The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The Civil War Report

Re: The Civil War Report

Midland — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:06:22 -0000

I've been reading lately about Grant's Vicksburg campaign and what's interesting and not too well covered is Grant's problems with dealing with freed slaves post emancipation proclamation. Freed slaves got in his way and the ad hoc system he had set up (he got an Army chaplain to come up with something for the freedman to do) laid the grounds for the post-war freedman's bureaus.

This is part of an entire arena of Civil War history that is scarcely covered by history or fiction. From Grant’s move on Fort Henry in February of 1862 to Wilson’s defeat of Bedford Forest in April of 1865, there was a “western front” stretching from West Virginia to New Orleans a thousand miles long. Much of the population was fiercely pro-Confederate, which made it impossible for the advancing Union armies to garrison or patrol captured territory properly. Some areas, like Jones County, Mississippi, were pro-Union, giving equal grief to the Confederate authorities. Invading armies marched back and forth, spectacular cavalry and guerilla raids made news in all the newspapers, spies and scouts risked everything to gain a little advantage for their cause, while smugglers and corrupt officials thrived on the black market trade in cotton. In the midst of it all, hundreds of thousands of slaves looked for their chance to escape to freedom.

In another country, in another culture, there would be a vast literature of novels and stories set on this frontier. Apparently there was such, on either side, in the immediate aftermath of the war, but the fashion faded quickly. Nowadays, other than Bierce’s Incident at Owl Creek Bridge, Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage, and John Ford’s movie The Horse Soldiers, no one but Civil War buffs has anything but the vaguest knowledge of what happened in that place and time.

Re: The Civil War Report

Dan'l Shays — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:10:07 -0000

Ta-Nehisi,

I would also add to the chorus of voices urging you to finish AMERICAN SLAVERY, AMERICAN FREEDOM. I read it my second semester of grad school, and it totally changed the way I think about American history. A very important book.

Also, on the matter of why the non-planter whites of the South (i.e., the white yeoman class, the majority of the electorate), see J. Mills Thornton's POWER AND POLITICS IN A SLAVE SOCIETY: ALABAMA, 1820-1860. It is dense but rewarding, and the concluding chapter is magisterial.

Re: The Civil War Report

amnesiac — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:32:07 -0000

It's not a comprehensive history, but George S. Burkhardt's Confederate Rage, Yankee Wrath: No Quarter in the Civil War is a recent investigation of Confederate official and unofficial reactions to facing colored troops, as well as Union retaliation. Colored troops and their officers learned that surrender was not an option, and they fought accordingly. The book also discusses the hostility to colored troops in the North. It is thoroughly appalling.

Re: The Civil War Report

Bill — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:04:14 -0000

I have to wonder about the suggestion that anti-slavery ideology was strengthened in North America because opponents of the Restoration came to England's American colonies. The Restoration was in 1660. The American Civil War began in 1861.

I had Peter Onuf (when he was at Columbia) for the American Revolution class and a seminar on American Legal History. I recall reading assigned essays that noted many New England Puritans had worried that power would make Cromwell and the rest of their English counter-parts corrupt.

I would also remind you that Cromwell sent some of his opponents into slavery in the Caribbean while the New England Puritans had no problems selling Native Americans into slavery.

Re: The Civil War Report

Ben Brumfield — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:48:31 -0000

It really depends on what you're after. An Australian comparing the British transportation system of the 17th century against that of the 19th century will be interested on certain chapters that the rest of us wouldn't. I read the book looking to answer the questions "where did I come from" and "where did we (the nation) come from"?

The first question is an obscure one for the majority of white Southerners, since so few of us fit the Ellis Island narrative, nor the Pilgrim Fathers narrative, nor (once you get beyond the Lost Cause projections) the Cavalier/FFV narrative. The story of white indentured servants isn't highlighted in the narrative we get in high school. The second question is, however, the one I believe that you are interested in.

I'd recommend you read Chapter 11, "The Losers". It describes the "problem" presented to the ruling classes of Virginia by white indentured servants who have survived their indenture. Their masters had never imported them with any intention of losing control over their labor, so once the mortality rates in Virginia dropped, the owners of their indentures resorted to stricter terms and more devious measures to extend the indentures of their servants and prevent competition by freedmen. This chapter both sets the stage for Bacon's Rebellion and the adoption of race slavery, and--though Morgan does not point this out--has many parallels with the Reconstruction/Redemption "problem" posed by the freedmen.

Chapter 12, "Discontent" is worth at least a deep skim, as it covers efforts to intimidate freedmen and control their labor after the expiration of their indenture. Chapters 13 and 14 are more political/military history, and I think that you need only skim the beginning of 13 for your purposes.

Chapters 15 ("Toward Slavery"), 16 ("Toward Racism"), and 17 ("Toward Populism") are essential reading, in my opinion, despite being a bit long-winded. They form the thrust of Morgan's conclusions, analyzing the events of 17th-century Virginia through the light of relevance to race relations in 1975, and the history of slavery and racism up until that date.

In summary, I think that your time would be better spent reading 11, 15, 16, and 17 twice (with a smidgen of 12) than reading all of chapters 9-18 once.

Re: The Civil War Report

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:40:25 -0000

Battle Cry Of Freedom. With no hesisitation. Incredible book. Talk about a guy stepping up for the big game. McPherson brings it, and he brings it on the greatest subject in our (American) history.

I actually felt stupid for watching the Ken Burns flick after reading Battle Cry.

Re: The Civil War Report

JJ — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:39:26 -0000

TNC - of these books (or others), which would you recommend as a "first read" on this subject?

Re: The Civil War Report

dmf — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:44:32 -0000

dbp, not sure how you are measuring the "death" of the use of statistical data in economic theories of history but it's not by counting the number of people engaged in such activities.

Personally I have little use for stats outside of the hard sciences and engineering but that's a whole other can of worms.

Re: The Civil War Report

deathbypapers — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:28:46 -0000

dmf, i'm relatively confused with your statement "As a relatively new field statistical/economic history is pretty contentious...". From my understanding of recent historiography, it's actually a relatively dead field. The fixation on numbers present in "Time on the Cross" has been largely discredited. Current research trends point towards a more diverse mixture of quantitative/qualitative methods, with a heavy focus on a reworked use of the types of sources that came from the New Left (songs, journals, scratch paper etc).

On another note, right now I'm reading Stanley Elkins' "Slavery: A Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life." While even more dated than "Time on the Cross," Elkins' work does ask the interesting question on why slavery was so much more different in Latin American than in the US. His answer is quite interesting. Essentially he says it boils down to the fact that slavery in Latin America had competing institutions (church, the crown and the slave-holder), while US slaveholders did not. The church's recognition of the humanity (even if they thought it was "fallen"), kept many of the worst abuses of slavery at bay. It also made it much more possible for slaves to buy their freedom and/or live/intermarry with free people.

Re: The Civil War Report

Carrington — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:49:52 -0000

Interesting... .there's a good chance that I ended up osmosing Berlin's argument from somewhere.

Re: The Civil War Report

Carrington — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:46:45 -0000

@wins

Agreed. Books are written toward a specific audience... I tend to imagine that Clausewitz would have fallen asleep over Bull Run -- a bloodletting with no particular strategic concept.

Heh. Were you playing directly against me, or were you further down the front (I was playing Germans up in the North)?

That was one of my top four or five wargaming experiences. OCS is a great system... but we're waayy off topic.

Re: The Civil War Report

Elizabeth72 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:37:45 -0000

The WPA slave narratives have a bit on the war, but the interviewers asked specific questions, so they're not great.

Susie King Taylor, a formerly enslaved black woman, wrote a diary about her time with a South Carolina USCT regiment. She and her husband escaped, he joined the regiment, and in her official capacity she worked as a laundress, but she also loaded guns & taught soldiers to read and write. This diary is published, so it's accessible via amazon.

Re: The Civil War Report

Invisman52 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:20:10 -0000

I am not saying he "saw" himself apart. I am saying that he WAS apart. I am sure mad people today see themselves as part of the Hollywood elite, rich and famous, and 1 in 1,000,000 will end up being there. But for the others, they are definitely apart. What you aspire to be is not what you are--visualization is not realization. I don't care what Oprah and that book THE SECRET says.

Re: The Civil War Report

Invisman52 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:17:31 -0000

Read Ron Chernow's magisterial tome, ALEXANDER HAMILTON. Hamilton is the most important of our founding fathers in terms of constructing our government and our economy. (Washington in terms of gaining our independence.) I know this is a crude reduction, but if you had to choose one....

But Hamilton was BEAST. Created Coast Guard, Customs service, Treasury department, and so much more. He was a major abolitionist and lobbied for Native American education.

Of course, he was sympathetic to be the Other. he was a scholarship kid, single parent kid--his dad ran off on him and his family, (rumored to be part black!), and was not rich but worked hard and was an autodidact.

Re: The Civil War Report

eric k — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:42:44 -0000

I saw her on the Daily Show last week and it sounded pretty interesting I was thinkign of picking up a copy, would you recommned it?

Re: The Civil War Report

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:41:15 -0000

Dude, that is fascinating.

Re: The Civil War Report

EP — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:38:32 -0000

"It's also becoming clear to me that something happened to the South in the late 18th century and early 19th century to turn it from a slave-holding region, to one that believed slavery was integral to economic interests and cultural identity."

Dear Coates and Carrington,

What you are describing (slavery in perpetuity, as legal status) is what Ira Berlin has called the transformation of a "society with slaves" to "slave society." I'd highly recommend his _Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America_ (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1998), though you can get a taste of his insights in "From Creole to African: Atlantic Creoles and the Origins of African- American Society in Mainland North," William and Mary Quarterly 53, No. 2 (1996): 251-88. (On jstor here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2947401).

Also, I'd be surprised if there weren't some untapped insights about Black soldiers in the WPA slave narratives collected by the Federal Writers' Project during the Great Depression. These have generally been mined as a source of information about the daily life/treatment of slaves, but not so much about the Civil War. (I'd recommend a talk with a librarian at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture about what your resources are in NYC--the primary texts available might be staggering.) If you haven't seen the many volumes of the WPA slave narratives produced by state (there were about 2,300 interviews), I'd advise at least requesting a few through your local library.

Re: The Civil War Report

Lyle — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:29:50 -0000

Invisman,

I quibble with one point you make, that the white yeoman farmer saw himself apart from the plantation owner. It is true that he was socially and economically a part from the plantation class, but the poor white farmer who probably didn't own a single slave still wanted to be like the plantation owner. He wanted to one day be a plantation owner himself. Many a slave owner in the antebellum South began his life poor as all get out and end up with 30 human beings working his lands for him.

This is why even a handful of free blacks became plantation owners as well, because it was the most sought after thing in southern society, to be a large landholder with a big house and fair number of slaves.

I want to have what they have, was and still is a big motivator for many people.

Re: The Civil War Report

Lyle — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:21:20 -0000

TNC,

You're absolutely right about the change in attitudes towards slavery in the South from late 18th century to early to mid 19th century. It was indeed the cotton/agriculture boom that paralleled 19th century industrialization that led to slavery becoming as Calhoun argued an unchallengeable right. Innovations in technology allowed for a more cost effective planting of cotton, notably Eli Whitney, Jr.'s cotton gin.

The best example of the attitude change is in Thomas Jefferson himself who was a generation behind George Washington's generation. Washington and many others of his generation emancipated all of their slaves, whereas Jefferson's generation died about the time agricultural technology was making agriculture hyper profitable across the South. Jefferson, unlike, Washington didn't free all of his slaves, only some. This was because the ownership of his slaves made his estate something of great value to his legatees. If he had freed them all his legatees would be getting close to nothing, instead of a intact livelihood.

I think you're also right about the USCT lacking a complete history. I think you allude to the reasons why. Not enough of the soldiers wrote diaries or letters home (freedman, where would they write to?). White officer reports from their USCT units may be lacking as well. I think also because the troops got used in battles not until later in the war and usually were only used on the periphery of major campaigns (54th Mass. an exception perhaps, and the USCT at the Crater, which have been covered pretty well).

What I also find interesting is Grant's use of slaves/freedman to effectively pick places of battle for him. His army used slaves and freedman to guide them all over Missisippi and Northeast Louisiana. At one point Grant ordered his troops to abduct a slave from a nearby plantation so that he could find a proper place to land his troops south of Vicksburg. They found a man and he told them of a spot, and that was where Grant first got his troops on the east side of the Mississippi, just south of Port Gibson and Grand Gulf, Mississippi. This effectively meant Vicksburg would fall.

Re: The Civil War Report

Sorn — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:14:09 -0000

Carrington,

On this Wesley could commiserate with Luther and Calvin

Add in Christ, Mohammed, St. Francis, Bhudda, et alia. Every movement, institution, and organization eventually comes into conflict with it's founder.

Who knew that principles were maleable? Or that people change their minds?

That was a beautiful thought.

Re: The Civil War Report

wins32767 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:07:42 -0000

I'm not saying it's not fair ground for a book (or even several), but I'm unconvinced of the merits of adding that argument to every book. An exploration of Bull Run probably wouldn't benefit from it much for instance.

Re: The Civil War Report

wins32767 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:03:47 -0000

@Carrington

Yes and yes. I played GBII 2 years in a row there. The first con was the one I described above. The second year I played the same game (different scenario) with a Carrington. Given the relative infrequency of the name, I suspect it was you. Small world, eh?

Re: The Civil War Report

Carrington — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:58:13 -0000

@dmf Evidently Wesley was a royalist... I suppose one of the occupational hazards of starting a religious movement is that your followers stop listening to you.

On this Wesley could commiserate with Luther and Calvin.

Re: The Civil War Report

Carrington — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:48:04 -0000

@wins (again)

GBII? Consimworld Expo?

Sorry I missed it this year -- I had a great time (playing the same game) about three years ago.

Re: The Civil War Report

Carrington — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:45:33 -0000

In Germany's case, the lesson might be "don't pick fights above your weight class _after sawing off one of your own arms_."

The Confederate lesson might be somewhat similar... though maybe "you won't fight well with until you take off that ball and chain around your leg" is a bit closer to the case....

If nothing else, we must realize that part of the reason there weren't enough 'Johnny Rebs' is that some had to stay home to keep Nat Turner safely interred.