Tag: lincoln

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

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

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.