From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:39:55 GMT
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

15:45:29 GMT

In <1992Aug17.154529.5327@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu
writes:

: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes: 
:  
: >Let me begin by defining two extreme positions that could be taken in the 
: >debate. 
: 
: These positions are certainly extremely exclusive of the views of
: Africans, that's for sure.:) 
:  

It would have been presumptuous of me to have tried when I knew you were out 
there.

: >Pro-Union:  The United States is, and always was, "one nation,
: > INDIVISIBLE,  
:  
: >Pro-Secessionist:  By 1860 the people of the south had become a separate 
:  
: Let's add a third position, shall we? Call it, say, the pro-African 
: position. 
: The United States is a country built on a murderous and exploitative basis.
: Slavery is a holocaust-like institution that endured for centuries in
: a putative 
: democracy. Both the USA and the CSA were morally bankrupt and discussion 
: of the 
: legitimacy of the CSA is roughly comparable to discussions of angels 
:  dancing 
: on the head of a pin. 
: 

Let me propose a somewhat altered third position (perhaps to be called
the Abolitionist position).

Slavery was a holocaust-like institution that endured for centuries in a 
putative democracy. By 1860 it was obvious that this morally corrupt and 
murderous institution had become so politically and economically
in-grained in the culture of the South that the only way to abolish it
was through a traumatic and bloody war between the forces for abolition
and the forces for slavery. Hundreds of thousands of men were willing
to put their lives at risk for this noble cause, which triumphantly achieved
not only the total end of slavery but an unprecedented legal promise of
racial equality (through the 13th, 14th and 15th Ammendemets) as well.
                                                                  
Looking back, this is a very appealing stance to take. In fact most
history books (used in the North at least) give the impression that this
is what the Union cause was all about. The problem is that except for
the 200,000 black troops that fought for the Union (and perhaps an equal
number of strongly abolitionist white troops) this does not accurately
describe the position of the majority of Northerners, millions of Union
troops or the political leaders of the day. While I don't want to
belittle the contributions of those people, black and white, who did
hold the Abolitionist position, one must remember that on the Northern
side (in toto) the motives of the abolitionists were offset by a
large minority (Copperheads, McClellan supporters, etc) who were outraged
by the Emancipation Proclamation. The words to a McClellan 1864
Presidential campaign song (set to the tune of "John Brown's Body (The
Battle Hymn of the Republic)") went, "Tell Abe Lincoln we don't want the
n____rs free..." And remember, if Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta a month before
the election, McClellan probably would have won.

Furthermore, insisting that Abolition was the cause that all (or the
majority) of the North was fighting for, implies that the South was
fighting explicitly against this cause. This is both untrue (in general)
and unfair. This is the fundemental point that I have been tring to make!
When we discuss the original causes of secession and the Civil War, it is 
inappropriate to project the self-congratulary and sanctimonius oppinion
that the Union Army fought to abolish slavery (some soldiers did, most did
not) and that South was monolithically fighting to preserve it.

: >As a Northerner myself, I feel it's unsafe for me to comment on the extreme
: >pro-Secessionist position, but I will point out that there is a paradox in 
the
: >extreme pro-Union position. If indeed North and South are properly one 
country,
: >and Northerners and Southerners are countrymen, then it should be possible 
for
: >a Northerner to share, if not sympathy for, at least an understanding of the
: >opinions and motivations of the hundreds of thousand of non-slave-holding
: >Southerners who fought for the Confederacy (and their modern-day 
descendants).
: >Failure of pro-Unionists to concede even the plausibility of Southern 
arguments
: >is essentially as divisive as a Southerner waving the Confederate Jack.
: 
: That last sentence is classic. I suppose that refusing to concede the
: plausibility of Hitler's arguments is also divisive?
: 

Let me ask you to read that sentence one more time in the context of the 
whole paragraph. If you want to equate the cause of the Southern
aristocrats (that directly benefited from slavery) with those of
Hitler, I for one will not argue with you. However, I explicitly was
discussing the motivations of the NON-SLAVE-HOLDING Southerners. It is
important to remember that something like 80% of the slaves in the US
were held on only 2000 big plantations. These 2000 plantation owners
held disproportionate power in the "putative democracy", just as big
money has disproportionate power today. The vast majority of white 
southerners held no slaves.

Now, I was careful to point out in one of my recent posts that the majority 
of the population of South Carolina were black slaves, so I will not try to
justify its secession on the basis of majority rule. In fact, even limiting
the discussion to the "electorate", which excluded both blacks and women, it 
is doubtful that a majority would have voted to secede. But the Southern 
aristocrats were successful in manipulating the majority of whites 
(after secession was a fait d'accompli) to fight for the cause of "self
rule". You may argue that these Southerners were indirectly fighting
for slavery as well, but slavery was no more in the self-interests of
the non-slave-holding southern farmers than it was for the northern or
western farmers who fought on the other side.

: Yes, Northern whites do share the motivations and opinions of white 
: Southerners. A
: reading of the Autobiography of Malcolm X and his lucid description of his
: youth in Nebraska, Boston and NYC is instructive. And I've noted recent New 
: York
: Times articles on the fact that housing and economic segregation are
: now stronger in the northeast and midwest than the south.
: 

I am not surprised by this. I might mention that my family is mixed-race
(Asian-American). I see racism close at hand.

: >3) The issues that separated the people of North and South in 1860 were
: >inescapably related to the enslavement of black people in the South. This
: >institution has been abolished for over 125 years, and the intervening years
: >our common experience has bound North and South back together, not just
: >legally, but in spirit as well.
: 
: Yeah, as the LA riots illustrate. I predict that the US will erupt in a race 
: war by the middle of the next century. It is a war that has been incipient in
: this country for centuries.
: 

Okay, I admit I was dreaming when I typed that "bound together in spirit" bit. 
The point of my post was to find a moderate position in a burgeoning flame war.
Obviously an incipient race war is a more significant problem. My interest in
the Civil War is based upon my desire to understand how such disasters might be
avoided. I believe the first step is to honestly attempt to understand both
sides.

: >* Both sides fought for democratic and republican principles ATSI.
: >* Both sides fought for rights and liberties ATSI.
: >* Both sides fought to preserve the status quo ATSI.
: >* Both sides fought to defend their nation ATSI.
: >* Both sides fought for the principles of the American founding fathers ATSI.
: >* Both sides fought against despotic and illegal actions by governmental 
: >officials ATSI.
: 
: White southerners sought to annihilate the prospect of economic
: competition from newly freed blacks. Simple greed was their motivation, along
: with a heavy dose of racist ideology.
: 

This may have been a widely held opinion, but I doubt that many were
willing to fight to the death avoid economic competition. 

: >5) With the exception of the blacks themselves and a few whites, both sides can
: >be criticised (from a modern perspective) for holding to racist beliefs.
: 
: They could also be criticised from a contemporary perspective. They had the
: intellectual apparatus to apprehend the viciousness and savagery of their
: beliefs. Many whites in fact repudiated slavery. However, most resorted to
: ethics of convenience, or none at all.
: 

I believe its unfair to criticise people until you have "walked a mile in
their moccasins". In the case of people who lived in another era, this
is almost impossible. I realise that my great-grandfather, who fought for the
Union would probably be appalled to meet his Asian-American 
great-great-grand children, but that doesn't mean I don't respect him for
fighting a war that led to a revolution in attitudes toward race (even if
this revolution remains incomplete 127 years latter).

: >6) The Civil War proved to be vastly more violent than anyone expected at the
: >time. This has given us a cautionary example of the dangers of immoderate
: >actions by government leaders.
: 
: One which has been generally ignored, unfortunately. I see nothing to prevent a
: Yugoslavia-like scenario in the US in the middle to late 21st century. In fact,
: the LA riots may prove to be a harbinger of an even more rapid societal break-
: down than I've expected.
: 

You may be right, but I pray you will be wrong for my children's sake.

: >It is entirely possible that this newsgroup will break out in a flame war
: >between those who will accept only one of the two extreme positions that were
: >outlined above. Such a flame war could easily last as long as the original. 
: >If that happens, I for one refuse to enlist for the duration.
: 
: Aww, you're no fun. The party's just beginning.:)
: 

My real concern is that all moderate voices, northern and southern, will
tune-out. This is the first newsgroup I have encountered that had an
information-to-noise ratio that is high enough to make it worth reading. 
I realize we have not yet had a real flame war, but the skirmishing is 
becoming brisk.

: >* Discussions and recommendations of books on the war. According to my sources, 
: >more books have been written on the Civil War than all other subjects from
: >American History combined.
: 
: This is curious, considering how ignored the institution of slavery itself is!
: 

It is less curious when you recognize that many authors of these books
did not buy into the notion that the Civil War was originally about
slavery.

: >* Discussion of how the American Civil War, and the issues involved, relate to
: >current events, like the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia, Bush stacking the
: >Supreme Court, or anti-abortion/anti-slavery analogies. It seems to me that the
: >Civil War has suddenly become more relevant, and at the same time modern events
: >have put the Civil War into a new perspective. 
: 
: I would add to that discussion of the probability of a yet another civil war
: in the US, this time along racial lines.
: 

I believe you have already raised the issue, above.

: >* Possibly even some "what if" speculation. "What if Private Bartow hadn't found
: >a copy of Lee's marching orders before the battle of Antietam?" "What if Grant
: >had been shot at Shiloh instead of Albert Sidney Johnston?"  "What if Douglas
: >had been elected?" etc.
: 
: You mean Douglass? After all, he *was* the most brilliant mind of his era.
: 

I had in mind Steven Douglas, but you should feel free to speculate about 
what you will.

: >Those are my ideas. Flame me if you will, but I'm leaving the country for awhile
: >so it won't hurt.
: 
: You can run but you can't hide!
: 

Actually, I have discovered that I have network access from Europe.

: Actually, I appreciate your efforts to keep discussions on a even keel.
: Good luck!:)
: Jones

Thank you for your support.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------