North-South battle and White-Black battle?

Discussion in 'The Lounge Bar' started by Lindele, Jun 20, 2020.

  1. Lindele

    Lindele formerly HA96

    Reading a German Newspaper article of the American civil war ending 155 years ago today left me stunned and puzzled.


    US folks, please explain to a humble German. :reallymad:


    The author was quoting a man from the beaten South. “ I am having the invaluable privilege to hate! I get up in the morning at 4:30, I am awake until 12 at night, to hate them. “Them” are the Yankees. And this hate has no expiry date.

    Stefan.
     
  2. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    The American Civil War is an enormous and complex subject which I think must be difficult for a European to grasp. The war grew out of ferocious political hatreds which had been growing for a good 30 years before the figthing broke out and this was reflected in the war itself. Slavery was the root cause of the struggle, but it also drew in other contentious questions such as the balance of power in Congress, the balance of economic power between the regions, the balance of power between the states and the Federal government, and the rights of both political and racial minorities. Moreover, the war was fought during a time when Evangelical Protestantism was still the majority faith in America; both sides were convinced that they had God on their side, and as we know in today's world religious zeal can give an extra ugly edge to war. There was considerable respect between the two combatant armies and some chivalry especially between the officers on both sides, but the fighting itself was ghastly. Read about Spotsylvania, where the two armies stood only a few yards apart and shot at each other continuously for 24 hours; bodies were literally shot to small pieces. The field armies generally behaved correctly towards one another, but the Union Army especially looted and destroyed wherever it went in the South and the badly disciplined Confederate cavalry became a plague on their own people, often stealing horses and anything else they could get from the people they were supposed to be protecting. The guerilla war behind both Union and Confederate lines was as vicious, hateful, and unforgiving as that on the Eastern Front in WWII or in the Middle East today. Both sides in this guerilla war shot prisoners, burned whole towns, and so on. The murderous James Brothers, Jesse and Frank, learned how to kill and steal as Confederate guerillas in their native Missouri. The "North" and the "South," by the way, were not clearly defined; between them lay a wide border belt of divided loyalties running all the way from Delaware to Missouri, and here it was often literally neighbor against neighbor and even brother against brother and father against son. Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were both born in Kentucky; two men of the Kentucky Buford family became Union generals, while a third Buford was a Confederate general. Perhaps worst of all, the war left a lot of unresolved emotion and unfinished business behind it. Slavery was destroyed, but as our news shows the racial problem has still not been entirely solved. For decades after the war, northern politicians could win elections by harking back to wartime feelings and reminding audiences of how the Confederates had treated Union prisoners or war. In the South, the bitter memories were far deeper and far longer lasting. The region was economically devastated by the war and remained economically depressed until World War II. It felt itself, if anything, even more cut off from the national life than it had been before. The South was pervaded by feelings of resentment, self-pity, and false nostalgia for an imagined past. Southern racism became even more firmly entrenched than it had been before the Civil War, a situation to which our Supreme Court gave an unfortunate blessing in the Plessy v. Ferguson case. I won't go into our current politics since this is not a political forum, but all you have to do is look at our news on TV to see that the Civil War left many unhealed wounds.
     
    Buteman, JDKR and Lindele like this.
  3. Lindele

    Lindele formerly HA96

    TTH,
    thanks for this summary.
    You are mentioning the fighting of Spotsylvania, which sems to have been similar to some the fighting in WW1. And the unfinished business. And that both parties believed to have god on their side, like in the Middle East today.
    Do you think it could have been possible to split up America in two countries, like Europe was split up in East and West after WW2?
    But may be we should not discuss this in this Forum.
    Stefan.
     
    TTH likes this.
  4. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    The war was fought because the South was trying to split off and form its own country (because they were afraid slavery was threatened), and the Union position (consider the name) was that the US was one country.

    I don't see any separation having been possible short of a Confederate victory.
     
    Lindele likes this.
  5. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    Chris is correct, Stefan, the South was trying to secede (leave the Union) and become an independent nation. The Union position (best expressed, like much else, by Lincoln) was that this was not permissible. I don't have time or space to go into all aspects of that, but think of Spain and Catalonia.

    I think if we are going to discuss the Civil War (which I don't mind doing) we must be very careful to keep it within its proper historical context. That is very difficult to do, especially if you are an American, because so many of the problems which caused the war are still very much alive today. Historical interpretations of the war in American historiography have varied over time at least partly in accordance with the political trends of the moment. Right now, the interpretation of the war is being more fiercely debated than at any time since I can remember. In the last 50 years responsible historians in this country have arrived at what I regard as an accurate interpretation, but that is being argued against now mainly for political reasons. At the current time there is very little room for nuance in the popular view of the war.

    If you are seriously interested in this subject then the best thing I could do is recommend some authors and books to you. For general history and the causes and underlying trends, read anything by Allan Nevins and James McPherson. Bruce Catton's series is more popular but generally sound. On slavery and race, read Kenneth Stampp and Eugene D. Genovese. Shelby Foote's multivolume series is wonderfully written but like Catton obsolete in places; it is mainly a military story, Foote skimps on the politics and on slavery. The military literature is enormous, with multiple major books about just about every battle. Many of these are excellent.
     
    Lindele and Chris C like this.
  6. idler

    idler GeneralList

    But what motivated the 'ordinary' Southerners to fight? I doubt most of them owned slaves. Did they just do what their betters told them, did they feel threatened by the prospect of freed slaves, or what? Was it all really about slavery?

    Not trying to shit stir - I am genuinely ignorant - but I realise now might not be the best time to go into it. I'm just aware that there is a tendency to rewrite WW2 as an ideological exercise in anti-Nazism or anti-fascism when it was really just the Germans needing to be put back in their box again.
     
    Lindele likes this.
  7. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I will do my best to stay within the historical context.

    Yes, at bottom it really was all about slavery. Some ordinary Southerners had mixed feelings about slavery. Some even of the highest class had moral and ethical doubts, though they were usually very careful to keep these hidden. (See Mary Chesnut's diary.) Many of the poor white class hated the institution because they saw it as the foundation of the power of the planter class which held them down. Southern highlanders in the Appalachians and Ozarks tended to feel that way, because the planter/slaveholder-dominated state governments in the lowlands had consistently discriminated against the mountain counties in every possible way. That's one reason, by the way, why the labels North and South are a little bit misleading. West Virginia, which was certainly Southern, broke away from its parent Virginia and became a new Union state; East Tennesseee would have done the same if it had been able to. The border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were divided but the Unionists had the majority.

    However, there is no doubt that the overall majority of white Southerners of all classes supported slavery. Firstly, it was the foundation of the region's prosperity. Slavery had attractions to the white poor as well. Even for a man who farmed instead of planting tobacco or cotton, the purchase or rent of even one or two slaves might make the difference between poverty and success. A slave was to the Southern farmer what a piece of farm machinery like a McCormick reaper was to the Northern farmer. Unlike reapers, too, slaves could be bred and sold for profit. Southern society was not static; many poor men rose to wealth in just the way I have described. Jefferson Davis' own family, like Lincoln's, started off fairly low on the social scale. Slavery brought not only prosperity but social advancement, too. Many poor Southerners longed for the day when they, too, could have slaves and be regarded as gentlemen and would no longer have to "work like a nigger" as the saying was. Racial hatred and fear of what Black freedom might mean cannot be underestimated. This factor cut right across all classes and united nearly all whites. Even the most bitter poor whites hated and feared the Black man more than they did the planters. (Andrew Johnson is an example of this.) Some whites disliked slavery in their hearts but tolerated it and defended it as the best way of keeping the Black man down. (Robert E. Lee seems to have felt so.) Finally, one cannot omit regional feeling. In their isolated rural society white Southerners developed strong attachments to their states and neighborhoods, their patria chica, and when the Federals marched in they fought back as people tend to do when they are invaded. The South was already highly insular, turned in upon itself as a result of its peculiar institution. Nobody likes to have their own society or attitudes attacked by outsiders, and Southerners of all classes reacted fiercely to what they regarded as the ignorant criticisms of outsiders. (That feeling is still strong in the region today.) The region had been growing further and further away from the rest of the country for decades; by 1860 slavery could no longer be discussed openly in the South. It was considered a settled question. The churches and the press there did not debate it. A man who was even suspected of questioning the regional orthodoxy might be run out of town or physically assaulted. Except to some degree in the mountains anti-slavery feeling could not grow in the South because it could not even be expressed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2020
    Cpl Hadaway and Lindele like this.
  8. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    I am an American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

    I'll not disagree with TTH comments and any that I add are to add to or further explain.

    I truly do not like being called a "Yank" or "Yankee" by foreigners. For me it would be like confusing Welshmen and Scots. For us, Yankees are inhabitants of the New England states and we differ in noticeable and not so noticeable ways.

    You have to remember, the South is the only region of the country to be occupied by an opposing army. Lincoln's intent was to welcome the South back, not unlike the prodigal son was in the Bible. It was not to be after his assassination and I feel that helped to further the hate or anger, not unlike the Versailles and other post-war treaties did following WWI did with Germany. Twenty-five years after "Reconstruction" ended, the Southern people fully and unequivocally supported their nation in the Spanish-American War with their blood.

    Possible? Yes, very much so. It would not have been a good thing and I feel would have led to more warfare years on.

    Look at the name of our country. It is the United STATES of America. We are a rather large nation made up of autonomous states. I see myself as an Alabamian and other citizens see themselves as citizens of other states, as well as "Americans." This distinction was even more pronounced in the mid-1800s.
    The federal government has authority in some areas, but not in others. Laws differ from state to state and public records (marriages, drivers licences, etc) are maintained by states. One of the branches of the military, the National Guard, is under the local governors until inducted into federal service.
    Many, if not all combatants, fought for their state, which they saw as the more important cause. Example, Robert E. Lee did not resign his commission until after Virginia seceded from the Union, and this was common among many other officers and congressmen.
    I am sure there are other reasons the men individually chose to fight and I am not dismissing the chattel slavery concern at all. the Peculiar Institution figured heavily in decisions, individually, locally and at the state level.

    On an aside, I read an article several years ago that postulated that the American Civil War (Misnamed by the North, as it was not a "civil" war, but rather a war of secession-the Confederacy was not trying to overthrow the US government) was actually the last Anglo-Scottish war, in the the North was heavily dominated by English descendants at the time and the South, was Scots.
     
    Lindele likes this.
  9. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Thanks for the views. I'm still a bit unsure of the 'all about slavery' line as it has a very modern ring to it - the case against the Grey comes across as a bit too black and white.
     
  10. Charley Fortnum

    Charley Fortnum Dreaming of Red Eagles

    Slipdigit & TTH

    Thank you both for the thoughtful posts.

    I've learnt a lot from a relatively small number of words.

    Serious question: was there any kind of black exodus from the South once slavery was abolished? (Perhaps not economically possible).

    Inconsequential aside: I wouldn't knowingly call an American from the South a Yank (in fact, I don't call any Americans 'Yanks'), but is there anything like an acceptable current term?
     
  11. Lindele

    Lindele formerly HA96

    TTH &slipdigit,

    just read about a horror story: The Massaker of Tulsa"
    How does that fit into this thread?

    Stefan.
     
  12. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Thanks Charlie. I love my country and we are a rather large country with differing ideas and customs.

    There wasn't much of an exodus following the war, but there was in the 1920s and 1930s, mainly to the Midwest by those seeking employment outside agriculture, with cities like Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland receiving large numbers of internal migrants. I don't blame them actually. There was not a lot of opportunity then.
     
  13. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    I don't know if it specifically does or doesn't. It happened a hundred years ago anyone associated with it in any capacity is dead. I suspect very few people outside of academia or direct descendants know anything about it. It was one of several terrible instances like that during that time period.

    Sadly, Chicago alone can have as many murdered in a weekend now as were killed in Tulsa then, with 99% of those being black on black killings. Nothing much is said about it.

    All should go to the Department of Justice website and actually look at the crime statistics to see who is actually killing who. It ain't what the news organizations want you to believe.
     
    Lindele likes this.
  14. Lindele

    Lindele formerly HA96


    Thanks. not only a long time ago, and although I have always been keen on history, both Europe and the rest of the world, I do not recall this Tulsa story.
    Stefan.
     
  15. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    There was a long period when the massacre went generally unmentioned. Tulsa race massacre - Wikipedia
     
  16. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    Jacob Riis was a journalist in New York City, active from the 1870s up to 1900. He became a leading reformer and political Progressive, and was much respected by the young Theodore Roosevelt. According to Riis, who was in a position to know, New York City's Black population increased substantially after the Civil War as a result of movement from the cities of the former Confederacy. Between the 1900s and WWI, the formerly white New York neighborhood of Harlem developed into the biggest Black neighborhood in the country. The South Side of Chicago was already a heavily Black neighborhood by WWI, and the attractions of jobs in wartime industry drew still more Blacks to Harlem, the South Side, and other northern neighborhoods between 1917 and 1919. In Black history, this Great War shift from the rural South to the urban North is often referred to as the first Great Migration. So, though some significant Black movement from South to North occurred in the post Civil War period of 1865-1910, the greater influx came from WWI on.
     
    Lindele, Charley Fortnum and Chris C like this.
  17. Lindele

    Lindele formerly HA96

    What about Europe, especially UK and France?
    At the end of WW2, The French forces had black soldiers included, what about the British?
    Stefan.
     
    TTH likes this.
  18. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    Britain employed large numbers of Black troops throughout the conflict. The UK had only a relatively small number of Black residents at that time, Black here being defined as West Indian and African. Some Blacks resident in the UK did, I believe, serve in the British forces but I am not well informed about that subject. Units from the West Indies garrisoned their home islands and also served as service and labor troops in the Middle East and elsewhere. The main Black African contingents were the King's African Rifles (KAR) from eastern Africa and the West African Frontier Force (WAFF) from western Africa. Other units were raised in Somaliland, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia, etc. Combat units of the KAR formed a large part of the British forces which conquered Ethiopia and Eritrea from the Italians. Three divisions of African troops from the KAR and the WAFF fought the Japanese in Burma in 1944-45, the 11th East African (KAR) and 81st and 82nd West African (WAFF). The South African army took in large numbers of Black Africans (Bantu), though they were largely confined to non-combat roles.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
    Sheldrake and Lindele like this.
  19. Lindele

    Lindele formerly HA96

    Thanks.

    Maori officers from New Zealand/ South Sea were in our local OFLAG in 1941. Now, they are not black, but sort of dark brown.
    Excellent singers like the Welsh I was let to believe.
    Stefan.
     
  20. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    It is quite complicated.

    There was no colour bar in the UK in the Second World War. Black and Asian men and women were British subjects and could join the services. There is a Trooper Suzuki buried in Banneville CWC, the son of a Japanese sailor. I am not sure what proportion became officers. One of George Formby's characters was Mr Wu The famous Laundrayman - Mr Wu's an air raid warden now.


    BUT The British Empire ruled over 300 million people, most of whom were non white subjects in colonies run on segregated lines under British administration.

    The British raised substantial numbers of colonial troops in India and Africa. There would be a core of Kings Commissioned Officers Brits or Indians who attended Sandhurst or the Indian equivalent were Kings Commissioned Officers - Like Iskander Mizra Iskander Mirza - Wikipedia These men had the rights and privileges of any other officer holding the King's commission. Other officers were Viceroy Commissioned officers, they were "Native officers" West And East Africa provided fighting troops for Burma. One formation was part of the Chindit force behind Japanese lines.

    Around 15,000 men and women from the Caribbean travelled to the UK to help the war effort. Many served in the RAF, including as commissioned and non commissioned aircrew, such as Flight Lieutenant Dudley Thompson future PM of Jamaica Dudley Thompson - Wikipedia When asked if he was of pure European descent he lied, and ended up at Cranwell. Thompson joined up after reading extracts from Mein Kampf in a magazine in a dentists waiting room.

    There were also white administered run dominions as well as Imperial Colonies. (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, which had a mix of races, with different rules and attitudes) Aborigines were not allowed (Officially) to serve in the Australian Army. Maoris served in the New Zealand Expeditionary force - but in a segregated battalion, with a very good reputation. First Nation Canadians could and did serve in the Canadian forces. The Union of South Africa had a large number of black troops in support roles - but did not allow them to carry arms. Other independent counties such as Botswana provided armed contingents. These manned AA guns and served as porters in Italy.

    One ethnic minority whose contribution is often overlooked is that of the Irish. Besides the tens of thousands who served in the forces, Irish labour delivered major civil engineering projects such as the airfield construction programme and Mulberry harbour. There is even a song about it.

    "Twas the year of thirty-nine
    and the skies were full of lead
    Hitler was heading for Poland
    And Paddy for Holyhead.
     
    TTH likes this.

Share This Page