For all the South-haters...

[Fisher]

1. I like how you describe North as if it was distinct from black people. Black people were a part of the North and I suspect they, at the very least, gave a crap about themselves. Perhaps, you should have said "white Northerners didn't give a crap about black people" if that's what you were attempting to say.

2. I like that revisionism. Sure, some white people didn't care about blacks, but some did. This whole revisionist history that claims the fight over slavery was all about power is getting out of hand. For many white Americans, slavery was a moral issue and the proper treatment of blacks, in general, was a moral issue. It wasn't all about power for everyone.

It was about the power to the people who controlled the instruments of war. If the North loved blacks so much, then why did they return slaves, have slaves in the North too, and take 100 years to give blacks their basic civil rights? It isn't about revisionism, it is about facts, facts like most of the folks fighting and dying in the South weren't fighting for slaves they did not own--it was because the North was invading their land. As for Revisionism, the abolitionists were a fringe political movement having all the power and influence of a local Garden Club until the war was well under way.

 

[Fiddytree]

1. I like how you describe North as if it was distinct from black people. Black people were a part of the North and I suspect they, at the very least, gave a crap about themselves. Perhaps, you should have said "white Northerners didn't give a crap about black people" if that's what you were attempting to say.

2. I like that revisionism. Sure, some white people didn't care about blacks, but some did. This whole revisionist history that claims the fight over slavery was all about power is getting out of hand. For many white Americans, slavery was a moral issue and the proper treatment of blacks, in general, was a moral issue. It wasn't all about power for everyone.

Not being able to keep up with any of this, I would say ...on the surface (whatever his point was earlier), Fisher is at least somewhat correct.

1. The North had its own qualitatively different sense of racism and segregation from the South. They were perhaps just as racist and also largely restrictive in black rights, but as they were mostly without the institution of slavery, were less oppressive. In the Reconstruction, the North expected more out of the South than they would of themselves (perhaps a political mistake, but they wanted to punish the South for its rebellion). But the South, during the waning years of Reconstruction (and after), was much more willing to engage in getting as close to slavery as it could, in comparison with the North.

2. Yes, Lincoln was a believer in colonization (well, that was a pretty typical viewpoint), as a result of the mixed belief that slavery was wrong for all parties, but the two races could not co-exist. That being said, the hard-war measures of the War brought Lincoln toward a harsher and more ....radical stance, in order to bring down the Confederacy.

 

[Fiddytree]

It isn't about revisionism, it is about facts, facts like most of the folks fighting and dying in the South weren't fighting for slaves they did not own--it was because the North was invading their land.

Certainly. The South instituted a draft before the mainland U.S. did. As a result, poorer whites were fighting the battles of those who were allowed to stay behind. Now, on a larger scale, however, slavery was largely the root of the conflict, defining much of the animosity between the South and the North before there was much self-awareness of a North v. South division. That is not to deny that there were also other issues involved, including the means by which trade policy impacted each region, but I think we have to be a bit more willing to understand the incredible means by which slavery was part of those debates, and how that continued to create division between white northerners and southerners. When it's the backbone of one's economy and a large portion of the political backdrop for the 19th century's political battles, slavery deserves its place near or at the top.

As for Revisionism, the abolitionists were a fringe political movement having all the power and influence of a local Garden Club until the war was well under way.

Sure, it depends on when. The Garrisonian years, absolutely. During the course of the war, it becomes a great deal more mainstream. Not to the point where Republicans=abolitionists, but enough to the point where you wouldn't say they had very little representation.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

It was about the power to the people who controlled the instruments of war. If the North loved blacks so much, then why did they return slaves, have slaves in the North too, and take 100 years to give blacks their basic civil rights? It isn't about revisionism, it is about facts, facts like most of the folks fighting and dying in the South weren't fighting for slaves they did not own--it was because the North was invading their land. As for Revisionism, the abolitionists were a fringe political movement having all the power and influence of a local Garden Club until the war was well under way.

The North was not a monolithic in its perception of blacks and slavery. And, as I explained earlier, black people lived there as well. There were plenty of white Northerners (and obviously black people) who felt that slavery and poor treatment of blacks was morally impermissible. Like I said, some white Northerners didn't care about blacks and think poor treatment of them was a moral issue. Those people were concerned about political power and other, non-moral, issues. However, your initial implication that "the North", as a single body, did not "care" about blacks is revisionism. You need to be more precise with your language if you want to achieve accuracy instead of speaking in rash generalizations.

 

[Fiddytree]

The North was not a monolithic in its perception of blacks and slavery. And, as I explained earlier, black people lived there as well. There were plenty of white Northerners (and obviously black people) who felt that slavery and poor treatment of blacks was morally impermissible. Like I said, some white Northerners didn't care about blacks and think poor treatment of them was a moral issue. Those people were concerned about political power and other, non-moral, issues. However, your initial implication that "the North", as a single body, did not "care" about blacks is revisionism. You need to be more precise with your language if you want to achieve accuracy instead of speaking in rash generalizations.

But we have to be careful, because by that logic, we could do much the same with the South. There were indeed a number of freemen living in the South, but their experience in the South would largely preclude us from making the argument that the South wasn't largely in belief that _____________. In the North, while we have an abolitionist movement circulating, and while anti-slavery is certainly a great deal more popular in the North than in the South, we would still be accurate in describing serious racial tensions and a belief that segregation was an economic, if not social imperative. Much, if not most, of the anti-slavery rhetoric came from white southerners diminishing the rights, if you will, of white northerners, in order to protect slavery of Africans.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Not being able to keep up with any of this, I would say ...on the surface (whatever his point was earlier), Fisher is at least somewhat correct.

1. The North had its own qualitatively different sense of racism and segregation from the South. They were perhaps just as racist and also largely restrictive in black rights, but as they were mostly without the institution of slavery, were less oppressive. In the Reconstruction, the North expected more out of the South than they would of themselves (perhaps a political mistake, but they wanted to punish the South for its rebellion). But the South, during the waning years of Reconstruction (and after), was much more willing to engage in getting as close to slavery as it could, in comparison with the North.

2. Yes, Lincoln was a believer in colonization (well, that was a pretty typical viewpoint), as a result of the mixed belief that slavery was wrong for all parties, but the two races could not co-exist. That being said, the hard-war measures of the War brought Lincoln toward a harsher and more ....radical stance, in order to bring down the Confederacy.

Fisher would be correct to acknowledge that many white Northerners were immersed in their own type of racist attitudes and behaviors. He would also be correct to say that white Northerners weren't, as a group, the enlightened, non-racist group they are sometimes portrayed as. He would not be correct to minimize the moral element to anti-slavery attitudes that some white Northerners (and, of course, the vast majority of black Northerners) had.

 

[Fiddytree]

Fisher would be correct to acknowledge that many white Northerners were immersed in their own type of racist attitudes and behaviors. He would also be correct to say that white Northerners weren't, as a group, the enlightened, non-racist group they are sometimes portrayed as. He would not be correct to minimize the moral element to anti-slavery attitudes that some white Northerners (and, of course, the vast majority of black Northerners) had.

Perhaps we are then largely in agreement but somehow disagreeing on language, which may be as a result of my not being present for the (of my settings) 9 pages of debate.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

But we have to be careful, because by that logic, we could do much the same with the South. There were indeed a number of freemen living in the South, but their experience in the South would largely preclude us from making the argument that the South wasn't largely in belief that _____________. In the North, while we have an abolitionist movement circulating, and while anti-slavery is certainly a great deal more popular in the North than in the South, we would still be accurate in describing serious racial tensions and a belief that segregation was an economic, if not social imperative.

I haven't contested the reality that there were "serious racial tensions" in the North nor that segregation was perceived as essential. I have contested the minimization of some white Northerners' beliefs that slavery was a moral issue. I also have no issue with being precise in language to accurately talk about the South.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Perhaps we are then largely in agreement but somehow disagreeing on language, which may be as a result of my not being present for the (of my settings) 9 pages of debate.

I don't think your just joining the debate would be a problem. I just saw Fisher's comment and jumped in. I haven't been following either. It does, however, seem like our primary disagreement is based in language.

 

[Fiddytree]

Oh, well, since history is written by the victor's that's a pleasant way to quiet dissent...

Actually, Chez, shortly after the War, the leading historiography regarding the South and the Civil War in particular, was largely dominated by a Southern perspective that conceded to the act of secession as an illegal one, but largely believed that Reconstruction was an immense evil and the institution of slavery was a great deal more fond than abolitionists had argued. It was part of the great reconciliation effort of the late 19th century.

That southern-dominated perspective held the historical discipline well into the mid-20th century.

Many times, "history" is not written by the victors, but by the losers.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The North didn't give a crap about black people. It was a power struggle in the Congress and going after the source of the South's money was the goal. The North could have given a rat's ass about black people and even Lincoln thought they should be sent back to Africa. It is and it has always been and so shall it always be about power. The rest are just details.

Ah, the North was going after...cotton?

Were they going to move cotton production to the North?

And then the North attacked the South.....by firing upon Sumter.....to capture slaves...that the North wanted to free?

Help me out here......and provide some kind of documentation..thanks.