Non-revisited, non-PC Civil War history?

4

416Rigby

New member
After having exhausted the whole Ricky Skaggs, Tony Rice, Gordon Lightfoot and Johnson Mountain Boys' repertoir on my daily 120-mile commute, I have decided that polishing up on my Civil War history via books on tape wouldn't be too bad an idea.

This brilliant spark dawned on me when a lady friend lent me an abridged version of the famed Gettysburg tome "Killer Angels". I enjoyed the narrative, savored the battle scenes and reveled in the romanticized psychological introspection of the main characters, but got somewhat angered at the author's one-sided explanation of the reasons of the Civil War. Slavery and race, from a post-'64, post-WWII viewpoint, plus a bit of irritating patronizing and posturing.

I am one of those who think that the hundreds of thousands of Southerners who chose to die for "a cause" did not do so in order to preserve the right of a 5-6% plantation owners to keep their slaves. Rather, they saw secession as a natural extension of the spirit of 1776 in the face of an ever-increasing Federal Government. Plus, liberal historians always seem to forget that the greatest majority of slave merchants were rich New Englanders who merrily traded human flesh out of Boston Harbor. Thus, the period between 1861 and 1865 represents the only hole in their otherwise continuous chronology of guilt-as-Americans running from the phallocratic Captain Smith to the gratuitously murderous defeat of Japan.

Yes, slavery was an issue, for sure. But I am getting weary of having the Gray Soldiers equated to a nineteenth-century version of Hitler's SS - just out to keep blacks oppressed while the righteous Federal Government, shining armor, white horse and all, came to the rescue.

So, is there an unbiased, non-revisionist historian (Shelby Foote? Richard Wheeler? Bruce Catton?) who just plain tells it like it was without trying to squeeze in a bunch of anachronistic and partisan retoric?

Or do you pretty much have to put up with a little bias if you want to learn about your nation's past?

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited September 18, 2000).]
 
There's a book called "The South Was Right" which is from a pro-south point of view. Can't remember the author offhand, but Amazon's bound to have it. It was for sale in the Pentagon bookshop a few years back.
 
416Rigby, I just want to be Politicially Correct, here. Here's a song my relatives sung, after the War for Southern Independence.

Oh, I'm a good old rebel,
Now that's just what I am:
For this "Fair Land Of Freedom"
I do not care a damn...

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Lie stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us;
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot;
I wish it was three millions
Instead of what we got.

I can't take up my musket
And fight 'em now no more;
But I ain't a-going to love 'em,
And that is sartain (sic) sure;
And I don't want no pardon
For what I was and am;
I won't be reconstructed,
And I don't care a damn.

"Old Rebel" Anon.


J.B.
 
Lest we forget, there was an estimated 7,000 Afro-Americans who served alongside their masters in the Army of Virginia. While many of them were mule skinners, cooks, ambulance drivers, there are enough accounts to show that many actually fought. The Richmond Howitzers had two guns which were manned exclusively by blacks. In C.A. Steven's book, "Berdan's Sharpshooters," (Morningside Press - out of print but they still have a few copies), there is an account of a black marksman who continually harassed the Sharpshooters until they lured him close enough to kill. In the book, "One of Jackson's Foot Calvary," there is an account of how one cook who, picking up a musket, fought alongside his master, earning the admiration of his fellows. (There's also an account of how the Rebs, fearing that his peers could not adequately care for him, took a (black) cook into their own tent and nursed him back to health). Many Afro-Americans were awarded pensions by their respective states for having served (to earn a pension, a white officer or two white enlisted men had to vouch for the applicant). Setting aside those who served in the army (and they were dressed no differently than the Confederates), there were also laborers who built fortifications. In Charleston, there is a monument to the slaves who kept rebuilding Battery Wagner every night after the Yankees knocked it down.

Unfortunately, this aspect of the Civil War (Wah-oh) is overlooked and is just begining to be examined by scholars and researchers.
 
Remember, the reporting of history is not just spewing back dry facts, dusty dates, and moldy documents.

It's also about assimilation and interpretation, both in passive and active forms.

The fact that you're offended by Schirra's (sp?) interpretation for the causes of the Civil War, in reality, says as much about you as it does him.

I caution you, though. Don't go looking for a bunch of books that reinforce your personal beliefs and preconceived notions. Go looking for books that CHALLENGE your personal beliefs and preconceived notions.

That's what history is all about.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
http://www.southernlion.com/ offers some scholarly reads, including a good one on Gary's mention of black participation in the confederacy.

I didn't get distracted by the thin prologue in the Killer Angels. The book rekindles many peoples interest in that war. The authors' battle narrative and perspectives are gripping. The geographical accuracy and topography are excellent. I am skeptical of his complete interpretation of Lee, but he conveys some of the man as remembered through the eyes of his loyal men.

I do agree with Mike. Sometimes the most rewarding doors are opened through perspectives that suprise you.

Let us know if you find a gem in your search.
 
For pure readability, Shelby Foote's three-volume history is hard to beat. IIRC, it accepts people pretty much as they were, as opposed to the revisionist principle of passing ex post facto judgments on people according to social and political standards prevailing a century after they were dead. I think Foote treats men of good faith on both sides of the Civil War with equal respect.
 
Mike, RHC,

I wasn't really looking for a lecture on open-mindedness, thank you. I was just trying to tap into other readers' experiences in order to find a Civil War historian that wouldn't be politically loaded on one side or the other. I am not looking for a pro-South re-interpretation of the facts.

Sorry for not believing that in the Civil War there were necessarily good guys and bad guys. No, history is not necessarily a rehashing of "dry facts, dusty dates, and moldy documents" but I prefer to read about all the facts and all the moldy documents before someone force-feeds me with politically loaded opinions. In other words, I like to make up my own mind.
 
Gentlemen;
I spent several years as a child growing up in the peoples republic of Massachusetts. There I learned that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves fron the oppressive and cruel slaveowners.

My family moved to Virgina when I was in the eighth grade. There I learned that the War of Northern Agression was fought because the Yanks wanted to tax the southerners into oblivion. It was fought to secure States Rights from the federal government. It was fought becuase the Yankees INVADED the south and hey...you've got to do something when you are invaded.

In the 10th grade I moved to Illinois. I learned that the Civil War was fought because the South wanted to become an independent nation and not have to put up with a bunch of BS from northern city slickers that had not a clue about rural life or agriculture. President Lincon , being the great visionary that he was, simply could not let this happen because he would have lost much of his tax base and the north could bareley feed itself ...partly due to climate.

I now live in Arkansas. Many of my wifes' ancestores were captains, leutenants, majors and regular calvary during the civil war. Many southern county history books mention their names. Many have eyewitness writings of events of the war and many pictures. It makes for some intresting reading. What I have learned is that few of them owned slaves. Those that did, appeared to have treated them quite well. Some of these rebels were pressed into service only after the northerners burnt their homes and towns down to the ground, their cattle seized and in some cases their women raped. What were they supposed to do ?

Only one thing I know for sure.The quality of life here where I live is superior to the quality of life up north. Here people still respect each other. They are not afraid to fight for what is right. They do not fear for their lives when they go about as they do in the large citys up north. People are still adressed as Mam and Sir. People will stop and help you if you have a flat tire on the side of the road. With out fail,every single one of my cousins that have visited from Rhode Island, Mass, New York, New Jersey mention that they would like to live here and raise their children here.
So...from my standpoint...what did this civil war acheive ? We are being taxed into oblivion. Our standards of living and education have been lowered to the point that we have colledge grads that can barely read or write. We have a congress and presidntial administration that is guilty of treason among other things.The federal government alphabet agencies , believe that you are guilty until proven innocent. We have no representation. We can longer mention GOD in our schools and Humanism is the religion of the day. Queers proliferate and tell us that if we speak against what is wrong then we are committing hate crimes.I could go on and on but whats the point ?

Some of you Yankees tell me now why the South is better off because we stayed in the united states of America because we lost the war.
The war of Northern Agression. :(
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 416Rigby:

So, is there an unbiased, non-revisionist historian (Shelby Foote? Richard Wheeler? Bruce Catton?)
[/quote]

There ya go - you've named three of the best. Of course, I may just be biased because Wheeler mentions my great-great-great-grandfather (and the rest of the 26th North Carolina) in "Richmond Redeemed" .

Foote calls 'em pretty straight, and Catton is still taught at the better universities.

You can also look into the works of Burke Davis, a professor at Elon College here in NC for many years, who wrote biographies of Lee, Jackson, etc., that are accurate and readable.

Ken Strayhorn (won't be reconstructed, and doesn't give a damn)
Hillsborough NC
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 416Rigby:
Mike, RHC,

I wasn't really looking for a lecture on open-mindedness, thank you. I was just trying to tap into other readers' experiences in order to find a Civil War historian that wouldn't be politically loaded on one side or the other. I am not looking for a pro-South re-interpretation of the facts.

Sorry for not believing that in the Civil War there were necessarily good guys and bad guys. No, history is not necessarily a rehashing of "dry facts, dusty dates, and moldy documents" but I prefer to read about all the facts and all the moldy documents before someone force-feeds me with politically loaded opinions. In other words, I like to make up my own mind.

[/quote]

No offense, but that certainly wasn't apparent from your initial message.

If I read too much into your request, then I apologize. In my experience, though, far more people want to read documents that agree and reinforce their own beliefs than they do ones that challenge them.

If, however, you want all the dry facts devoid of the political opinions, then you had better start visiting places like the Museum of the Confederacy, the National Archives, etc., and check out the original source materials, or obtain copies of those items.

Otherwise, you're going to get interpretations that have either passive or active slants (including political) in them. Any reporting of events will be influenced by the author's own beliefs or agendas. There's simply no way around it. (This was the subject of a VERY contentious debate in my Ethics of History seminar in college.)




------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Hey Watchman,

Where I'm from, up north, we call it the War of Southern Stupidity...

The South had legitimate grievances, but to attempt a separation by force of arms was even more insane than the US trying to break away from Britain, or Japan attempting to force an early negotiated peace with the United States in WW II.

Even had the South won the Civil War, I think it is likely that it would have rejoined the North, likely around WW I, either directly, or so closely that it would be hard to tell the difference (sort of like crossing the street in Bristol, Virginia, and ending up in Bristol, Tennessee).

Economically, the situation for the South would have been untenable, I feel. With the financial collapses in the 1870s, the expansion of British cotton growing in India, and the eventual collapse of the Southern cotton economy in the 1880s and 1890s, the political and economic environment would have been horrendous.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Irwin:
The South had legitimate grievances, but to attempt a separation by force of arms was even more insane than the US trying to break away from Britain,
[/quote]

Yep, and you see how that ended up.

Unreconstructed, I remain,

Ken Strayhorn
Hillsborough NC
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Strayhorn:
Yep, and you see how that ended up.

Unreconstructed, I remain,

Ken Strayhorn
Hillsborough NC
[/quote]

Note I said even more insane.

The fledgling US had a number of things going for it that the CSA never could have hoped to match.

1. Separation from the "parent" by an ocean and several thousand miles.

2. The parent being engaged in conflicts much nearer its home turf.

3. Assistance from the parent's national enemies.

I'm probably an oddity in this group...

I feel that the Southern states had every right to try to break away.

I also feel that the Northern states had every right to force them back into Union.


------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
Sorry if I'm not contributing "intellectually" to this conversation, but I've really wanted to read more about the Civil War and I believe there's a copy of "Battle Cry of Freedom" somewhere in my mom's house. Questions: Anybody out there read it? Any opinions on it? I would like to hear from both Yankees and Southerners on this one.

Thanks ahead of time.
 
Hydejam,
JM McPherson. Heck, read it. History is a science and there is stuff to be gleaned from any scholarly source. I don't agree with all of his analysis yet but we are not talking politics.
This author is cited in this exposition which explains some of the controversy: http://www.bartleby.com/65/ci/CivilWarUS.html
The Columbia Encyclopedia: Sixth Edition. 2000.

Civil War, in U.S. history


in U.S. history, conflict (1861–65) between the Northern states (the Union) and the Southern
states that seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy. It is generally known in the
South as the War between the States and is also called the War of the Rebellion (the official
Union designation), the War of Secession, and the War for Southern Independence. The name
Civil War, although much criticized as inexact, is most widely accepted.
1

Causes
The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional
combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex
that historians still do not agree on its basic causes. It has been characterized, in the words of
William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was
viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and
blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that,
rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.
2
In the days of the American Revolution and of the adoption of the Constitution, differences
between North and South were dwarfed by their common interest in establishing a new nation.
But sectionalism steadily grew stronger. During the 19th cent. the South remained almost
completely agricultural, with an economy and a social order largely founded on slavery and the
plantation system. These mutually dependent institutions produced the staples, especially cotton,
from which the South derived its wealth. The North had its own great agricultural resources, was
always more advanced commercially, and was also expanding industrially.
3
Hostility between the two sections grew perceptibly after 1820, the year of the Missouri
Compromise, which was intended as a permanent solution to the issue in which that hostility was
most clearly expressed—the question of the extension or prohibition of slavery in the federal
territories of the West. Difficulties over the tariff (which led John C. Calhoun and South Carolina
to nullification and to an extreme states’ rights stand) and troubles over internal improvements
were also involved, but the territorial issue nearly always loomed largest. In the North moral
indignation increased with the rise of the abolitionists in the 1830s. Since slavery was
unadaptable to much of the territorial lands, which eventually would be admitted as free states,
the South became more anxious about maintaining its position as an equal in the Union.
Southerners thus strongly supported the annexation of Texas (certain to be a slave state) and the
Mexican War and even agitated for the annexation of Cuba.
4
The Compromise of 1850 marked the end of the period that might be called the era of
compromise. The deaths in 1852 of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster left no leader of national
stature, but only sectional spokesmen, such as W. H. Seward, Charles Sumner, and Salmon P.
Chase in the North and Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs in the South. With the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the consequent struggle over “bleeding” Kansas the factions
first resorted to shooting. The South was ever alert to protect its “peculiar institution,” even
though many Southerners recognized slavery as an anachronism in a supposedly enlightened age.
Passions aroused by arguments over the fugitive slave laws (which culminated in the Dred Scott
Case) and over slavery in general were further excited by the activities of the Northern
abolitionist John Brown and by the vigorous proslavery utterances of William L. Yancey, one of
the leading Southern fire-eaters.
5

The Election of 1860
The “wedges of separation” caused by slavery split large Protestant sects into Northern and
Southern branches and dissolved the Whig party. Most Southern Whigs joined the Democratic
party, one of the few remaining, if shaky, nationwide institutions. The new Republican party, heir
to the Free-Soil party and to the Liberty party, was a strictly Northern phenomenon. The crucial
point was reached in the presidential election of 1860, in which the Republican candidate,
Abraham Lincoln, defeated three opponents—Stephen A. Douglas (Northern Democrat), John
C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat), and John Bell of the Constitutional Union party.
6
Lincoln’s victory was the signal for the secession of South Carolina (Dec. 20, 1860), and that
state was followed out of the Union by six other states—Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana, and Texas. Immediately the question of federal property in these states became
important, especially the forts in the harbor of Charleston, S.C. (see Fort Sumter). The outgoing
President, James Buchanan, a Northern Democrat who was either truckling to the Southern,
proslavery wing of his party or sincerely attempting to avert war, pursued a vacillating course. At
any rate the question of the forts was still unsettled when Lincoln was inaugurated, and
meanwhile there had been several futile efforts to reunite the sections, notably the Crittenden
Compromise offered by Sen. J. J. Crittenden. Lincoln resolved to hold Sumter. The new
Confederate government under President Jefferson Davis and South Carolina were equally
determined to oust the Federals.
7

Sumter to Gettysburg
When, on Apr. 12, 1861, the Confederate commander P. G. T. Beauregard, acting on
instructions, ordered the firing on Fort Sumter, hostilities officially began. Lincoln immediately
called for troops to be used against the seven seceding states, which were soon joined by
Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, completing the 11-state Confederacy. In the
first important military campaign of the war untrained Union troops under Irvin McDowell,
advancing on Richmond, now the Confederate capital, were routed by equally inexperienced
Confederate soldiers led by Beauregard and Joseph E. Johnston in the first battle of Bull Run
(July 21, 1861). This fiasco led Lincoln to bring up George B. McClellan (1826–85), fresh from
his successes in W Virginia (admitted as the new state of West Virginia in 1863).
8
After the retirement of Winfield Scott in Nov., 1861, McClellan was for a few months the chief
Northern commander. The able organizer of the Army of the Potomac, he nevertheless failed in
the Peninsular campaign (Apr.–July, 1862), in which Robert E. Lee succeeded the wounded
Johnston as commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Lee planned the
diversion in the Shenandoah Valley, which, brilliantly executed by Thomas J. (Stonewall)
Jackson, worked perfectly. Next to Lee himself Jackson, with his famous “foot cavalry,” was the
South’s greatest general.
9
Lee then went on to save Richmond in the Seven Days battles (June 26–July 2) and was
victorious in the second battle of Bull Run (Aug. 29–30), thoroughly trouncing John Pope.
However, he also failed in his first invasion of enemy territory. In September, McClellan, whom
Lincoln had restored to command of the defenses of Washington, checked Lee in Maryland (see
Antietam campaign). When McClellan failed to attack the Confederates as they retreated,
Lincoln removed him again, this time permanently.
10
Two subsequent Union advances on Richmond, the first led by Ambrose E. Burnside (see
Fredericksburg, battle of) and the second by Joseph Hooker (see Chancellorsville, battle of),
ended in resounding defeats (Dec. 13, 1862, and May 2–4, 1863). Although Lee lost Jackson
at Chancellorsville, the victory prompted him to try another invasion of the North. With his
lieutenants Richard S. Ewell, James Longstreet, A. P. Hill, and J. E. B. (Jeb) Stuart, he moved
via the Shenandoah Valley into S Pennsylvania. There the Army of the Potomac, under still
another new chief, George G. Meade, rallied to stop him again in the greatest battle (July 1–3,
1863) of the war (see Gettysburg campaign).
11
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Irwin:
Hey Watchman,

Where I'm from, up north, we call it the War of Southern Stupidity...[/quote]

Ho-hum.... Looks like we got us an arrogant little Yankee in this here gen'lman... ;)

Seriously, though, it's very cheap and easy to pass blatant post-facto judgements on historical events such as the one you refer to - and that's precisely what I want to avoid in the history I read.

I much prefer your take on collecting my own information at museums and exhibitions, although it may be pretty hard to do it on my commute (see original post)....

Greetings from Fredericksburg, VA, CSA.
 
Hey 416,

Actually, the War of Southern Stupidity and War of Northern Agression are in the same league.

Both are pejorative statements, with neither being truthful and both being coined by those with highly directed viewpoints.

I actually coined the phrase "War of Southern Stupidity" in one of my classes in high school.

The one point I will make, and I fully feel that this is 100% truthful from my time in the South, is that many in the South have never stopped fighting a war that was lost over 100 years ago.

It gets very tiresome after awhile to keep hearing "Yankee this," and "Yankee that," and "Damned Yankee Carpetbagger."

The degree of animosity that was directed at me and my former wife while we were on our honeymoon in Tennessee and the Carolinas was, quite frankly, shocking. And all because we were "Yankees."

A lot of people in the South need to come to grips with the reality of the situation.

To tell you the truth, I'm not a Yankee. I don't consider myself to be a Yankee, because I'm not from New England.

First and foremost, I'm an American. Then I'm a Pennsylvania. Then I'm of German, Welsh, English, Scotish, Dutch, and French extraction.

I don't refer to Southerners as "Rebels," anymore than I would refer to someone from Virginia or South Carolina as a "Bogfoot" or an "Oakie." Hell, I wouldn't even refer to a Louisianian as a Bogfoot, for Christ's sake.

I don't want this to become a flame war, or a new "Civil War," because, quite frankly, I'm not interested in rehashing a war that ended 100 years and 10 days BEFORE I was born.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.

[This message has been edited by Mike Irwin (edited September 21, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Irwin:
Hey 416,
It gets very tiresome after awhile to keep hearing "Yankee this," and "Yankee that," and "Damned Yankee Carpetbagger."
[/quote]

Hell, I was 16 years old before I found out that damnyankee was two words. ;)



------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top