Also, bear in mind the significance of this quote:
"So, they seceded. They did not attack the Union. The Civil War only begins months after the secession, at Fort Sumter. And yes, the South did technically start the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter, but it was only rational. The Union did not recognize the secessions and was clearly intent on re-integrating them into the Union."
Why did they attack Fort Sumpter? Because that was a federal base by which US ships could intercept maritime shipping coming to and from the second-largest port in the Confederacy. The purpose of that base was to stop Southern commercial vessels and force them to pay Union import-export duties. If you can't enforce maritime security and your citizens pay taxes to a foreign country, then you aren't a real independent country. The South had no choice but to attack Fort Sumpter, because if they just let it be then they would not be doing even the bare minimum that an independent country is supposed to do: protect its citizens and levy taxes.
Lincoln was honestly a genius for setting it up this way, by allowing them to secede but saying that he wouldn't evacuate federal strongholds and would continue to reinforce them. It's a brilliant move: force the secessionists to attack you and you get to enjoy the moral superiority of being the non-aggressor, even though you provoked them to attack in the first place. The Prussians masterminded a similarly brilliant maneuver to kickstart the Franco-Prussian War a few years later.
>The Prussians masterminded a similarly brilliant maneuver to kickstart the Franco-Prussian War a few years later
the more i read about the prussian politics and diplomacy undertaken by Bismarck the more sinister he appears to me, dude had plans for everything, he even predicted ww1
Another key point of American slavery: it was not this "pick all the damn cotton or I'll whip you" despotism that people believe it was. It was a system; it had rules. Some people adhered to the rules more closely than others, but the violators were outliers and were charged as criminals if they mistreated slaves.
Slaves in antebellum America worked on a task-based system. This meant that you were given a certain task to perform as your workload for the day. Hang this tobacco, pick that many rows of cotton, fix the fences, etc. If you completed your task, you were done for the day. If you wanted, however, you could keep working and earn money for working overtime. With that money, you could do whatever you want with it. You could even accumulate enough capital to start a shop or learn a private trade. There were plenty of slaves who got side jobs as blacksmiths or other kinds of craftsmen, and they got to keep the money they made off those businesses. They could eventually even earn enough money to buy their freedom (this process is called manumission), and many did so.
Not all blacks who were freed before the Civil War were freed out of the kindness of ole massa's heart. They were freed because the offer was always on the table and they just needed to work towards it. Those who were intelligent and diligent enough to do so did so, and that's why there's a more favorable view of the antebellum freedmen "talented tenth" of the African-American population. This system was common in Anglo-Germanic colonial societies, and the system employed by the Dutch in the East Indies towards their Malay slaves was very similar. It all kind of goes back to the Germanic bondage "knechtschaft" system of ancient Germanic Europe which Tacitus wrote of. Slavery/bondage/servitude was more of a status of servanthood than outright chattel, although it evolved a little bit more in the chattel direction in America because of economic practices introduced by Latin powers like France, Spain, and Portugal.
Excellent post. Learning about what my ancestors did during the civil war was huge for me in terms of figuring out where I and my ancestors fit in to the history of the United States (and England). The day I found out that I had ancestors that fought for the Confederacy was an exciting one for a young chud like me who was in high school the time.
i do wonder if the Cajuns had any influence on the South's more positive relations with the French. Also, for that life expectancy part- isnt that misleading? Since 30 seems way too low and this must've been taking into account the child hood mortality rates. Moreover, i wanted to add on the funny history that Louisiana has had with yugoslavs that were also a lot of them who fought for the confederacy as well cant put the precise number but it was somewhere in the hundreds. I also believe some of the confederates after the war were recruited by the Ottomans for a while. There were also some confederates who immigrated to Japan and i believe the Emperor Meiji used a confederate ironclad in his revolution (The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico).
>They must have learned this vice of having sex with Black girls from the Arabs. What is up with Arabs, loving straight up Black girls? Strange stuff
This is probably the funniest topic when it comes to Middle Eastern history , because in this one book (Race and slavery in the middle east) there are conflicting traditions that Muhammad apparently both forbade and permitted marriage to black women. Not only that but theres actually a sort of ancient Uncle Ruckus present in the form of the black poet Nusayb who frequently insulted blacks in his poetry , and due to his wealth his son sought to marry an arab woman but his dad beat the shit out of him and he also even refused to marry off his black daughters to both black (lmao) and Arab men.
Well yes, 30 is not accounting for childhood mortality, but I feel like everyone knows at this point that life expectancy doesn't account for childhood mortality.
>who frequently insulted blacks in his poetry , and due to his wealth his son sought to marry an arab woman but his dad beat the shit out of him and he also even refused to marry off his black daughters to both black (lmao) and Arab men.
By that point it would have been more Methodist, Reformed, and Baptist. But Episcopalians still made up a significant presence among Southern leadership, and they even broke off to form their own Confederate Episcopal Church. One of the most popular Confederate generals of the Civil War (and also one of the most incompetent) was Leonidas Polk, the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana. There were a few Catholics in the Confederacy though, mostly among its Cajun and Hispanic members.
There were a few Irish too. Iirc, the Irish Nationalist figure John Mitchell (was Presbyterian but Irish)had two of his sons fight for the confederacy and was apparently even in favour of reinstating slavery post-war (disliked the norths approach regarding slaves) and supporting secession.
Also, bear in mind the significance of this quote:
"So, they seceded. They did not attack the Union. The Civil War only begins months after the secession, at Fort Sumter. And yes, the South did technically start the Civil War by attacking Fort Sumter, but it was only rational. The Union did not recognize the secessions and was clearly intent on re-integrating them into the Union."
Why did they attack Fort Sumpter? Because that was a federal base by which US ships could intercept maritime shipping coming to and from the second-largest port in the Confederacy. The purpose of that base was to stop Southern commercial vessels and force them to pay Union import-export duties. If you can't enforce maritime security and your citizens pay taxes to a foreign country, then you aren't a real independent country. The South had no choice but to attack Fort Sumpter, because if they just let it be then they would not be doing even the bare minimum that an independent country is supposed to do: protect its citizens and levy taxes.
Lincoln was honestly a genius for setting it up this way, by allowing them to secede but saying that he wouldn't evacuate federal strongholds and would continue to reinforce them. It's a brilliant move: force the secessionists to attack you and you get to enjoy the moral superiority of being the non-aggressor, even though you provoked them to attack in the first place. The Prussians masterminded a similarly brilliant maneuver to kickstart the Franco-Prussian War a few years later.
>The Prussians masterminded a similarly brilliant maneuver to kickstart the Franco-Prussian War a few years later
the more i read about the prussian politics and diplomacy undertaken by Bismarck the more sinister he appears to me, dude had plans for everything, he even predicted ww1
Another key point of American slavery: it was not this "pick all the damn cotton or I'll whip you" despotism that people believe it was. It was a system; it had rules. Some people adhered to the rules more closely than others, but the violators were outliers and were charged as criminals if they mistreated slaves.
Slaves in antebellum America worked on a task-based system. This meant that you were given a certain task to perform as your workload for the day. Hang this tobacco, pick that many rows of cotton, fix the fences, etc. If you completed your task, you were done for the day. If you wanted, however, you could keep working and earn money for working overtime. With that money, you could do whatever you want with it. You could even accumulate enough capital to start a shop or learn a private trade. There were plenty of slaves who got side jobs as blacksmiths or other kinds of craftsmen, and they got to keep the money they made off those businesses. They could eventually even earn enough money to buy their freedom (this process is called manumission), and many did so.
Not all blacks who were freed before the Civil War were freed out of the kindness of ole massa's heart. They were freed because the offer was always on the table and they just needed to work towards it. Those who were intelligent and diligent enough to do so did so, and that's why there's a more favorable view of the antebellum freedmen "talented tenth" of the African-American population. This system was common in Anglo-Germanic colonial societies, and the system employed by the Dutch in the East Indies towards their Malay slaves was very similar. It all kind of goes back to the Germanic bondage "knechtschaft" system of ancient Germanic Europe which Tacitus wrote of. Slavery/bondage/servitude was more of a status of servanthood than outright chattel, although it evolved a little bit more in the chattel direction in America because of economic practices introduced by Latin powers like France, Spain, and Portugal.
Too bad I submitted my American history paper for class already. Could have cited this as a credible source. Hopefully listing void salts will suffice
Excellent post. Learning about what my ancestors did during the civil war was huge for me in terms of figuring out where I and my ancestors fit in to the history of the United States (and England). The day I found out that I had ancestors that fought for the Confederacy was an exciting one for a young chud like me who was in high school the time.
i do wonder if the Cajuns had any influence on the South's more positive relations with the French. Also, for that life expectancy part- isnt that misleading? Since 30 seems way too low and this must've been taking into account the child hood mortality rates. Moreover, i wanted to add on the funny history that Louisiana has had with yugoslavs that were also a lot of them who fought for the confederacy as well cant put the precise number but it was somewhere in the hundreds. I also believe some of the confederates after the war were recruited by the Ottomans for a while. There were also some confederates who immigrated to Japan and i believe the Emperor Meiji used a confederate ironclad in his revolution (The Lost Cause: The Confederate Exodus to Mexico).
>They must have learned this vice of having sex with Black girls from the Arabs. What is up with Arabs, loving straight up Black girls? Strange stuff
This is probably the funniest topic when it comes to Middle Eastern history , because in this one book (Race and slavery in the middle east) there are conflicting traditions that Muhammad apparently both forbade and permitted marriage to black women. Not only that but theres actually a sort of ancient Uncle Ruckus present in the form of the black poet Nusayb who frequently insulted blacks in his poetry , and due to his wealth his son sought to marry an arab woman but his dad beat the shit out of him and he also even refused to marry off his black daughters to both black (lmao) and Arab men.
Well yes, 30 is not accounting for childhood mortality, but I feel like everyone knows at this point that life expectancy doesn't account for childhood mortality.
>who frequently insulted blacks in his poetry , and due to his wealth his son sought to marry an arab woman but his dad beat the shit out of him and he also even refused to marry off his black daughters to both black (lmao) and Arab men.
keeeeeek
Hmm yeah i just looked into it, apparently the belief that if you discount childhood mortality the life expectancy goes up to 60 is false
I think the average discounting childhood is usually in the 50s. A lot of people didn’t even die from disease as adults, but war. War was very deadly
This aligns with my family history - Jacobite Scots who went to NC for the revolution, then to Texas after the Civil War fucked us
Have you read my post on the Corwin Amendment?
No, what post is it
I think it's literally just called "The Corwin Amendment"
Side notes. The south was primarily catholic which resulted in more friendship with the French
The south wasn’t primarily Catholic, it was mostly Anglican I think
By that point it would have been more Methodist, Reformed, and Baptist. But Episcopalians still made up a significant presence among Southern leadership, and they even broke off to form their own Confederate Episcopal Church. One of the most popular Confederate generals of the Civil War (and also one of the most incompetent) was Leonidas Polk, the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana. There were a few Catholics in the Confederacy though, mostly among its Cajun and Hispanic members.
There were a few Irish too. Iirc, the Irish Nationalist figure John Mitchell (was Presbyterian but Irish)had two of his sons fight for the confederacy and was apparently even in favour of reinstating slavery post-war (disliked the norths approach regarding slaves) and supporting secession.
Yeah my kin was Methodist at that time, I believe