Calypso's World of Blue Waters and Golden Retrievers, literature, poetry, engineering, the arts, politics, music and more

Civil War Notes:

(Personal reference material and opinions on the Civil War)

Much of this material is of my own opinion and writing.  Much is taken from various sources which include books, essays, and online resources.  Of key importance was the website of Ed "Crawfish" Sebesta, a source of incredible value to people researching Neo-Confederacy and Lost Cause Mythology.

I have compiled these notes in an attempt to chronicle and record them for easy access for future reference as it relates to my discussions and study of the Civil War.  These notes are intended for my personal usage and edification only.

Summation of my position:

In the attempt to mourn the loss of a culture and remember fondly, and without shame, the death of that culture (which was either largely mythical to begin with or based on white supremacy and bondage for profit), most contemporary Southerners refuse to admit the fact that the cause of the C.S.A. was wrong.  It was morally wrong and practically wrong.  It was a disaster for themselves and the nation that the Southern States themselves caused.  Instead, they defiantly stick to very thin or even fabricated illusions or beliefs that have far more to do with justification and rationalization and even self-denial than fact.

Back to top:

Why I hate the Confederate Flag

Reason #1:  The CSA flag flew at the head of armies who sought the dissolution of the greatest nation in the history of civilization, namely, the United States of America.

Reason #2:  The CSA flag flew at the head of armies which denied freedom to millions as a matter of policy and in the name of greed and white supremacy.

Back to top:

The Double Standard: 

North=Scum  |  South=Saint

Lee=The Second Coming  |   Grant=Drunk/Butcher/Moron/etc, et al

Forrest=Military Genius  |  Sherman=The Anti-Christ

Bloody Bill Anderson=Provoked/Misunderstood  |  Sherman=War Criminal

Elmira Prison=Yankee Evil  |  Andersonville Prison=Propaganda

Fire-Eaters=Patriots  |  Abolitionists=Agitators

Slavery=Benevolent & Civilizing  |   Free Labor=Slavery

etc, etc, etc...

Back to top:

The Lost Cause:  

Essential facts to remember whenever discussing the Lost Cause Myth with a Neoconfederate:

It is absolutely essential that the chief deities of the Lost Cause pantheon be beyond reproach. 

It is futile to attempt logic in the face of hard-core Neo-Confeds, Southern apologists and "Lost Cause" mythology worshipers.  Only on rare occasion, you can persuade people to divorce themselves from their emotional commitment to an issue and employ logic and vision.

Back to top:

On the Neo-Confed retorts citing Northern Mythology:

There is no Northern Mythology...there was no need to create one...only the vanquished survivors of the Southern cause needed justification for the totality of their destruction.

Back to top:

RE-ENACTING

My problem with re-enacting, in general, is it - much like the rest of the CW community - focuses exclusively on the glorification of military aspects.  This, as both a deliberate desire, and inadvertent consequence, forces Slavery and other aspects (of equal or greater importance) into non-existence.  Then whenever someone tries to correct this oversight, they are crucified for “ruining the fun” or being “PC”.

Back to top:

The Confederacy was never a “Country”: 

The Confederacy cannot be considered to have ever been a legitimate "nation" by any of the objective criteria for nationhood.  

It was never recognized diplomatically by any foreign power. 

Its “borders” shrunk almost continuously throughout its entire short existence. 

It had numerous areas of internal military resistance and other areas of political resistance to Confederate authority. 

It existed for only 4 years and all four years where years contested by continuous battle, internal political bickering, internal civilian opposition, threats of further secession from existing member states, and external political opposition.

Back to top:

Secession/Cause of the War: 

“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union" so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.” – Robert E. Lee, January 21, 1861

In the final analysis, from the 1820's on the southern states would continuously cry and try and walk away with a ball that was not theirs because they could not stomach the democratic process if it did not go their way. 

When the Northern states elected Abraham Lincoln over three other pro-slavery or neutral candidates, the Southerners freaked out and started seceding. They began seceding before Lincoln ever took office or had a chance to do anything at all as President. South Carolina seceded on December 20th -- more than three months before Lincoln would be sworn in. The Southern states seceded for only one reason: they expected that Lincoln would move to abolish slavery -- period. 

Back to top:

States Rights: 

Southern states were not necessarily, as retrospectively reported, champions of States rights.  When the federal government worked in Southern interests, for example in enforcing the fugitive slave act, or imposing a tariff on imported sugar, Southern leaders thought that Federal power was just peachy keen.  On the other hand, these "champions" of "rights" had absolutely no problem whatsoever with restricting or subduing freedom of speech, or the press, or anything else when it threatened to expose their true goals and beliefs or dare to offer an opposing viewpoint.

Back to top:

Black Confederates: 

Almost all historians who have any reputation at all, including Neo-Confederate ones such as Ludwell Johnson of the Museum of the Confederacy, regard the whole "black Confederate soldier" thing as bogus. (Ed Sebesta)

The black Confederate fad. "It's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors," says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. "If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.

FOR MORE ON THIS - SEE MY NOTES OF BLACK CONFEDERATES

Back to top:

Neo-Confederacy and Nazism 

I don't compare Nazis to Confederates. I compare historical remembrance of Confederates and the CSA with historical remembrance of Nazis and the Third Reich, which is a different thing.  Do you think the German people would ever place a statue of Rommel in Berlin?  Even if he was not a "Nazi"?

Back to top:

Slavery/Southern Guilt/Defensiveness: 

Colonel J. S. Mosby,  whose Confederate combat credentials are unchallenged, said years afterward that there was no doubt that slavery was the cause of the war. - "The South had always been solid for slavery and when the quarrel about it resulted in a conflict of arms, those who had approved the policy of disunion took the pro-slavery side. It was perfectly logical to fight for slavery, if it was right to own slaves. Enforcing the laws was not coercing a State unless the State resisted the execution of the laws. When such a collision came, coercion depended on which was the stronger side."

The north, as a whole, may not have been some holy bastion of racial equality...but there was a vast difference in the view of the fellow man...many people may not have viewed blacks as equals (though many others indeed did), but neither did they agree with enslaving human beings for profit.

Many people, who had no particular love of Jews, performed great feats of justice and courage in the face of the brutality they faced in the Holocaust...there comes a point when the garden variety bigot reaches his tolerance level for human suffering...the South’s tolerance level was unfortunately rather high...and in any case, higher than the North’s.

Prejudices, whether racial or other, are everywhere - finding someone as bad as you doesn't make you any better.  Also, racism may be in two communities equally, but there is a colossal difference between whether it is condemned as a vice or praised as a virtue by the leaders of that community.  Thirdly, the issue here is that Lee, the modern, "Neo-Confed PC" face of Confederate apologists, was no friend to the Slave, no matter who else you feel was not either. (Much of the above is either adapted from or taken directly from From Ed Sebesta's site at http://www.templeofdemocracy.com). 

You are implying that the task at hand is to find who is to be blamed the most. Who was the worst. Not particularly a worth while activity.  That is not the issue. The issue is what values we want here to hold up for emulation in the future. Treason and fighting to uphold slavery are not good public values. The question is how we build the future, not who we want to make feel guilty today. The answer to guilt is that no one can be held accountable for the actions of the dead. If you are feeling guilty, stop! It doesn't do you or anyone any good. An analogy to this is that we can dislike the Armenian genocide of the Turks, without being any less horrified by the Nazi holocaust. In either case, it is not about hating the Turks or Germans, but holocaust itself. No one is saying that moral horror of Nazism is a hatred of Germans. (Ed Sebesta).

It was very convenient for leaders on both sides to spout the party line of "we were all noble gentlemen in the Late War, just tragically upholding opposing, but equally worthy, causes." And you had a whole pack of people writing memoirs warping history completely to support this notion. Today we call it the Lost Cause Theory. It allowed both sides to go back to doing what they liked best, making money and exercising power, while conveniently screwing the black population out of any real gains.  (Ed Sebesta).

Back to top:

Lee was against slavery?

I am always hearing how Lee freed his slaves. He did free some, true. What is always conveniently omitted however is that the slaves he freed, were to be freed under the terms of the Custis will in which Lee inherited them. They were to be freed in five years after Custis death. Custis died in 1857, Lee freed them in Dec. 29, 1862, about five years later. To not have done so would have been a violation of Virginia law and Custis' will. If Lee really didn't like slavery, why did he not free them immediately or sooner in any case.  Why did he wait until almost the last minute to do so?  Why did he allow captured blacks (whether former slaves or Free men) to be retuned to slavery time and time again? 

In a letter written by Robert E. Lee to his wife on Dec. 27, 1856 is as follows:  

“The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, …"  Does this sound like a man who was against slavery? A man who thought it was evil or wrong?  

Mr. Wesely Norris would most certainly disagree that Lee was "kind and benevolant" to his slaves  – owing to his eyewitness account of Lee’s order to his slavemaster to “lay it on well” when beating one of Lee’s Slaves for attempting escape (why in the world a slave wish to escape the benevolent Lee is beyond me).  After the beating, according to Mr. Norris, Lee ordered their backs to be washed with brine (salt water).  That must have felt pleasant.  

Accounts of Lee’s treatment of his Slaves:  http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/LeeWhipping.htm

Back to top:

Bloody Bill Anderson: 

You know what I just love...selective outrage...Grant is painted as a butcher and Sherman is the Anti-Christ, but poor ole Bill...well...he was misunderstood ya see…he really had no choice... 

Further reference on good ole Bill - http://www.civilwarhistory.com/quantrill/anderson.htm

What a guy...

Back to top:

LEE Mythology – Why he left the Union and the Untenable Argument...

The Lee Mythology states that Lee was racked with pain and agony over his decision to resign from the United States army.  That he debated the issue like the ghost of Jean Valjean himself in the tortured hours before he left.  That he “could never have drawn sword except in defense of Virginia” and never against it. 

This, therefore, has become the excepted de-facto position of all Lee worshipers.  

Fair enough.  If, however, it is true, then by default, he had no true love or loyalty to the Confederacy – it was merely a coincidence of association – that association being his beloved “Old Dominion” and the CSA.  If VA stayed loyal, we must assume, by Lee’s very own words as well as those of his disciples, that he too would have remained loyal.

Back to top:

LEE Broke his Oath

Here is the oath of allegiance that *all* army recruits and officers took before they received their papers, or, in the case of officers, their commissions. This oath was required from 1814 onwards, according to the United States Official Army handbook. It is still used though some of the words have changed and they have added a sentence as well. Here is the oath which Grant, Lee and all other army members took. After reading it, you can all determine whether Robert E. Lee broke his oath of allegiance. 

"I hereby declare, on oath, 

that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; 

that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; 

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 

that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; 

that I will perform military service in the United States Army; 

that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God; 

I do solemnly affirm that as a member of the United States Army, I will to the preserve, protect and defend the national interests of the United States, so help me God."

Back to top:

On Sherman The General:  

No other general in the war gained so many strategic victories with so little loss of life. Nor did any other general's actions do more to hasten the end of the war.  Simply but, Sherman saved U.S. and Southern lives and the Union itself through his brilliant and critically timed maneuvers in late 64 to early 65.

Back to top:

Why I still like William Tecumseh Sherman despite his dubious record with Blacks and Indians. 

Rather than defend him on indefensible aspects of his character (as is done consistently with Forrest and Lee and Anderson, etc.) I illustrate two things. 

1) That people can admit when they made a mistake about someone.

2) That I will never be a Sherman apologist and that others should stop being apologists for Lee, Forrest, et al as well.

The third and main reason - militarily, he was a genius and (IMO) was the best thing that ever happened to the south.  He saved lives (and the Union) and hastened the end of the war through brilliance and critical timing during the 64/65 campaigns.

Back to top:

SPOONS BUTLER IN NEW ORLEANS 

Sarah Morgan ("A Confederate Girl's Diary") thought the Yankees were exceptionally well behaved in New Orleans and that the women behaved badly. See her diary.

Back to top:

The Border States:

The border states of Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, while providing soldiers to both armies, were kept under Federal control. 

June 1861-- Four Slave States Stay in the Union. Despite their acceptance of slavery, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not join the Confederacy. Although divided in their loyalties, a combination of political maneuvering and Union military pressure kept these states from seceding.

Back to top:

General: 

The Civil War was tragic...its not noble...its not romantic...it is not to be celebrated...its to be cursed and remembered as something which could have been avoided and never should have happened...no glorification...no flowery rhetoric about "ghosts" and valiant this or that...it should be exposed...not hidden...  

Back to top:

Antietam:

September 1862 -- Antietam.

The battle had no clear winner, but because General Lee withdrew to Virginia, McClellan was considered the victor. The battle convinced the British and French -- who were contemplating official recognition of the Confederacy -- to  reserve action, and gave Lincoln the opportunity to announce his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation (September 22), which would free all slaves in areas rebelling against the United States, effective January 1,1863.

Back to top:

home | about | blue waters | golden retrievers | writings | the arts | pictures
politics | philosophy | engineering | souls | links | search | guestbook | contact

diverdown.gif (1119 bytes)

 Dark Horse Website Design

Promoted by Submit Away Website Promotion

Phoenix Force, Inc. - Dark Horse Website Design - Zolt.Net Website Hosting Services - Submit Away