Category: History

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.

Categories
History

Jim Crow Was Created by the Ku Klux Klan

illustration: person and birds on bench

Sorry. No. Jim Crow was not even created by a southerner.

The original Jim Crow character was a trickster like Loki in Norse mythology. Jim Crow was invented by the black culture and had been around for decades before the character was kidnapped and changed by the Father of American Minstrelsy, Thomas “Daddy” Dartmouth Rice. The song “Jump Jim Crow” was also of African-American origin.

Rice said that he was inspired by a crippled black stable groom who sang and danced while he worked. Blackface minstrelsy was already popular. Rice created a caricature of African- Americans as being lazy, shiftless, watermelon stealing, impudent, uneducated, and stupid.

Jim Crow became Rice’s signature act by 1832. It made him rich and famous. This is decades before the Ku Klux Klan. Rice was from New York, so the Jim Crow stereotype was not originated by a southerner.

Minstrelsy was low (cheap quality) comedy for the masses. Using blackface was common, as were stereotypes of all kinds of people. In that sense, Jim Crow was not unusual.

Here’s why Jim Crow mattered: Many people in the north had never met a black person. The Jim Crow character was all the information they had, so the stereotype was believed to be truth by many northerners. Also, the name Jim Crow was applied to post-Reconstruction laws and programs promoting oppression of African-Americans, but which had no actual connection to the character of Jim Crow.

Categories
History

Mormonism Had Nothing to do with the Civil War

In March 1830, the Book of Mormon was published in Palmyra, New York. In April, the Church of Latter Day Saints was organized. Are you surprised that Mormonism began in New England?

To begin in New England was to receive maximum attention immediately. It was well covered in newspapers and church property.

For the newspapers, it was juicy because of its command to practice polygamy and the equally juicy blazing condemnation of heresy from every denomination. Ecumenism at last! At least on this topic. And that meant a huge increase in the number of newspaper copies sold.

But what does Mormonism have to do with the Civil War? The connection is indirect.

Throughout the flood of articles and books covering Mormonism and specifically polygamy (including a 1000 page tome in my personal library!) is the correlation drawn between polygamy and slavery, in that people simply could not understand how any red-blooded American girl would participate in polygamy without being forced into it by the men.

The next step was when early women’s rights advocates loudly proclaimed that polygamy was not unique. It was only one way that women in America were enslaved to the men in their lives under an unjust system of laws which were created, voted on, and enforced by men.

And with the repeated word of “slavery” as related to women, the connection to Negro slavery was unavoidable. Activists of all stripes: social, political, and journalistic congealed around the expanded use of the word slavery.

Categories
History

The Civil War Began at Fort Sumter

Trade: Deal / War

This is one of many lies by omission. True historians admit that there are many candidates for the title, depending on what is meant by “began the Civil War.”

Here are the biggest three: Northerners often blamed it on the secession of South Carolina, arguing that without the secession, the re-supply of Fort Sumter would not have been an issue.

The Lincoln Administration pushed the CSA firing on Fort Sumter as the beginning of the war.

But the South has a longer memory. It point to the beginning of abuse of the Constitution by what it called the Treaty of Abominations.

Realize that in 1828, the south controlled the majority of imports and exports because they grew crops valued by the world: tobacco and, first and foremost, cotton. The north struggled with imports and exports, especially after the law against the slave trade. Their lands were not optimal for growing those prize crops.

Another factor is the enormous influence of New Englanders with their wealth and their connections socially, industrially, and politically.

So what’s in the 1828 Treaty of Abominations, and why did it upset southerners?

It’s actually called the Treaty of 1828. It was the South that called it the Treaty of Abominations. The new country had imposed tariffs previously to pay down the national debt of the Revolutionary War. But there were three important differences in this treaty:

1. There was no stated common purpose for the tariff.

2. The amount of this tariff went as high as 50% to protect New England’s industries.

3. The tariff did not benefit all of the states. The federal government represented all of the states. Its policies should have been good for all. But this treaty was good for the New England and Mid-Atlantic states at the expense of the Southern economy.

The South had direct economic ties to Great Britain. Tobacco and cotton were extremely popular products. However, as the prices went up with the Tariff of 1828, demand dropped.

Also, the south was trying to increase mechanization. Machines were bought from Britain because New England could not compete in free trade. It was easier for the South to trade tobacco and cotton directly with Britain for machinery and other manufactured goods.

With the tariff, the prices were so high that the South could not purchase the machines it needed, extending the need for slave labor as an economic necessity beyond expectations.

The result of the Treaty of 1828 was an explosion across the South. Although the percentages of the tariffs were lowered in the next tariff act, one following it reintroduced high rates.

Results included South Carolina’s first stab at secession. (She was not the first to do so. Massachusetts and other states had also explored this option for various reasons. No one had been upset about those threats.)

The doctrine of Nullification, propounded by Vice President Calhoun, lit the explosion. The Nullification Doctrine stated that if the federal government could annul state laws that infringed on constitutionally named responsibilities, then states could nullify federal laws that applied to areas not ceded to the federal government by the Constitution.

South Carolina nullified the 1828 treaty and the following one. In 1833, the treaty with lowered tariff rates was passed and also the Force Act empowering the President to collect tariffs by force, if necessary. South Carolina removed the nullification acts on the earlier treaties, since the new rates were now acceptable, then nullified the Force Act.

There is a theory that all wars begin with money, or in a wider sense wealth including land. In the Southern point of view, this was true of the Civil War.

Categories
History

European Revolutions Did Not Affect the Civil War

flyer and ribbon

This is another case of important information that was ignored during my schooling.

Revolutions and calls for independence flamed all across Western Europe. Activists looked at the United States for inspiration, although all they saw was the downtrodden rising. There was a great deal more to the United States’ revolution.

Anyway, war was constant in Europe between 1830 and 1860. For the most part, monarchies retained their rule. Revolutionaries who escaped with their lives were expelled from the kingdoms or decided that it was a wiser to emigrate. They traveled to many places, but a good number of them came to the United States. They brought their ideas of revolution, which were not the same as ours. They also tended to be extremely violent people.

There was no immigration screening as yet and no borders, so they slipped in easily and made lives for themselves. Once settled, they pursued activist causes, which is fine, except they tended to prefer violent courses, believing that only violence could bring the end they wanted.

When the civil war came, many immigrants, including the revolutionaries, joined the army of the United States. There were entire companies of revolutionaries. They, like non-revolutionary immigrants, spoke their native language in the company. There were dozens of officers that were German Marxists. (I have seen two sources that listed the officers’ names, but I have not independently corroborated this yet.)

Some joined, believing they were saving the great republic they admired. Some were tricked into serving, being offered a “job” with housing and a paycheck as soon as they were off the boat from Europe, and some were paid replacements for the Union wealthy who supported the war, but refused to serve in the army.

Although I have not yet found corroborating evidence, I can see these men feeling at home with Sherman, Sheridan, and Butler the Butcher.

Categories
History

States’ Rights was used to bolster Slavery

Thomas Jefferson: Father of States' Rights
Thomas Jefferson: Father of States’ Rights

States’ Rights was much larger than the issue of slavery. From the earliest years of the country, politicians had separated into two camps: Jefferson and States’ Rights vs. Hamilton and Federalism (supremacy of a national government).

As we saw in an earlier blog post, the United States was established under states’ rights. This was logical because a state is an independent political entity. It is not part of a country, because it is one.
These arguments continued into the antebellum years. For instance, a great congressional debate in 1830 on the subject was argued by the great orator Webster from Massachusetts and the congressman from South Carolina. It’s remembered not for content as much as the oratory skill of Webster.

What I am saying is that States’ Rights is the overall argument, as the Confederacy declared. Slavery was only one policy in the disagreement.

Categories
History

The National Road Impacted Business and Settlement

wagon b&w illustration

However, when the National Road reached Indiana in 1829, its impact on that state was enormous culturally.

You see, there was a Black Swamp between northern and central Indiana and Ohio. It was called the Black Swamp because it was so thick that light could not penetrate the canopy of trees. You couldn’t see your hand in front of your face. It also emitted swamp gas that made it dangerous to travel with a flame to light your way.

The result of this swamp was that Ohio residents coming to Indiana had to go north to Lake Michigan or south to the Ohio River to travel easily into Indiana. For this reason, Indiana was almost exclusively a Kentuckian culture and spoken dialect until the National Road came.

The settlers from the east brought their ideas and politics. They clashed with those of Indiana and set up serious violence during the Civil War.

Categories
History

There Was No Abolition Activity in the South

chains to birds/freedom image

This was not true.

It is true that the first abolitionist, society was established in 1777 in Pennsylvania and was a Quaker institution.

Quakers, themselves, owned slaves such as the famous poet Phyllis Wheatley. According to their beliefs as pacifists, their methods were peaceful: sermons, pamphlets, and other means of gentle persuasion. Appropriately, they began with their own meetings.

Quakers lived mostly in the north, but some lived in the future Confederate States of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and bore witness in those states.

In 1827, Benjamin Lundy, who was a Quaker, abolitionist, and newspaper publisher, moved to Ohio and began the first abolitionist society west of the Appalachian Mountains. He went on tour and started 130 abolition societies. One hundred were in the South.

Enough said. chains to birds/freedom image

Categories
History

The North West Territory States Welcomed Blacks

North West Territory States Map

There is a huge difference between being a free state and welcoming blacks into the state.

I know most about Indiana and Ohio, so I will talk about them as examples.

It is true that all states previously part of the North West Territory were established as free states. This meant that slavery could not exist in those states.

It did not mean that blacks were welcome. You see, the overwhelming belief in the United States was that it was destined to be a country of western European Christians. Free states were meant to be rid of Indian nations and of blacks. Period.

The South needed new land because crop rotation was usually not practiced, and the Deep South land was producing less. They also believed that all land of the United States was to be a land of western European Christians, but blacks were acceptable as slaves/servants. Indian nations were not acceptable.

In the north, more and more people had never seen a black person. They were easily persuaded by stereotypes of animal behavior and intelligence. Indiana set a head tax on blacks entering the state of $300 in gold. That’s three years wages for a white laborer. It was impossible for a free black.

Many immigrants came from political states that had slavery, which, in fact, was almost all of the world. Most of the immigrants entered through New England harbors.

Indiana and Ohio shared the Ohio River with slave states. Indiana was settled by an influx of Kentuckians, with only a relatively few immigrants coming through the Great Lakes. Ohio was also impacted from the south, but also from the east.

Indiana was not happy that blacks from Kentucky ravished the local and state coffers. Bad masters sent unwanted slaves across the Ohio River and dumped them: the old, the ill, the disabled. Indiana had to pick up the tab.

And then when Kentucky masters moved to the state, there was the cost of court cases. Although there were few, it still angered the state capital of Corydon, located in southern Indiana. Even when the black person won freedom, it was another black person, now free, in Indiana. Poor whites saw that as competition for their jobs because blacks were paid less for the same work.

Categories
History

There Were No Slaves in the “Northern States”

American Civil War 1864 Map

By northern states, I mean states loyal to the United States of America during the Civil War. The answer is yes, there were slaves in the North. In fact, there were more than 450,000 in 1860. Eight northern states and Washington DC practiced slavery while the seven confederate states did so.

The reason was that the states each chose their path toward abolition, and each plan progressed at its own rate. It was much easier for many northern states because their land did not lend itself to plantations, and by the time of the Civil War, all tobacco and cotton plantations had moved to the south. The North could deal with the economic effects much easier than the South. Still, even while progressing on a plan, some states, such as Delaware, had not legally declared abolition of their slaves.

The South knew that abolition was coming, but its path was much more difficult economically. Still, the number of plantation owners was quite small compared to the overall population—but those were the people in the legislature.

As the South continued to look for a path out of slavery, the Civil War erupted and slavery was, of necessity, tabled because of the overall need for defense measures.

Meanwhile, the North’s virtue signaling intensified through the Abolitionists who did not take the North-South differences into consideration and demanded immediate abolition everywhere, although the South was elected to play the bogey-man.