Category: History

Categories
History

Immigration of the 1840s and 1850s had Little Effect on the Civil War

19th Century Immigrant Sketch

This lie was perpetrated by omission of information. I was told that immigrants were extremely important to fill soldier ranks during the war. Nothing else was said.

Immigration law in effect in the antebellum and Civil War periods was based on the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Naturalization Act of 1795. The first limited citizenship to “free white persons of good character.” This excluded Native Americans, indentured white servants, Asians, and blacks. The second required renunciation of allegiance to any other monarch or state.

States, not the federal government, could place restrictions on entry through their ports, but these were concerned with whether the immigrant could support himself and how to track him for taxation purposes.

Swedish immigrants came for religious freedom, if they were not Lutheran, and/or for opportunity in general. They came from an homogenous culture that celebrated community spirit and sharing. The rich were expected to share with the less fortunate, but everyone was expected to work, if able. Also, families were responsible for the well-being of their members.

Because Swedes did not differentiate between the culture of their homogenous homeland and the American culture serving a diverse population, Swedes were susceptible to socialism instead of capitalism.

No Swede had seen a black person. However, they were anti-slavery by principle and would make good Union soldiers, often in an ethnic militia in which Swedish was spoken instead of English.

Germans also came in large numbers for opportunity and/or religious reasons. They were found on both sides of the Civil War, depending on which state they lived in. Some even went to Texas. Germans in the south often owned slaves. Like their American neighbors, they considered slaves legal property and fought for the Confederates.

Germans in the north did not have an easy time, though, because the same extremists who were shouting for abolition of slavery and women’s rights had also extended temperance to eradication of alcoholic beverages and stretched hard liquor such as rum and whiskey to include beer. Now, beer was not only part of the German national heritage, it was also part of their religion because they believed that God himself had given them beer for the enjoyment of life. Thus, northern state Germans were ambivalent about serving the Union cause.

Germans formed another group of ethnic militias speaking their own language, but they were on both sides of the Civil War.

Closer to the Civil War, the massive Irish immigration fled the potato famine. They were easy marks to fill recruitment quotas. How amazing to step off the boat and be offered a job with good pay!

They did not come with racial bias, but soon absorbed the northern attitude and became extremely biased against all blacks. (Yes, I have three sources.) Perhaps some of it was because it was nice to feel that someone had lower class standing than the Irish!

A group of extremely dangerous radicals entered the country in the 1850s. Monarchies in Central Europe were fighting to regain control and even to protect their lives. The monarchs won.

The radicals, including Communists, were evicted or sensibly left on their own.  Some of these people came to the United States. Most of them were from Germanic states and took part in the violent uprising of 1848. The Civil War would give them the opportunity for violence.

But the states, concerned exclusively with finances, did not screen for a history of violence. Obviously, they could not reject people based on personal beliefs. So some radicals slipped in.

The radicals identified with the United States in fighting against slavery, which they saw as a freedom issue similar to what they fought for in Europe. Some outright Communists were not only Union soldiers, but officers.

The three best known Communist officers were August Willich of Prussian nobility who became brigadier general over all (German?) Indiana troops; Joseph Wademeyer (close collaborator with Karl Marx and spokesman for Marxism in the U.S.), colonel of the 41st Missouri regiment; and Fritz Anneke, who commanded the Second Wisconsin Battery of Light Artillery.

These men heavily influenced the U.S. army by providing Prussian discipline and by organizing pro-Union militias in heavily German states such as Missouri, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Along the way, they spread the Marxist message. It was often unnoticed because they were speaking German.

When Lincoln was elected the second time, Karl Marx sent him a letter of congratulations and commended him for fighting for the oppressed slaves. It is not known if Lincoln actually read the letter.

 

Categories
History

Southern States Were Poorer Than Northern States before the Civil War

coins stacked

This is another lie that was implied rather than told: the southern states were considerably poorer than northern states with the exception of plantation owners.

This is an extremely skewed statement.

First, “wealth” must be defined in the terms of pre-Civil War years, not by today’s standards. That’s a basic historical rule.

Slaves were legally defined as a kind of property and therefore valuable and easily turned into cash. Both north and south had slaves. The Northwest Territory states were created slave-free and there were several northern states in the process of emancipation with each state determining its own path. Overall, however, there was greater wealth due to slaves in the south, centered in the plantations.

Farming, in general, was more efficient in the south, despite that after initial outlay, farming machinery was more efficient than slaves, because slaves required continued expenditure until dead or sold—unlike factory workers of the north. Machines didn’t. Also, slaves, like horses used in most farming, reproduced and contributed to further wealth.

Manufacturing wealth was decidedly in the north’s favor. There was some manufacturing in the south, but not nearly to the extent of the north. However, the northern manufacturing was often not self-sufficient. The buyers were limited because Europe had its own Industrial Revolution and the southern states were interested but not frequent buyers of manufacturing.

States with more plantations were more self-sufficient. Beside the cash crops of tobacco and cotton, plantations grew their own food and livestock feed. Extra food and feed were sold to local people. This meant that the general public was eating more healthily than in the northern cities, where there were shortages of fresh, healthy foods.

Considering all of this, the average per capita income of the southern states was double that of northern states.

Another source of wealth that I have not seen in the data was the first gold rush. It was in Virginia! Although discovered earlier, commercial extraction of gold began in 1804 at a rate of $500,000 per year! That is not usually figured into the per capita income.

Please recall that before the Civil War, the United States followed the constitution, which included that “state” meant a separate political entity. That’s still the dictionary definition. I looked.

Therefore, all of the gold belonged not to the United States, but to the state of Virginia.

No, the southern states were not poor. They were comparatively wealthy. And avarice bloomed in the northern states. They wanted that wealth!

According to southern historians, that greed was the root cause of the Civil War.

Follow the money!

 

Categories
History

All Famous Abolitionist Speakers Were Northern

abolitionist

Sarah and Angelina Grimke became the first female agents of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1837. They grew up on a South Carolina plantation. Their views were very unwelcome at home, so Sarah, then Angelina moved north.

Although both spoke publically and wrote, it became evident that Angelina was a more effective orator than Sarah, and Sarah was better at writing.

These were also the first prominent public figures to proclaim boldly that the current treatment of women was a form of slavery. They linked women’s rights to black slavery, declaring both must be eradicated.

 

Categories
History

The USA Had Never Supported Secession before the Civil War

 

USA Flag Ripped In Half

Actually, every educated person at the time of the Civil War understood that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution supported secession. Since a union is built on voluntary cooperation for the pursuit of common goals, a member can also leave (secede) from the group if its needs are not being met, if it feels manipulated, if terms of the contract have been broken by the other party, or if the contract no longer serves the needs of the seceding member.

Texas declared the right to secede from Mexico because the contract between them had been broken by Mexico. Independence was declared on March 2, 1836. People in the United States approved. Texas must have felt confused when seceding from the United States during the Civil War for the same reason was harshly denounced!

Oh, well, but that was seceding from Mexico. Did anyone secede from the United States before the Civil War? No, but some New England states threatened to secede in 1803 and 1814.

And then there was secession within a state. During the Civil War, New York City seriously considered seceding from the United States to establish a separate State from New York. It would then declare neutrality and trade with both the USA and CSA!

Also, the United States didn’t object to West Virginia seceding from Virginia during the Civil War because that was to the advantage of the U.S.A. In fact, it was planned by the Lincoln administration.

When I was a child, we said the Pledge of Allegiance daily. Remember the word “indivisible?” Have you ever thought about that?

 

 

Categories
History

The South was Racist, but the North Wasn’t

 

black and white figures on wall

That doesn’t fit the facts.

There are numerous written documents referring to northern states as being much more racist. Here are some examples:

1818-1822: South Carolina Senator Robert Young Hayne described his personal observation of the fate of Southern blacks who fled north: “…there does not exist on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so retched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York and Boston.”

1831: French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “Whosoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the negroes are no longer slaves, they have in no wise drawn nearer to whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States which have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where servitude has never been known.”

1837-1841: English writer James Silk Buckingham toured the United States and Canada, visiting all but two states. He wrote, “the prejudice of colour is not nearly so strong in the South as in the North.”

1841: English Quaker Joseph Sturge wrote, “In the course of conversation, the Governor [of Illinois] spoke of the prejudice against colour prevailing here than in the slave States. I may add, from my own observation, and much concurring testimony, that Philadelphia appears to be the metropolis of this odious prejudice, and that there is probably no city in the known world, where dislike, amounting to hatred of the coloured population, prevails more than in the city of brotherly love!”

Early 1853: Connecticut landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted wrote, “The railroad company advertise to take colored people in second class but servants seem to go with their masters everywhere. Once, to-day, seeing a lady entering the car at a way-station…I offered my seat which had several vacancies round it. She accepted it, without thanking me and immediately installed in it a stout negro woman; took the adjoining seat herself, and seated the rest of her party before her…They all talked and laughed together; the girls munched confectionary out of the same paper, with a familiarity and closeness of intimacy that would have been noticed with astonishment, if not with manifest displeasure, in almost any chance company at the North.”

1862: Massachusetts justice of the peace John S. Rock wrote, “We are colonized in Boston. It is five times as difficult to get a house in a good location in Boston as it is in Philadelphia, and it is ten times more difficult for a colored mechanic to get employment than in Charleston.”

1862: English writer Edward Dicey wrote, “I hardly ever remember seeing a black employed as a shopman, or placed in any post of responsibility. As a rule, the blacks you meet in the Free States are shabbily, if not squalidly  dressed; and, as far as I could learn, the instances of black men having made money by trade in the North, are very few in number.”

There you have opinions stated by black and white, north and south, foreigner and citizen. They all say the same thing: northern states were decidedly more racist than southern ones.

 

 

 

Categories
History

The South Wasn’t Serious about Emancipating Their Slaves

 

Combine: developed from the McCormick Reaper
Combine: developed from the McCormick Reaper

This was a point of view that was represented without data.

Here are the facts:

  1. The South had led early emancipation efforts, especially in Virginia.
  2. The South’s money crops were cotton and tobacco.
  3. Crop rotation was known and practiced at least to a limited extent because plantations were self-sufficient, growing food for people and livestock.
  4. The cotton gin made slaves’s lives easier, and fewer were required.
  5. Now, in 1831, the first practical reaper was invented by Cyrus McCormick, who was born in Virginia. This cut time and slave effort for standing crops, such as wheat.
  6. Few people owned slaves.
  7. The South was markedly less racist than the north, as noted by many travelers, both foreign and domestic, throughout the years.

Against the facts were these issues:

  1. Although the South was less racist, it was difficult for free blacks to make a living. This had to do with paying blacks less for equal work and certain work not being available to blacks—just as in the North. Southerners felt responsible for the slaves and knew that they lacked the understanding of the enormity of the task of complete self-care. They needed to be taught these things and to be allowed to increase self-care gradually—as was being done by Northern states even into the Civil War.
  2. The plantations, where almost all slaves lived, looked rich, but the wealth was not in cash: it was in land, livestock, and slaves. Many struggled with cash flow, even taking severe economies when not extending hospitality (when it didn’t show). The plantations would not continue to exist with simultaneous loss of slave wealth plus wages required for replacing them—even with the former slaves. In that case, everyone was out of a job. Where would they go to make a living?

The answer, of course, was mechanization. But this was a slow evolution.

  1. The planter had to find money to buy a cotton gin—impossible on plantations that were already mortgaged.
  2. The workforce had to be carefully reduced. The slaves knew the hard times of free blacks. Many, especially house slaves, prided themselves on the plantation to which they belonged. So, after eliminating some positions with the cotton gin (unless the owner bought more land), it would be field hands who were sold. The positions could also be eliminated by the natural attrition of deaths.
  3. The reaper would vacate fewer positions because those crops were grown on fewer acres, but there would be some sales.
  4. But the final emancipations would need to be slaves who paid for their own freedom but chose to stay as paid employees.

That was the only way the plantations would survive. The South was willing, but it wanted to do it its own way and in its own timing—just as Northern states were doing.

All the South wanted was the state independence already allowed to the North.

 

 

Categories
History

Compensated Emancipation Was Never Tested in the Americas

pile of currency

Well, not in the United States. And not on continental North America.

In 1833, the British Parliament passed the Abolition of Slavery Act, abolishing slavery in British colonies, such as those on Caribbean islands.

It pleased no one except some hardcore abolitionists.

1. Slave owners complained that the compensation was so low that it was a bad joke. Compensation was especially inadequate to cover mortgaged estates and did not cover the costs of owners as employers of laborers during the adjustment period. This included continued costs for food, clothing, lodging, and medicine.
2. Slaves did not like that they were not immediately emancipated. Slaves more than six years of age were to work as apprentice laborers without pay as a transition to freedom in 1838. They remained tied to estates, although they could buy their freedom even over the opposition of their employer.
3. British subjects were furious that they were responsible for compensation costs of $20 million: 40% of the national budget! The debt would not be paid off until 2015!

No wonder U.S. Southerners were leery of compensated emancipation!
By the way, Britain also began factory inspections in 1833.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

 

Categories
History

Nat Turner’s Revolt Was of Limited Importance

Nat Turner Revolt Illustration

And so it would seem by the short time it was taught in class and the small amount of space describing it in the textbook.

What I Learned

The short version is this: The slave Nat Turner, a preacher and self-proclaimed prophet, observed signs in the sky and said he experienced visions which he interpreted as calling him to eradicate slavery.

From August 21-22 in Southampton County, Virginia, he and his men killed 55 men, women, and children. Turner’s men were killed or detained within a few days. Nineteen were hanged. Twelve had their sentences commuted by the governor because of extenuating circumstances, such as their youth. Turner was captured on October 30 and hanged November 11.

The result of Turner’s actions was psychological terrorism of the local population and, to a lesser extent, to all communities with a significant number of black inhabitants. In response to Turner’s revolt, laws were passed that severely limited Negro rights.

Reviewing the Times

Everyone knew about successful events of rebellion on shipboard and in the Caribbean, one resulting in an African-American nation.

In the early 1830s, southern states were writing laws to protect slaves from misuse.

Blacks could be called as witnesses in some cases, but not to serve on juries.

Plantation owners did not expect “our people” to revolt against, much less murder, their master’s family. They counted on the slaves’ loyalty because of kind treatment. However, whites were keenly aware of how many more blacks there were, especially on plantations.

What Were the Results of Turner’s Revolt?

  1. An immediate backlash of whites killing blacks indiscriminately (about three dozen).
  2. Laws were enacted in southern states to restrict freedom of blacks.
  3. Lincoln would have known of this revolt and its failure. He was twenty-two, starting out on his own, and just dipping his toe into politics. He was born in Kentucky, lived in Indiana which was initially settled by Kentuckians, and later resided in Illinois, which territories were sympathetic to the slave states. Yet, Lincoln employed the same strategy in the Emancipation Proclamation!

Resources Available

I found very few resources, and not all of them were good.

The Confessions of Nat Turner, the Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton, Virginia is a written copy of Turner’s confession to the author, Gray. It is in too much detail to summarize here. Here are some questions I had:

  1. How do I know this confession was voluntary? Nat pleaded not guilty. The booklet contains a note that it is “as fully and voluntarily made to Thomas R. Gray in this prison where he [Turner] is confined, and acknowledge by him to be such when read before the Court of Southampton.” It is sealed by the Clerk of the District as deposited and “is a true copy from the record of the District Court.”
  2. Can I read the booklet for myself, and why didn’t my teacher assign the reading of this primary source? I cannot answer the second question. The booklet can be read at https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/turner/turner.html .
  3. Is there proof that the confession was read to the court? Yes. In a statement by the six justices of the peace presiding as members of the court hearing the case of Nat Turner and verified by their seals on the document, they acknowledge that and also that he said he had no defense against the death sentence besides what he had told Mr. Gray. Furthermore, James Rochelle, Clerk of the County Court, placed his seal on the above document, testifying that these men were, indeed, members of the court trying Turner.
  4. Why did Turner plead not guilty yet also acknowledge his confession in court? Turner replied that he was pleading not guilty “because I did not feel so.”
  5. How much of the confession was edited, perhaps for clarity. In an author’s note, Gray states that he “published them, with little or no variation, from his own words.” This note was also under seal. In that case, Turner is a remarkably good speaker, quite believable from a preacher.
  6. What did Gray think of Turner? Is there a bias? In the same note as above, Gray describes Turner as a “gloomy fanatic” having a “dark, bewildered, and overwrought mind.” Could it be that Turner was mentally ill during the planning and execution of the revolt?

What did the firebrand pacifist Garrison think of the Nat Turner Revolt? According to “The Agitator” article by the National Endowment of the Arts, Garrison wrote,” I do not justify the slaves in their rebellion; yet I do not condemn them, and applaud similar conduct in white men.” https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/januaryfebruary/feature/the-agitator

A History of Racial Injustice includes a short article about Nat Turner. The trial is called “rushed.” I wonder if this source is biased.

  1. Was it? One guarantee of justice is a speedy trial. Secondly, evidence had been gathered about him from all of the trial of his co-conspirators. Thirdly, Turner had confessed in detail and acknowledged the confession in court. Fourth, there were no defense witnesses to call. Fifth, when asked why he confessed and yet pled not guilty, Turner’s answer was because he did not feel guilty. It is possible to have a rapid trial that is just.
  2. “Conditions of enslavement worsened for thousands of enslaved Black people as more cruel, barbaric, and traumatizing forms of control were implemented.” Considering that laws were going on the books in southern states to prevent actual cruelty to slaves, this is a distorted statement.

“Nat Turner’s Rebellion: Horrific or Heroic?” on America’s Black Holocaust Museum is a much better article because of its frequent references. However, the wording is very biased, as well as the refusal to consider more than one option. See what you think: https://www.abhmuseum.org/nat-turners-rebellion-horrific-or-herotic

  1. Turner was literate. Why didn’t he write his own confession? Good question. Maybe he was on suicide preventions and not allowed sharp pens and pencils. Maybe it was because Turner knew he had no connections to publishers. I don’t know. Nobody asked him.
  2. Gray transcribed and published the confession because he was in debt and knew the booklet would sell. So? That does not mean it is not reliable.

“Nat Turner’s Revolt (1831) by Encyclopedia Virginia is a very good overview of the revolt, although much is from Confessions of Nat Turner. In its words, the article is sometimes biased, such as calling Turner a “self-styled” prophet, however it’s overall good. https://encyclopediavirginia.org./entries/turners-revolt-nat-1831

  1. Was there any other reason that Turner revolted? This article suggests an interesting, although unsupported, option. “In February 1831, just days before Turner approached his future conspirators, Reese’s son John W. signed a note the put Turner’s son up as collateral for a debt that he, Reese had struggled to pay.”

So, that’s what we know. What do you think is the truth?

Categories
History

The Liberator Greatly Influenced the Civil War

newspaper freedom headline

Three fourths of the subscribers were black.

But the publisher of The Liberator cast a much greater shadow by also writing pamphlets and speaking at events: extremist abolitionist events. On his last trip to Europe in 1867, William Lloyd Garrison was hailed as “the preeminent agitator of the century.”

What makes an agitator?

Garrison was born in Massachusetts with its history of Puritanical piety and a mother who exemplified it. After some false starts, he found his niche as a “printer’s devil” on a newspaper. He contributed anonymous articles. Seeing his words and views in print was a heady experience.

He also absorbed his master’s philosophy of journalism: Newspapers “ought to be made the vehicle, and a most effective one, too, for disseminating literary, moral, and religious instruction.”

In 1828, Garrison connected with Benjamin Lundy. We talked about him earlier: the man who began more than 100 abolitionist societies, north and south. Garrison envisioned himself as the Lundy of the future.

Although I have not found that Garrison was a Quaker, he did consider himself a pacifist. I leave to you whether you agree with him.

Taking an editorial position at another newspaper, Garrison reworked its look and radicalized its message. He attacked anyone whom he deemed to be on the wrong side of abolition. He ripped apart arguments defending slavery as benevolence. But he most vehemently attacked complacency in the north, whether they espoused gradualism or colonization.

Garrison’s job evaporated after six months when he was jailed for slandering a merchant involved in the domestic slave trade.

The Liberator

This newspaper was first produced in Washington D.C., probably to be closer to the national political scene. However, it did not work out and Garrison returned to New England. There he found “comtempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave owners themselves.”

The Liberator’s first issue, dated January 1, 1831, contained Garrison’s purpose statement. “I determined, at every hazard, to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker Hill and in the birth place of liberty…Let southern oppressors tremble-let their secret abettors tremble-let all the enemies of the persecuted blacks tremble…I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest-I will not equivocate-I will not excuse-I will not retreat a single inch-AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

Effective Speaker

On July 4, 1854 at the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society’s Independence Day picnic, Garrison set fire to a copy of the Constitution. He called it “a covenant with death…and an agreement with hell.”

At this point, he believed in immediate, absolute, and unpaid emancipation, the secession of the North on moral grounds, and violent uprisings in the South.

Results

  1. We get an interesting look at black life in Boston.
  2. The public was challenged to think through its views.
  3. Readers were inspired to action personally and through abolition societies.
  4. The paper became the voice of radical abolitionism.
  5. Blacks were encouraged to submit articles, letters to the editor, and other works. These were enthusiastically printed in the paper.
  6. Using the tradition of newspaper exchange, by which editors sent complimentary copies of their latest numbers to each other, Garrison reprinted articles he liked, giving them more exposure especially to Black Americans. He reprinted articles he disagreed with, adding ferocious comments and arguments.
  7. We have Garrison’s comments on the news of the day from a radical abolitionist view.
  8. Locally, The Liberator assisted the Underground Railroad by reporting on fugitive slave cases and assistance organizations. The building also housed donations, clothing, information, referrals to job opportunities, and sometimes fugitive slaves.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-liberator.htm
https://www.theliberatorfiles.com/garrison-preeminent-agitator-of-the-century
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/january/february/feature/the-agitator

 

Categories
History

Darwin Had Nothing to Do with the Civil War

evolution illustration

Darwin sailed on the Beagle in 1831. He subsequently would organize his findings into the Evolutionary Theory in 1838. Publication of The Origin of Species in 1858 was immediately sold out, indicating that there was enormous interest and discussion around it. Plus, it was condemned by the Christian church, both Protestant and Catholic.

The vaunted (and overstated) closeness between man and ape in Darwin’s theory was immediately used to “prove” the “scientific basis” for slavery.

It was argued that because everything—including humans—continued to evolve, it was logical that the three races (oriental, occidental, and negroid) occupied different points on the evolutionary journey.

It was further argued that by simple observation, it was obvious that the order of evolution was occidental (white) as the most evolved, then the oriental race. The negroid race was clearly the least developed and in need of direction and supervision until it was ready to “join the human race.”

Realize that this was the belief of the great majority of Americans, north and south. The blacks were not yet quite human. They were closer to apes than to white people.

Thus, science was added to the Bible, whose note that “Ham shall serve his brothers” was interpreted as a command instead of a statement of fact, to build a case for slavery of the black population.