sold and brought to the colonies as slaves. Between the early 1770s and 1804, Rhode Island, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, all of which had slavery, passed outright abolition or gradual emancipation laws. During the 1850s, the South’s plan to nationalize slavery was merely to reintroduce it in the North where it had previously existed just 50 to 75 years earlier. With so many white partus slaves in the South to begin with, the idea of expanding slavery to include white laborers in the North moved slavery from a matter of color to a matter of class. Southern politicians frequently pointed out that the slavery in Greece and Rome was based on social status, not on color. They also called attention to the fact that the slavery in the Bible was not Negro slavery.7

The idea of enslaving whites in the North was not a new one. In 1836 the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Convention referred to white slavery and the white laborer. A few years later, William Goodell declared, “We do not recollect a single southern statesman or eminent southern writer, who has pretended to believe that slavery, if it continues to exist, will be confined to the blacks.... Slavery must cease, or else large masses of white people will become slaves.” In one of the more unusual early references to white people being made slaves by the South, James Russell Lowell, the famed New England poet, wrote a political satire in a Yankee dialect which contained these lines:


Wy, it’s jest ez clear ez figgers,
Clear ez one an’ one make two,
Chaps thet make black slaves o’ niggers
Want to make wite slaves o’ you.8
"

Cheesy said...

The horse is thinking,
"I've often heard about the horrors of war, I just never expected to be one"

RavingDave said...

I posted this comment at American Digest a week or so ago. It sums up my opinion.



The Civil War is an example of a proposition promoted in the American War for Independence, but rejected four score and seven years later; The notion that people have a right to declare independence from a government they feel no longer represents them. The Civil War made it apparent that the sanctity of this principle depends upon which foot is wearing the shoe.


People often assert the Civil war was fought for some noble purpose. (To Preserve the Union! To End Slavery!) Nonsense. It was fought over egos.
Those other notions were an afterthought, a rationalization for doing what they did. South Carolina wanted union troops out, Abe Lincoln intended that they stay. Ft. Sumter was just the bone in a dog fight that turned into a pissing contest.


To argue that the Nation, or the South is better for what happened is to make the argument that a Marriage is better for forcing the wife to remain with an abusive husband. It may be true, but it misses the point that the woman should have been free to decide for herself what was in her best interest.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.