…and this is a 
The American Civil War in four minutes
Category: History
Posted on: December 20, 2007 1:57 PM, by PZ Myers
Here's a cool animation of the progress of the Civil War — it's like the Confederacy is a giant gelatinous red blob spread over the South, punctuated with explosions as it occasionally makes amoeboid protrusions into the North, only to eventually succumb as it is driven back and chopped into bits.
Sorry, Southerners who read this blog, you may not want to watch. The Yankees will enjoy it, though. Except for the little meter with the casualty counts, which is spinning at a horrendous rate for both sides.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
I too will apologize to readers from the south, but sometimes I can't help but wish we'd let the south secede. I'm sick and tired of southern politics...
We won, but we lost.
Posted by: gex | December 20, 2007 2:14 PM
No need to apologize, PZ. I'm a Southerner who reads this blog, and trust me that we (Southerners) are acutely aware of which side won the US Civil War. The War(tm) is rather an obsession down here, which I understand is not the case in the rest of the US. For the record, I'm not a Confederate sympathizer.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 20, 2007 2:16 PM
Sherman's March to the Sea really spelled the end of the Confederacy, didn't it? You can see that once the beast was split in half like that, it quickly collapsed. Amazing to watch.
Posted by: H. Humbert | December 20, 2007 2:20 PM
Couple of observations from across the Pond
1) The animation really does make The War of Northern Aggression seem like a suitable name for the conflict.
2) I had no idea it took place over such a small part of the now USA.
Posted by: Donalbain | December 20, 2007 2:20 PM
Shouldn't the South be grey, not red? Red seems anachronistic, and colours the South with the brush of current politics, especially once you consider Lincoln was Republican (a red North?!!).
Posted by: simmi | December 20, 2007 2:24 PM
But when they do show up, a jaw-dropping and hilarious type will be had by all.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 20, 2007 2:24 PM
"The animation really does make The War of Northern Aggression seem like a suitable name for the conflict."
How do you figure? I'm not sure how you could get anything about cause from the, admittedly interesting, movie.
Posted by: jba | December 20, 2007 2:29 PM
The short movie was enhanced by a really good choice of music to go with it.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | December 20, 2007 2:34 PM
[#4 and #7]
I think what Donalbain is referring to is that, once the wave of secessions was passed, the animation doesn't show the Confederacy really making any significant incursions into the Union. For pretty much the whole thing, they were either just holding the line or being forced back.
Posted by: tceisele | December 20, 2007 2:39 PM
1) The animation really does make The War of Northern Aggression seem like a suitable name for the conflict.
Yes. The CSA's only military goals were to protect its own borders and sovereignity. The USA's military goal was to conquer the seceded territory, and restore the Union.
2) I had no idea it took place over such a small part of the now USA.
See #1. The CSA were pretty much always on the defensive except for the breakout campaign at Gettysburg, where they hoped to inflict enough casualties to stun the USA into ending the war.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | December 20, 2007 2:40 PM
I too will apologize to readers from the south, but sometimes I can't help but wish we'd let the south secede. I'm sick and tired of southern politics...
Then again, if the Union army (and politicians during the Reconstruction) hadn't come through and behaved like, well, like Americans invading and occupying a country, we might never have had Southern politics as we know it.
Posted by: Dianne | December 20, 2007 2:44 PM
But holding the line was all they needed to do; victory for the South would have been diplomatic (recognition by the major European powers), not military. Even major incursions into Northern territory like the one that ended at Gettysburg were essentially defensive in their strategic purpose.
Given that all the Confederacy had to do was not lose, and given the length and the incredible, sickening bloodiness of the war (much harder on Northern public opinion since survival was not at stake), the outcome is actually pretty amazing.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 2:44 PM
I'm not sure cause has anything to do with it. The plain fact is, and it is illustrated well by this animation, that the south, with a few notable exceptions, fought a defensive war. It wasn't like the Confederacy was planning on invading and taking over the Union. The only reason they did mount any invasions of the north was to relieve pressure on other fronts (well, except in Kansas... but that was almost a whole different war).
OTOH, implying that the north had no reason for their aggression as the common usage of "War of Northern Aggression" does is most certainly fallacious.
Posted by: Sarcastro | December 20, 2007 2:45 PM
Bureaucratus Minimis got there before me. Just like Lee usually got places before the Union generals did, until Grant came along...
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 2:46 PM
Some Southerners will undoubtedly be offended and charge me with bigotry (it happens here every time somebody disparages the culture of the South). But It's impossible to know anything about the Civil War and not be convinced that the Union were the good guys and the Confederacy the bad guys. Yes, it sounds simplistic, and many Northerners were as racist as most Southerners; and, yes, the causes were varied and it was not simply a war to end slavery; and, yes, the Union armies committed atrocities. But as far as wars go, this one and WWII were really straightforward good guys vs. bad guys affairs.
___________________________
Posted by: Aris | December 20, 2007 2:49 PM
Well, this kind of animation doesn't reveal that much about the action -- only territory shifts. Those little flutterings of the border back and forth on the eastern side were incredibly intense and bloody, and that they didn't lead to major gains hides the magnitude of the battles that were going on.
The map also doesn't adequately show the differences in leadership. Lee was an immense advantage to the South, and McClellan...well, tidy uniforms and pretty parade ground marches don't show up on the map, either.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 20, 2007 2:49 PM
Has anyone blamed Darwin, materialists, or atheists for this little conflict yet?
Posted by: jeh | December 20, 2007 2:49 PM
I thought the title referred to the recent secession of the Lakota. That ought to take around four minutes to settle with a few bombers.
Posted by: Thomas | December 20, 2007 2:49 PM
Darn, Bureaucratus beat me to the punch.
Well, as a liberal southerner with ancestors who fought on both sides I have to say that for the good of the country and for my own existence that the North won. But the feeling to add the caveat, "If it weren't for y'all's superior numbers. . . and industry, and etc " is a great temptation even with me. ;)
I recall talking to a historical re-enactor. He had "fought" battle on both sides but preferred to fight for the South because he liked to win.
Posted by: Diego | December 20, 2007 2:51 PM
This film seems to be no longer available. All the links to it that I can find are not wroking. Has it been "PZed"? (As in slash dotted).
Posted by: Charles Minus | December 20, 2007 2:53 PM
It worked for me from PZ's link just now. Try again.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 2:55 PM
I think the only mistake made during the Civil War was the lack of real foresight into what was to happen afterwards with the enslaved. If anything, the North should have invaded the South and put in new management and possibly created a new government for each of the Confederate States to prevent the idea of 'States Rights' from turning into code for 'bigotry.' While war is nasty, we should have placed more care into changing it into what the North saw as right and not simply letting the South free to its devices to keep on this pathetic 'heritage' of institutionalized bigotry.
Posted by: Zbu | December 20, 2007 3:12 PM
Hey, the Panda's Thumb is based in the South. Surely we can't all be bad.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | December 20, 2007 3:12 PM
Don't you think the film would be useful in American history classes? I haven't succeeded in getting the producers to release the thing. Want to agitate for action?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 20, 2007 3:16 PM
Might does not make right.
Posted by: Sman | December 20, 2007 3:18 PM
Posted by: Chuck | December 20, 2007 3:18 PM
Lincoln was a liberal. At the time the Republican party was a brand new liberal party set up to compete with the then conservative Democratic party. The switch in orientation did not take place until the early 1900's around the time of the first Roosevelt, if I recall correctly. The south has always been more conservative and the north has always been more liberal, since before the U.S. even existed. So painting it in terms of current colors is not at all inappropriate, the names may have been different but the politics were the same.
Posted by: TheBlackCat | December 20, 2007 3:21 PM
Even though one consequence (not originally intended) was the abolition of slavery (soon enough replaced by Jim Crow quasi-slavery, though), I have trouble seeing the mind-boggling slaughter as being justified. Sorry, Abe.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 3:22 PM
But It's impossible to know anything about the Civil War and not be convinced that the Union were the good guys and the Confederacy the bad guys. Yes, it sounds simplistic,
You're right: that's quite a simplistic view. Ending slavery was unquestionably good. Saving the union? Eh, who knows? A divided US might have been less of a threat to world peace. On the other hand, a victorious CSA might have decided to go conquesting south, leading to something even worse than the Monroe Doctrine in Central and South America. Abandoning the former slaves to poverty and oppression? Clearly bad. Raping and pillaging as part of the war? Bad. And bad tactics--why make a population you intend to rule hate you? The plan (fortunately abandoned) to deport all the former slaves to Africa, a place they'd never lived? Bad. One good outcome does not justify all bad behavior on the part of the north. Sorry.
Posted by: Dianne | December 20, 2007 3:37 PM
"I too will apologize to readers from the south, but sometimes I can't help but wish we'd let the south secede. I'm sick and tired of southern politics..."
Hey now...Jimmy Carter (GA), Al Gore (TN), Bill Clinton (AK) are from Dixie. Y'all have blessed us with the Bushes (CT), Guiliani (NY), Romney (though born Michigan), Liebermann (CT)....I'll take Carter, Clinton and Gore over the New-England liberals anyday...
Oddly, Illinois has always been a hard state to figure out....birthplace of Eugene Debs, Ronald Regan, Hillary Clinton...
Posted by: RobertC | December 20, 2007 3:42 PM
Like the Kennedys? Barney Frank? Tip O'Neill? FDR? Senator Pell?
Posted by: MAJeff | December 20, 2007 3:45 PM
Interesting except for that silly casualty counter. Must have based it on McPherson's(sp?) History of the Civil War which did things like have the Army of Northern Virginia (pretty well documented during the winter of 1864-and reinforcements during the campaign known) suffer more casualties in the campaign of 1864 than it had infantry. Which makes you wonder how the ANV showed up in the trenches at Petersburg with roughly 40,000 combat ready. Best estimates for actual deaths (not casualties) run roughly 200,000 for the South (100,000 in battle and 100,000 from disease- out of a total of ~ 750,000 mustered in) and around 350,000+ for the North (~150,000+ in combat-lose more when you're generally on offence- and 200,000 from disease-more than twice as many troops mustered in meant twice as many deaths from disease)from a total of 2,000,000+.
Posted by: Wembley | December 20, 2007 3:45 PM
Lincoln's plans for reconstruction were generally friendly and generous and might have succeeded at reuniting the nation without the travesty of reconstruction that we got. He was thinking marshall plan, not oppressive occupation.
Congress had other ideas, and the complexities of national politics saw Congress winning. If Lincoln had lived, well...
Let JWBooth's ghost choke on that.
Also, the south's plan was very definitely to invade and conquer to the south. Whether the populace would have been behind the leadership is hard to say, but americans in general were aggressive in the 19th century and that manifest destiny stuff was stronger in the south.
Posted by: Courtney | December 20, 2007 3:46 PM
And we, the South (and especially blacks), are still paying the price for a war led by a republican with no clear, comprehensive exit strategy.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | December 20, 2007 3:47 PM
Steve, I once made the mistake of saying we should have let them secede to an African-American friend of mine. The look he gave me could have burned through steel.
Posted by: Son of Slam | December 20, 2007 3:48 PM
I'm personally quite glad we (the South) lost. We were all in favor of keeping our fellow man enslaved, and to what end?
As far as letting the South win -- as someone who is in the midst of the "bible belt" (I'm on the GA/SC border), I understand that the South can sometimes be a source of outstanding ignorance, but to pretend the South is the problem with the United States -- that's just wrong. Hmm... is Dover in the South? How about New York state, where a man can put a child's penis in his mouth as long as its part of a religious tradition. The problem ain't the place, it's the mindset. Also, to say you wish the South would've won (if only to keep the South separate) is also to say that you'd prefer that blacks in the South would've remained enslaved.
Posted by: Kyle | December 20, 2007 3:52 PM
I don't blame him- it's a very difficult case to make. I'm really not sure which side I come down on myself. But it's hard to just ignore 1) the unfortunate fact that improvement in the status of African-Americans was for the most part illusory and temporary, and 2) the enormous heaps of dead and maimed people.
Probably though, contemplating the likely territorial expansionism- and consequent new life given to slavery- of a victorious South would still tip me to the pro-war side in the end.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | December 20, 2007 3:54 PM
Slavery was the proximate cause of the "irrepressible conflict" but someone here recommended I read "Albion's Seed" and I learned lots about the cultural roots of the North, South and parts between and it's obvious that just as most Union soldiers did not fight to free slaves, most rebel soldiers did not fight to secure rights to slaves.
It is important to remember that the South had power in the nation disproportionate to it's population. A good book about this is Gary Wills' "The Negro President". It's rather dense despite the fact that it is short and heavily footnoted.
Posted by: tritonesub | December 20, 2007 4:22 PM
tritonesub is correct, slavery is not the only issue that the civil war concerned; the cotton industry was a major factor. In fact, Lincoln only finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to make the war about slavery, thus preventing England from entering the war to assist the South (the Brits were loving the cheap cotton).
Posted by: Kyle | December 20, 2007 4:38 PM
"If anything, the North should have invaded the South and put in new management and possibly created a new government for each of the Confederate States to prevent the idea of 'States Rights' from turning into code for 'bigotry.'"
I don't believe that you have a complete grasp on how Reconstruction actually occurred, Zbu. Andrew Johnson did in fact pursue an agressive policy towards Reconstruction in the South. Admittedly he didn't go as far as the more radical Republicans wanted but it was enough to instill a deep-seated resentment towards carpetbagging and federal interference. I am not clear on how meddling more would have made a shameful history turn out better.
Posted by: Diego | December 20, 2007 4:46 PM
"In fact, Lincoln only finally signed the Emancipation Proclamation in an attempt to make the war about slavery,"
I've never heard that before, do you have a citation for it?
Posted by: jba | December 20, 2007 4:50 PM
Wait... The war's over?
Posted by: Dan | December 20, 2007 4:57 PM
Being a Civil War buff,I found that fascinating history
condensed to four minutes exceptionally well done.
And to think that both sides implored the same god to
vanquish the other. Has anything changed?
Posted by: Jim Jordan | December 20, 2007 5:03 PM
There was an organized attempt by the Seccesshers to open up another war theater in California and the western territories.
Fortunately, Clint Eastwood was there to ruin their fiendish plans. Him, plus the Mojave.
Posted by: allium | December 20, 2007 5:04 PM
Interesting how contentious this issue is, even 150+ years later. Isn't this the US, land of no-history and why are they still whining about a massacre that happened last year? The country that looks down on Kosovo because it is fighting a war with roots that go back more than a decade? (And if you're going to argue that this is only a contentious issue on a blog with people who like to argue then you're going to have to explain why presidential tickets have to have "regional balance".)
Posted by: Dianne | December 20, 2007 5:07 PM
But the feeling to add the caveat, "If it weren't for y'all's superior numbers. . . and industry, and etc " is a great temptation even with me. ;)
Actually a number of analysis of the war have shown that the North's numerical superiority was effectively eliminated by the requirement that they station garrison troops wherever they went. It has been greatly exaggerated the "advantage" the north had until the last year or so of the war.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 20, 2007 5:07 PM
"What the North saw as right" was, in fact, institutionalized bigotry. The same Congress that passed the 14th Amendment passed a law segregating the D.C. public schools.
Of course to put it in context, this was at the same time that virtually every community in the south denied any schools for blacks. In fact the only schools operating in the south to educate the freed slaves were those established by northern abolitionist organizations.
So, to put it in context, the fact that this Congress passed a law calling for the education of blacks in Washington at all was fairly enlightened. You can't measure historical actions by today's measuring stick.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 20, 2007 5:11 PM
Harry Turtledove writes novels of alternate history, including a long series on the consequences of a Civil War victory by the South. (For some reason -- probably Turtledove's other novels -- the Southern Victory series is shelved in bookstores in the science fiction section.) It's interesting (and often chilling) to read Turtledove's speculation on life in a North America divided by the bitter rivalry of the USA and the CSA (in his scenario the US occupies Canada and the CSA takes over a big chunk of Mexico). Turtledove also imagines that the CSA would eventually think of a "final solution" for its "Negro problem."
My own preferred alternate history involves swearing in as president the man who actually won the 2000 election, thus sparing our nation and the world the benighted presidency of George Worst-President-Ever Bush.
Posted by: Zeno | December 20, 2007 5:25 PM
Dianne, Steve L, and tritonesub make some good points. Is Aris going to explain "But It's impossible to know anything about the Civil War and not be convinced that the Union were the good guys and the Confederacy the bad guys"? Or is this statement imagined to be so obvious as to not need explanation?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 5:32 PM
I'm from the south and I thought it was fascinating. There is no question that the good guys won and the bad guys lost. If there were a hell, the politicians responsible for the secession would currently be roasting there. Unfortunately, they are not so different from politicians from all over the country today.
I think it is far more productive to refer to the northern forces as the US forces. They were, after all, soldiers in the US Army.
And let's not start that stupid argument again about whether the southern US is worse than the rest of the country.
Posted by: Mark P | December 20, 2007 5:36 PM
gex, are Southern politic really that different from elsewhere? What do you think of the election of Rutherford B Hayes in 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876
Southern states such as Louisiana and others had more than one set of delegates and presumably made a deal (with whom?), trading his election for the end of Reconstruction (New Orleans was occupied for about 15 years - how long will we be in Iraq?)
How would you compare the Southern politics of New Orleans with the Northern politics of Chicago?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 5:38 PM
jba, the claim you are questioning may or may not be true (I doubt it)- I never studied the history of that time, but note that there is nothing about slavery carved on the base of this statue: http://picasaweb.google.com/kwbaker/NewOrleans/photo#5066679813524366466
While you will be hard pressed to find people supporting slavery today, another issue is what right the Union had to use force to prevent secession. There are few other wars we (the US) have fought over human rights.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 5:44 PM
Wow, that was great. I was surprised at how many of the battles I recognized from my high school history class (nearly all of them in fact). They make a whole lot more sense now, strung together like that. Very interesting. And I agree with #24 - it should be in classes.
Posted by: Dee | December 20, 2007 5:51 PM
Does anyone know the name of the melody that serves as background for the video? It sounds familiar, but I don't know the name of the tune. Thanks.
Posted by: j | December 20, 2007 5:53 PM
I can't believe I'm about to defend this, but... why should a mohel placing his mouth on the baby's penis be illegal, apart from health reasons? I can see it being considered bad from a health standpoint... an open wound being infected, etc. So if the health department sees reason to ban it, OK. Hell, ban the circumcision in the first place, it's stupid and barbaric and the kid gets no say in it.
But for what other reason? The mohel is not getting off on it, the parents aren't either and are OK with it, the kid is not going to care about the mouth as much as he is about the freaking horrible pain that's just been inflicted on him. The kid is not being exploited, not being coerced, nobody is buying the photos to whack off to.
So what, other than the health issue and the stupidity of circumcision itself, would be a reason to make it illegal?
Because penises in mouths are bad? Because anything involving the penis is inherently sexual or something?
I mean, yeah, its a weird and stupid ritual that comes after an even stupider ritual... but it should be illegal just because it squicks you out?
Posted by: craig | December 20, 2007 6:14 PM
Fascinating. Watching that unfold gives a bit of a feel what the war must of felt like for an American alive at the time.
Dainne divided US might have been less of a threat to world peace.
Really, and do you really think the United States and the Confederacy would have kissed and made up with all that blood on the ground? More like we would reading about death squads and ethnic cleansing in Missouri or some boarder state right now.
Posted by: Bob L | December 20, 2007 6:18 PM
The music was the opening theme for Ken Burns documentary miniseries on the civil war which was first shown on public TV around 15 or 20 years ago. I don't remember the name of the tune, but, unlike the other music in the miniseries which mainly actual civil war era songs, the opening theme was written around the time of the miniseries. I don't recall if it was written expressly for the series.
Posted by: Ned Rosen | December 20, 2007 6:32 PM
TheBlackCat #27:
The switch didn't happen until much later, when the Democratic party became the party of ending segregation and when the Southern Strategy (based on civil rights being decided by the states, which seems to have nowadays substituted gay people for African Americans) became the preferred way of winning presidential elections for the Goopers.
Craig #55:
Wrong board? Wrong thread?
Posted by: Mena | December 20, 2007 6:33 PM
Mena: See comment #36.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 20, 2007 6:40 PM
If it sounds familiar, it's probably because it's the same tune Ken Burns used for much of the background music in his Civil War PBS series. It's "Ashokan Farewell," written by Jay Unger. I think that's him playing lead fiddle in the recording here.
In the Burns series, many people thought it was period 19th century music, but Jay wrote it sometime in the 1990's (I think), and Ken Burns liked it enough to use it heavily in that series. It's now a staple piece for old-time music groups, despite being "modern."
Posted by: foldedpath | December 20, 2007 6:40 PM
Correction: that's Jay Ungar with an "a".
Posted by: foldedpath | December 20, 2007 6:42 PM
Thanks Rey!
Posted by: Mena | December 20, 2007 6:57 PM
That really got me wanting to play Risk; guess I'm going to have to call up my nerd friends for some Thursday night drinking and world-conquering.
Posted by: David | December 20, 2007 7:03 PM
Thanks, foldedpath!
Posted by: j | December 20, 2007 7:13 PM
Just a quick note: This continuously loops on a wall-screen at the Lincoln Presidential Library museum here in Springfield.
Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread...I didn't see it scanning through the comments.
Posted by: rrt | December 20, 2007 7:38 PM
Ashokan Farewell was written in 1982. It's named for the Ashokan Reservoir in New York, where there was an annual folk festival Jay Ungar went to. It is, however, played and written in traditional style -- the sort of thing that COULD have been done at the time -- which is why it was chosen. (I'm a folkie.)
As for the map, I do wish they'd included the rest of the country. They skipped the Trans-Mississippi (Missouri, Texas, and New Mexico) where there were some important, if small, battles. I was hoping to see the Confederates claim NM and Arizona, then get driven out of it... :) (I'm also a history major and ACW buff.)
Science-wise (since this IS a sci-blog), the Civil War produced a lot of technical innovations -- not just ironclad warships but also machine guns, observation balloons, mines, submarines and a lot more.
Anyone remember the scene from "Gettysburg" where the Confederate generals debate Darwin? Armistead, who is depicted as a highly religious man, is very pro-Darwin; doesn't seem to have a problem between his faith and his science, which was refreshing. Great movie.
Posted by: Jennifer A. Burdoo | December 20, 2007 7:45 PM
Awesome video!
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm a Southerner and had ancestors on both sides of this conflict, and I'm whole-heartedly happy that the Union won.
Aris,
Your simplistic good guys vs. bad guys dichotomy is funny. Don't you think that most victors in war think they're the good guys and the losers are the bad guys? For example, I'm sure Marc Antony and Caesar Octavius thought they were the good guys at the Battle of Philippi, but you can make a case that Brutus and Cassius were good guys too.
There are several reasons why I don't think you can say the Union was necessarily "the good guys." First, Lincoln started a war against Southern states that had legally seceded from the Union. Therefore the war was an unprovoked attack on a now independent country. Contrast this to WWII, your other example. Japan attacked the US first. See, the USA did not simply go to war cause they didn't agree with the Japanese about a legal issue.
Secondly, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the CSA. Sorry, if you're not willing to free all the slaves, you're not the unequivocal "good guys." Again, lets make a WWII analogy. If Hitler had made a proclamation that all Jews in Russia were no longer to be targeted by progroms, it wouldn't have been useful nor would it have assuaged his guilt for continuing to imprison
the Jews in German occupied Europe. If on the other hand he freed the Jews in his own concentration camps, then that would have been great.
Finally, Sherman's March to the Sea was an unprecedented level of violence aimed at civilians. It was a horrendous atrocity and every Yankee who calls themselves the good guys needs to admit that.
All that being said, I'm still happy the Union won. I believe the South would have become an increasingly isolated backwater in the eyes of the rest of the world if the CSA had been successful in secession.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 20, 2007 7:49 PM
Oh, and I think slavery and bigotry are really, really bad. Just wanted to make sure that was plain.
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 20, 2007 7:51 PM
#66 (Jennifer A. Burdoo) - I'm a folkie and a history buff as well (American history major with an emphasis on black history in college). Jay Ungar is one of my favorite fiddle players. His tune, Home Grown Tomatos with Molly Mason (?) is one of my favorites as well.
As for Civil War inovations, don't forget long distance communications using a type of flag based code.
I love the movie Gettysburg (my twin sister moved to just outside of there with her hubby who is from Gettysburg) but I don't remember that scene - thanks for giving me a reason to go back and watch it again! Cheers!
Posted by: ifeelfine72 | December 20, 2007 8:19 PM
Re 38, 39 etc. no careful reading of U.S. domestic politics from 1820 on (if not earlier) can fail to spot slavery as the core of the tension between N and S and the issue that provoked secession -- key Southern politicians were quite explicit on that point. This does not mean that there were no other issues, or that a lot of people did not see the union as a good thing in itself. (And as a legal matter, of course, the N was fighting to preserve the union which the S had broken.)
People who question the legal basis for the war should reflect on the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution. Not only did Southern assemblies lack sovereignty, it's hard to argue that they represented their populations.
None of this diminishes the horror of the hundreds of thousands killed and wounded.
Posted by: c | December 20, 2007 8:24 PM
"unprovoked attack on a now independent country"
bullshit. See Fort Sumter, bombing of.
re that ancient canard about the Emancipation Proclamation, the copperhead Democrats certainly understood its implications for the whole country. One of Lincoln's difficulties was that the Constitution did not give him authority to abolish slavery -- he was only able to do it in 1863 on the basis of legally-dubious war powers.
Posted by: c | December 20, 2007 8:32 PM
Why assume that Southerners would be offended by the video? I'm from Mississippi, for crissakes, and I thought it was very interesting. I'm so tired of this kind of thinking.
On the other hand, once Texas, Florida, and Missouri finally de-science themselves back to the Stone Age, my home state will look like America's golden child. I will laugh heartily.
Posted by: eruvande | December 20, 2007 9:03 PM
Blacks in D.C. had education access before that, by local ordinance. The schools were segregated, also by local ordinance. After the 14th amendment passed in Congress, those who were opposed to its ratification advanced the argument that it should be voted down because it would require the integration of schools. In response, the Republican Congress (there was a 4:1 GOP majority at the time, and no Southern states had yet been readmitted), using its plenary powers over D.C., superseded the local ordinance with a federal law segregating the schools in the hope of assuaging fears about the amendment's scope.
More generally, though, the commenter I originally replied to was suggesting that the North exercised restraint during Reconstruction, and that, had the North done more to "impose its will," things would somehow have been better. The Congress of 1865-1870 or so was, by any objective standard, the single most radical Congress in American history. It was dominated by the radical reform wing of the GOP, a group with enough political power to completely impose its legislative will (they had a veto-proof majority). And they acted accordingly: parts of Reconstruction were unquestionably unconstitutional, morally right and probably necessary though they were. And that Congress was perfectly fine with institutionalized bigotry. Certainly, compared to the antebellum (and 1890s) South, it was "institutionalized much-less-bigoted-by-comparison bigotry." But it was institutionalized bigotry nonetheless.
An excellent background on these issues can be found in Michael Klarman's From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, which is a book I highly recommend to anyone interested in the legal history of race relations in America.
Posted by: Chuck | December 20, 2007 9:23 PM
c wrote:"People who question the legal basis for the war should reflect on the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution."
What are the differences? Why is there no mention of whether secession was possible or prohibited? Believe it or not, those are serious questions that I haven't seen any obvious answers to.
"Not only did Southern assemblies lack sovereignty, it's hard to argue that they represented their populations."
OK, for Louisiana (strong trade ties to north, perhaps persuaded to secede by a sermon of Presbyterian minister Dr Benjamin Morgan Palmer), but do you seriously think that secession was not supported by most Southerners? Is that why no one in the South cares about the war anymore?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 9:38 PM
allium, how can you mention the West and the Mojave without referring to camels (not in first link either)?
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/CC/quc1.html
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 9:48 PM
(a) the Constitution established a unified nation not a voluntary agglomeration of sovereign units (hence of course no provision for secession) (b) unlike you I'm counting black people as part of the populations of the Southern states.
I grew up in the South and am well aware that lots of folks care about the Civil War. I care about it.
Posted by: c | December 20, 2007 9:49 PM
but do you seriously think that secession was not supported by most Southerners? Is that why no one in the South cares about the war anymore?
I'll give you one huge reason people still "care" about it: race. Note, the uptick in neo-confederate organization and sympathies didn't really come about until the civil rights movement and the imposition of integration on the South by the federal government. That's when you saw the battle flag re-placed in all of the southern state flags, that's when White Citizens Councils started popping up (many of which have morphed into the neo-confed movement). The uptick happened because the southern institutionalization of white supremacy was overturned by those damned northerners yet again.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 20, 2007 9:54 PM
Good points MAJeff. There is a no doubt a strong correlation as you mention. But if as c argues, secessionists didn't represent the majority of southern people, is he saying that white southerners care more about slavery and civil rights now than they did then?
PS (side issue) Is it possible for someone to fly a Confederate flag at home and not be a racist?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 10:14 PM
"But It's impossible to know anything about the Civil War and not be convinced that the Union were the good guys and the Confederacy the bad guys. "
Well, that *would* be the case if the Union had been fighting to end slavery, but that's just not so. The north was fighting to establish federal supremacy over the states. They were land-grabbing, and the elimination of slavery was just a side-effect of Lincoln's desire to keep the UK from intervening for the south.
There were two slave states in the union, and during the war, slaves escaping from the south across union lines were captured, and held in prison as captured enemy property.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 20, 2007 10:14 PM
BTW, a very interesting read here:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/davisexit.html
In Jefferson Davis' farewell address to the US senate, he lays out in some detail the difference between secession and nullification.
"I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligation by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed, antagonistic principles."
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 20, 2007 10:22 PM
" Is it possible for someone to fly a Confederate flag at home and not be a racist?"
Of course it is.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 20, 2007 10:23 PM
Is Aris going to explain "But It's impossible to know anything about the Civil War and not be convinced that the Union were the good guys and the Confederacy the bad guys"?
Sure.
If we are to understand the Civil War as a struggle between one nation that supported slavery and one that didn't, it should be obvious who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. I don't think the North attacked the South just to end slavery, but at least the North was against slavery and the Civil War eventually did become the catalyst that brought about the official end of slavery. Now, there's a good case to be made that we'd all be better off if the South was allowed to go its own way. I made that exact point in another thread. Indeed, it's very probable that without the southern states (and I include Texas) the culture of an abbreviated US would be much closer to that of Western Europe, i.e., liberal, secular and less jingoistic. I'd like that America much, much better. But that doesn't change the fact that the South decided to go its own way in order to maintain something evil, the institution of slavery.
___________________________
Posted by: Aris | December 20, 2007 10:27 PM
[c](a) the Constitution established a unified nation not a voluntary agglomeration of sovereign units (hence of course no provision for secession)
That is something I have a problem with. How can one group of people constrain their descendants to be in a group that the descendants don't want to be members of? What in the Constitution suggests that war is the appropriate response to a seccessionist movement? [And I always thought that it was the aftermath of the Civil War which made the US a nation and not a group of aligned states.] Should we go back to having children inherit their parents' financial debts too?
[c](b) unlike you I'm counting black people as part of the populations of the Southern states.
-----------
Very cute. I fell for that one.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | December 20, 2007 10:31 PM
Actually there were four slave states that remained in the Union. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri all remained in the Union. Also note that no free states joined the Confederacy.
While you can argue that there were many causes of the Civil War, to say that slavery was not the main cause is just wrong. Slavery was the dominating political issue for the early 19th century.
Posted by: Ted H. | December 20, 2007 10:35 PM
Someone asked for a citation of the comment about Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation. I can't cite a particular source because it was just a tidbit I was surprised to learn during an American History class. However, if you plug E.P. into Google, you'll find lots of info on the background of the document, including the many reasons it was signed, including the one I mentioned, which was a big deciding factor according to most sources. If you're interested, Harry Turtledove's timeline-191 series has a really interesting alternate history where the declaration isn't issued, thereby allowing England and France to both formally recognize and support the Confederacy. It's fiction, but interesting and educational none-the-less. It's not like Turtledove is pulling facts out of his ass (i.e. ID)
Posted by: Kyle | December 20, 2007 10:46 PM