Tag: civil war

Categories
History

British Colonial Slavery

British Flag

During the Civil War, Confederates cried defensively, “Plantation slavery isn’t our fault. We inherited it from the British!”

So, what did Britain contribute to slavery in the United States?

One thing was its system of labor. All land discovered, explored, and claimed in the name of the British monarch belonged to the reigning king or queen. Favored gentlemen were granted royal charters to develop great swaths of land. This was usually in agriculture or mining precious metals or gemstones.

Within the forts and towns that grew on charter land, there were four levels of labor distribution apart from the military.

Table - Descr -Example - Person In Charge - Rights

The first colony, Jamestown, began in 1607. The first black slaves arrived in 1619 and would be used especially in the developing tobacco plantations.

All of the colonies had slaves although the occupations of slaves differed. In southern and middle Atlantic colonies, enormous numbers of slaves were needed for the vast plantations. In New England, plantations were rarely economical because of the poor soil and rougher terrain.

However all colonies used slaves for small farms, household help, personal servants, and skilled labor. In New England, these included indigenous slaves.

The New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island were in the business of acquiring and selling African slaves through shipbuilding and slave ship charters.

So, yes, the labor system that included slavery was inherited from the British.

 

 

Categories
History

Exposing Biased Civil War Sources

words matter

How do we know that a source is trustworthy?

First, by research the author: his or her education, other books written by this author, awards received, historical knowledge specialty, and what organizations the author joins or supports. Obviously, if the author is a member of the Ku Klux Klan or an activist lawyer for black civil rights, you would read carefully, looking for bias. Nevertheless, the book may still be enlightening!

Examine the bibliography. How extensive is it? How much variety does it contain? Are the sources reliable (as far as can be determined)? Is there a mix of sources from the 1860s and 1870s or are they all secondary sources?

Look at the vocabulary of the book. Careless disregard for the meaning of a word or phrase may actually hide bias.

In Civil War history, a few inaccurate words must be used for clarity. “Civil War” is the most common. Even Southerners use it when speaking to the rest of us because we are not familiar with “Lincoln’s War” or the “War of Northern Aggression.”

But a Civil War is conflict within a nation. That outright denies the claim that the Confederate States of America comprised a separate nation.

Union is often used incorrectly. A union is a voluntary association or organization of people striving to reach mutual goals. Note the word voluntary. Teachers associations for mutual goals where membership is forced is not a union, regardless of their legal names. In Right to Work states, teachers organizations are, in fact, unions.

When the Confederate states left the USA, they formed a separate union. The USA union altered substance to contain only the remaining voluntary states. It was incorrect to say that war was waged “to restore the Union” because war is force, and therefore not voluntary. Nor could war “save the Union.” That Union was already altered. Even when Confederate states were “readmitted to the Union,” it wasn’t true because southerners didn’t want to associate with the north. Legislation passed because almost no prior Confederate whites had voting rights, and the national Congress was completely Republican.

One more example is to use “federals” for USA troops. Federal refers to a national government, as opposed to state governments. While it is true that the USA had both national and state troops, and the national troops could also be called federal troops, the CSA also had federal troops and state militia.

Read carefully. See if words are used correctly and carefully. If not, you must determine if the author is biased, is deceiving the reader with propaganda, or just sloppy. (In which case, what else will the author sloppy with?)

Words matter.

In conclusion, read a wide variety of opinions and approaches to history, but be careful to identify bias and propaganda for what it is.

Categories
History

Civil War Lies

As a high school student, I found history interesting, but history teachers boring. Lincoln was my favorite president after George Washington. I believed everything I had been taught in class or had seen on television.

Ten years ago, I found this book:

Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War Is WrongI was not afraid that it would upset my beliefs, and I enjoyed learning other points of view, so I investigated it. The Table of Contents was shocking, if true. The bibliography was extensive: 20 pages of tiny print! There were many southern sources. I had rarely seen southern sources in other history books.

The author had been awarded the Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal.

Looking at ratings, I saw they were abysmal, so I looked at comments. They were all rabidly negative. Foaming at the mouth negative. Knowing that nothing is all bad or all good, I recognized a smear campaign. Today, we would call it Cancel Culture.

The smear campaign really stoked my curiosity. I bought the book.

When I read it, I was shocked.

I have fact checked most of the claims in this book and found them to be true. Actually, in some cases, the full truth was even more unpalatable.

They lied to us. But who did it?

As a teacher, I knew that unless you are teaching an area of expertise, you have to trust the book. You don’t have time to do your own fact checking. You expect that the writers have done their job.

As a professional writer, I know that textbooks are usually ghost written, because the “authors” don’t write at a professional level. The ghost writer’s specialty is writing, not the book’s subject. So the writer didn’t lie to us.

The listed authors should be experts related to the book’s subject. Did they lie to us? Lying is such a strong word! It includes untruth, but also the intention to deceive. I don’t think that of the authors. But then they must be ignorant, lazy, or lacking in curiosity. Because the truth is out there. I found it, and I am a self-taught historian, not a professional.

Then who lied to us? Who would gain by a massive propaganda campaign?

You’re not going to like the answer: the Lincoln administration and the nineteenth century Republican Party.