I had the same reaction to "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" by the The Band. I was a child of the 60s, and there was nothing cool about the Confederacy, yet here was a song that actually humanized a Southern man, Virgil Cain, for his private travails. The song did nothing to change my political opinion of the Civil War itself or the fact that the Southern cause was wrong, but for me it was the still small voice warning against being judgmental and reminding me that all humans are "my species." That song had a permanent effect on me for which I'm thankful.
I would agree with this comment except for the part where you said the Southern cause was wrong, Mr. Holt. Slavery was certainly wrong no question. But it wasn’t the only reason the South fought the Civil War. There were many political, cultural, economic, and territorial disputes between the North and South. You also said that Robert E. Lee “absolutely was not a good guy.” I would respectfully but strongly disagree. To be sure, General Lee is NOT the Marble Man of the Lost Cause but nor is he the monstrous villain he is made out to be today. Robert E. Lee had many flaws to be sure. He was a slave owner, a racist by our standards today, had a fierce temper, and sometimes made serious miscalculations in battle.
Nonetheless, General Lee was a great man. He was a model student at West Point as young cadet finishing second in his class. He was a hero of the Mexican-American War. Lee was a great and respected superintendent at West Point. After taking over from Joseph E. Johnston as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, he led the Confederacy to great success on the battlefield between 1861-1862. Until the promotion of General Grant, the Union had a hard time finding a commander who could match his prowess on the battlefield.
While he owned slaves and believed slavery necessary to civilize and Christianitize black people, he was morally opposed to it, opposed to the slave trade and supported when the time was right, doing gradual emancipation. He also wrote a warm letter to one of his former slaves, Amanda Parks. He stated in it that he was sorry to have missed her when she visited his home in Arlington and that he hoped she was doing well.
As the war drew to a close, he surrendered to the Union at Appomattox rather than continuing to fight. Had he not surrendered when he did, the Confederates could’ve launched a guerrilla campaign against the Union which would’ve been bloody and extended the war by at least another year. After the war, he urged reconciliation and patriotism to Southerners. He even refused to attend veterans reunions and discourage building statues to Confederate heroes or war memorials because he felt it was best to forget about the war and move forward.
As to black Americans, Robert E. Lee held the typical paternalistic racial views of his time and upbringing. But at the same time, he was sympathetic to the freedman and didn’t want to see them abused or treated unfairly. For example, he expelled white students from West Point who attacked local black men. He believed blacks to be inferior like most both North and South in his time did. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t recognize their humanity.
Yes, I have read the Cornerstone Speech. I mentioned it in my main comment down below. But we must keep in mind the speech reflected Stephens’ beliefs not the beliefs of everyone in the South.
Yeah I love that song. And I grew up in the south as a child of Northern transplants, so I always had a special hatred of the confederacy. It’s a good reminder that there’s humanity on both sides. But there’s a romanticism about the old confederacy and a narrative of “the South’s troubles are the fault of those damn Yankees” which always grated on me. 150 years later I had peers who were sure their misfortunes had something to do with the North winning the war, which was total bullcrap.
Agree completely. I've read a lot of Civil War history, and sometimes I hear southerners refer to General Lee as some sort of good guy, which he absolutely was not, despite the fact that he emancipated his own slaves before the War.
But I'm thankful to live in a part of NC not far from Danville VA where Virgil Cain "served on the Danville train." General Stoneman was a real Union Cavalry commander who has a monument near where I live.
Learned a similar lesson from my long deceased father-in-law. One day we were driving through his small Georgia town and he stopped at a historical marker, showing where Sherman’s army had skirted the town itself, on the way from Atlanta to the sea. I realize now that he had grown up around a lot of older people who remember when this happened.
When I was a kid, the civil war seemed like ancient history - in 1944, the civil war was only a long lifespan away. The societal racism I saw when I was a kid, was a lot more, shall I say, ‘humane” than the calculated political kind that surrounds all of us now.
I live in Atlanta today, married to a man whose family hail from rural Georgia, not far from the beautiful town of Madison left intact by Sherman’s troops. Their beautiful antebellum homes are a popular tourist destination. People in towns around there such as Monticello, Buckhead and Union Point always suspect the Madison residents entertained, wined and dined General Sherman, almost turncoats.
Made me think of books that influenced me. I first read Catch-22 nearly 60 years ago. I learned that it was OK to joke about anything at all if your heart is in the right place. Somebody said to Heller that he’d never written anything as good again. He replied, “Neither has anyone else…”
Truly one of your best pieces, Liza! Reading Margaret Mitchell's classic Gone With the Wind challenged you to rethink everything you thought you knew about the Civil War and the South and that perhaps there was more to the story then you had been taught. What you were taught in school wasn't wrong, it just wasn't all there was to the story of the Civil War. White Southerners faced hardships too, had families, lost loved ones, had their homes burned down, were victims of Northern war crimes, had their property stolen, etc. Gone With the Wind humanized people who you were taught you were supposed to despise. Yet you felt for Scarlett for all the suffering she went through, her love for her native land, her love for her daughter and how she grieved for her after
her untimely death, falling in love, and Scarlett's boundless ambition.
I agree completely Liza that literature should never, ever be a political vehicle. Margaret Mitchell exemplifies this perfectly. She wasn't trying to advocate for the Confederacy or the Southern cause nor trying to write a Lost Cause screed. She was showing the very human struggles and emotions of a young Southern white woman; someone we are taught by the modern education system we are supposed to despise. There are indeed two sides to every story and people even who we disagree with or who believe in bad things, are people too. Indeed, Liza this is the beauty of literature in that it shows you different perspectives, makes you think and helps expand your worldview. As to the Civil War itself, there is so much I could say about it and that time period that is misunderstood or not known by the general public.
I think the problem with how we talk about the Civil War today is it is plagued by oversimplification, glorifying the North and vilifying the South. We need to remember that the North was no racial utopia and was just as prejudiced as the South was. Racism was prevalent on BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Free blacks who lived in the North faced racial segregation, discrimination and being treated as second-class citizens. Ever hear of the 1863 New York City Draft Riots? It was when mostly Irish-Americans in New York City rioted and killed 120 people, injured about 2,000 people and caused about $1.5 million in property damages. Guess what in part caused it, the Emancipation Proclamation. Black people were targeted during the riots for vicious racial violence. Angry mobs would attack any random black pedestrians they found on the street. One black man was lynched and set on fire. The city's Colored Orphan Asylum was burned to the ground. As a result of the riots, the black population of the city collapsed, and thousands of black people fled Manhattan.
It should also be known that the first Jim Crow laws were implemented in the North. Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison and their fellow abolitionist activists fought streetcar segregation not in Alabama, Mississippi or Kentucky but in places like Portsmouth, Salem and Boston. Let's also keep in mind black soldiers who fought in the Union Army weren't treated well either. They didn't receive equal pay, couldn't have black officers, fought in segregated units from white soldiers, and could be executed on the spot if captured by the Confederates. Discrimination against black and foreign-born soldiers was rampant in the Union Army. If accused of rape, a foreign-born or black soldier would be treated much more harshly than a native-born white soldier would be. Also, the white officers of black Union soldiers didn't always get on well with them. Their officers sometimes stole their pay or whipped them or imposed other brutal and barbaric punishments on them. This is why black soldiers in the Union Army mutinied more frequently than white soldiers did. It is also the case that Northern states would sometimes use trickery or coercion to get black soldiers to join so they could meet recruitment quotas. Lastly, some advocates of enlisting black soldiers into the Union Army favored doing so because they thought blacks would make good cannon fodder.
Slavery was NOT the only cause or the Civil War but rather one of many. Nor did the South fight just to preserve slavery nor was that the only reason the Southern states succeeded. Most soldiers on both sides didn't fight for or against slavery. Most Northerners fought to preserve the union, and most Southerners fought to defend their home state from what they considered an invasion. Northerners sought to hold the precious, fragile union of states our founding fathers created together and Southerners fought what they believed, was the Second American Revolution. When asked why they were fighting Confederate soldiers usually replied, "I'm fighting because you're down here." It should also be noted there were about 3,000-6,000 black Confederate soldiers and sailors. It is true the Confederate Congress passed a law forbidding black men from enlisting in the Southern armies. That is why black soldiers were never enlisted by the Confederacy on a large-scale until the war was nearly over and by that point it was too late.
However, anyone who wanted could volunteer and a small but significant number of blacks did. You also had black slaves and body servants who arrived at camp with their masters but would come to double as soldiers too overtime as they picked up guns and shot at the Yankees. They were sort of like the Helots of Ancient Greece. Let us also not forget that not all slave owners in the South were white. Free blacks, mixed-race people and Native Americans also owned slaves. William Ellison, Andrew Dunford and Milly Pierce were all free black people who held slaves of their own. Some Native American tribes had been holding and trading black slaves since colonial times. The so-called Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminoles fought alongside the Confederacy in the Civil War, in part to preserve slavery. The Cherokee and Catawba tribes in particular were known to hate black people. After the Civil War, the Cherokee forbade free black people from becoming tribal citizens. The Choctaw in their tribal constitution, forbade free blacks from settling on their lands though they often did allow white men to do so. Choctaw who were mixed with white could occupy positions of power, Choctaw who were mixed with black had no such privileges. Choctaw tribal members caught having interracial relations with blacks were punished with whippings, fines and even expulsion from the tribe.
None of this is to say that slavery wasn't one of the reasons the South fought the Civil War of seceded or to ignore that slavery was protected by clauses in the Confederate Constitution, Alexander Stephens' infamous Cornerstone Speech or that people of color were second-class citizens in the Confederacy. It is to merely to show that the story of the Civil War, the Confederacy and America itself is more complicated than we've been taught in school. The Confederacy was a slaveholding republic, a pretty typical society for its time. We shouldn't particularly vilify the Southern Confederacy for having slavery when slavery was the norm at the time and existed in every corner of the globe. It is also the case that not all slave owners were brutal or cruel to their slaves though many were, some were also kind to them and saw them as strange as it may sound, as part of their family. What I mean by that is NOT to say they treated them as equals, but rather they saw them as (this is an imperfect analogy) faithful old employees. In turn, some slaves were loyal to their masters and their family and formed bonds with the master's children who they after all did help raise. This does NOT mean they didn't also want to be free or didn't sympathize with their fellow black brothers and sisters in bondage. Again, I'm not trying to romanticize slavery or say it was right. I mean only to show the complexity of the institution and how it could manifest itself. The best historical works on Southern slavery you can find out there are those of the historians Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.
I lived in Boston in the early 80s and heard far more openly racist remarks in a couple years there than I have ever heard living at various times in Charleston, SC, Chapel Hill, NC and Atlanta.
Well said Noah. One of my great great grandfathers came from a mixed race family in Eastern NC. He fought for one of the NC regiments out of Brunswick County.
Regarding the good/bad dichotomy, there were plenty of ex-Confederate officers who supported not only reconciliation, but also improved race relations. Lee himself, Longstreet, William Mahone, and even in his later years, despite being a Klan founder, Nathan Bedford Forrest: see below
It is well-known that WT Sherman was a racist and LIncoln advocated at one time returning Blacks to Africa, so yes, race relations were extremely complex during those years and varied from those who felt that Blacks should be free and equal to whites, to those that viewed Blacks as inferior but needed care and guidance, those that saw them as inferior and not to be tolerated, and those that treated them as property.
“ No school system would have shown me the deep flaws of adherence to tradition and the simultaneous nostalgia that came with preserving the ways of the past.”
Well, you didn’t grow up in the South. We learned in school that slavery wasn’t the cause of the Civil War, it was “states rights.” I had peers who still believed the South would rise again. There was a sense of grievance and victimhood about how 150 years ago the North was unfair and Sherman and if it wasn’t for that, the South wouldn’t have the troubles it has today. Quite frankly, I found it pretty shameful. People need to stop making excuses for themselves and there’s a poisonous romance to the South’s culture.
I think it’s healthy to take away from Gone with the Wind a message about our common humanity and what happens to normal people caught up on the wrong side of climactic events. And sure, if you’ve only ever learned the woke version of history in school, it’s a healthy corrective. But there’s a sick romance and nostalgia that has crippled the South for generations and Gone with the Wind is emblematic of it. And I say that as someone on the political right, who opposes affirmative action and some of the other policies to come out of the civil rights era.
Yes, I too stopped dead at "no school system would have shown me the deep flaws..."because I also grew up in the South with "slavery wasn't so bad" and the "it was all about state's rights" lie. The demonization is strong against both sides depending on where you were educated. It has taken a lot of digging through original sources to feel like I have a better grasp on the history now.
But, thank you for digging into the perspective of 'the other side' and sharing your takeaway. It is important to understand what both sides think and why.
Yes. It was only in college when I took a course where we had to read the arguments made by the orators South Carolina sent to the other states to try to get them to secede that I realized how bad the states rights argument was. All of the orators were making arguments about the need to preserve slavery. Their only reason for leaving the union was this. It was only on the question of why slavery was necessary to be preserved that they differed.
I had the same reaction when I read the book. I had ignored it for years, thinking it was a hyped-up Harlequin romance. But when I read it, I thought what you did: Mitchell's humanization of the south spoke to my heart. Then came the burning of Atlanta. My mother always said I was too sensitive, so it's no surprised that I cried.
There is a compelling school of thought that argues the civil war was not about slavery and that the north did not crush the South over wholesome values. You might look into it. If you are curious. It appears, in this context, that the war was about money.
Read South Carolina's original Declaration of Secession and see whether you think that the school of thought that slavery was not the cause of the war is so compelling.
The South Carolina Declaration sets out in their own words exactly what motivated them. After some preamble on their right to secede, they enumerate the following grievances: (1) the Northern states have not been returning escaped and freed slaves as the SC contends that they are legally bound to do; (2) they elected as President a man “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” (Lincoln) who believes in the “ultimate extinction” of slavery (although Lincoln had not yet taken office); and (3) some states have given citizenship to free blacks. That’s it. Those are the reasons. Nothing about tariffs, money, etc. Mississippi’s declaration is to the same effect.
Not sure how additional reading is needed on the causes.
I am with you and agree the sources are there to say repeatedly and emphatically the cause was slavery. But I also think to fully understand and not get caught up in the rhetoric of all that was and is still being said, the more research anyone does, the better understanding they will have.
The only catch here is in the "them." The declarations of secession by the planters' representatives in the state legislatures definitely confirm that preservation of slavery was *their* motive. But this is a different matter from the motives of ordinary Southern soldiers, who mostly did not own slaves.
Generally, I find it’s more useful to go directly to the primary contemporary sources with the words from the people who made the decision at the time, rather than writings by subsequent apologists with an ax to grind. We’re lucky that in South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession explains exactly why they did it.
And you think a single citation tells the entire story? As in, lawmakers on the payroll of the period's corporate agriculture barons defend slavery, a practice almost exclusive to corporate agriculture, and this explains how southerners deserved it when Abraham Lincoln turned the army of the Republic on its own people? Talk about an axe to grind.
The north was an economy of factories, while the south was fueled by agriculture. In that way, the North was also far wealthier than the south. When Lincoln got in office, he was starkly opposed to slavery. With the south fearing what he may do, I.e. essentially strip all plantation owners of their main laborers, they succeeded. In many ways this was the Southern war of independence. Regardless, they lost and slavery is now illegal (thank God).
Though, even today farmers rely on cheap labor of migrant workers because farming, unlike factory work, requires hard, manual labor done by human beings.
So in today’s age, how do we ensure farm workers are making a decent wage without the farm owners losing the ability to maintain and keep their farm?
If you read _Twelve Years a Slave_ by Solomon Northup, you see Northup describing one of his owners as evil, another as a lazy and deeply stupid, and another as a very good man. That a person held in slavery would consider a slaveholder a good man is not what one expects if everyone in the South is evil. But you will also see why Northup thought that.
It was the movie I watched first at Douglas MacArthur HS in Levittown, an allwhite suburb I moved to from Queens in the middle of sophomore year. I had few friends so one of the teachers offered LAP period as an alternative to the cafeteria at Lunch period and they showed classic movies. I then read the book. I used to think how sad it was that Scarlett's plantation burned down but it was the tumultuous 70s and nobody spoke openly about that. I too studied the Civil War again in college. It was always taught similarly as you describe. And moral reprehension of course to slavery and racism is the usual feeling I've had. But there has alaso been a soft spot for Scarlett in the story. I so appreciate your essay here and pointing that out at the end. Gone with the Wind can be taught more openly as literature not history. But that's just from a reader's point of view. You're the expert.
Great post concerning the books that challenge us to think for ourselves and be more open in how we look at life and other people's experiences, even if fictional. Many people don't write about which books have had the most impact on how they look at life. If there are any other books you think we should know about, it would be great to see your thoughts concerning what they offer.
I love how you explained the importance of reading beyond a single narrative. Literature at its best complicates our neat moral binaries. I’d add: we can still be critical of the context and what’s left out, even as we see humanity in these characters.
I still love GWTW and its beautifully-drawn characters and many memorable passages. It taught me me a lot about that era of our history, and humanized and shed light on the “Cause”. And yet never once did I doubt the evil of slavery.
I think about this a lot. We can disagree about the things others believe, but it does us no good to pretend they don’t also have feelings. Compassion and dialogue are the best way to bring about positive change.
I had the same reaction to "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" by the The Band. I was a child of the 60s, and there was nothing cool about the Confederacy, yet here was a song that actually humanized a Southern man, Virgil Cain, for his private travails. The song did nothing to change my political opinion of the Civil War itself or the fact that the Southern cause was wrong, but for me it was the still small voice warning against being judgmental and reminding me that all humans are "my species." That song had a permanent effect on me for which I'm thankful.
I would agree with this comment except for the part where you said the Southern cause was wrong, Mr. Holt. Slavery was certainly wrong no question. But it wasn’t the only reason the South fought the Civil War. There were many political, cultural, economic, and territorial disputes between the North and South. You also said that Robert E. Lee “absolutely was not a good guy.” I would respectfully but strongly disagree. To be sure, General Lee is NOT the Marble Man of the Lost Cause but nor is he the monstrous villain he is made out to be today. Robert E. Lee had many flaws to be sure. He was a slave owner, a racist by our standards today, had a fierce temper, and sometimes made serious miscalculations in battle.
Nonetheless, General Lee was a great man. He was a model student at West Point as young cadet finishing second in his class. He was a hero of the Mexican-American War. Lee was a great and respected superintendent at West Point. After taking over from Joseph E. Johnston as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, he led the Confederacy to great success on the battlefield between 1861-1862. Until the promotion of General Grant, the Union had a hard time finding a commander who could match his prowess on the battlefield.
While he owned slaves and believed slavery necessary to civilize and Christianitize black people, he was morally opposed to it, opposed to the slave trade and supported when the time was right, doing gradual emancipation. He also wrote a warm letter to one of his former slaves, Amanda Parks. He stated in it that he was sorry to have missed her when she visited his home in Arlington and that he hoped she was doing well.
As the war drew to a close, he surrendered to the Union at Appomattox rather than continuing to fight. Had he not surrendered when he did, the Confederates could’ve launched a guerrilla campaign against the Union which would’ve been bloody and extended the war by at least another year. After the war, he urged reconciliation and patriotism to Southerners. He even refused to attend veterans reunions and discourage building statues to Confederate heroes or war memorials because he felt it was best to forget about the war and move forward.
As to black Americans, Robert E. Lee held the typical paternalistic racial views of his time and upbringing. But at the same time, he was sympathetic to the freedman and didn’t want to see them abused or treated unfairly. For example, he expelled white students from West Point who attacked local black men. He believed blacks to be inferior like most both North and South in his time did. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t recognize their humanity.
" But it wasn’t the only reason the South fought the Civil War."
Have you ever read the Cornerstone Speech?
Yes, I have read the Cornerstone Speech. I mentioned it in my main comment down below. But we must keep in mind the speech reflected Stephens’ beliefs not the beliefs of everyone in the South.
Yeah I love that song. And I grew up in the south as a child of Northern transplants, so I always had a special hatred of the confederacy. It’s a good reminder that there’s humanity on both sides. But there’s a romanticism about the old confederacy and a narrative of “the South’s troubles are the fault of those damn Yankees” which always grated on me. 150 years later I had peers who were sure their misfortunes had something to do with the North winning the war, which was total bullcrap.
Agree completely. I've read a lot of Civil War history, and sometimes I hear southerners refer to General Lee as some sort of good guy, which he absolutely was not, despite the fact that he emancipated his own slaves before the War.
But I'm thankful to live in a part of NC not far from Danville VA where Virgil Cain "served on the Danville train." General Stoneman was a real Union Cavalry commander who has a monument near where I live.
Lee is complicated. I grew up in Lexington and he was one of the best presidents W&L ever had. He did some good after the war. But I agree with you.
Agreed on that too, Ben. Good to meet you!
I must have read that book 20 times when I was a kid. I haven't thought about it in many years. Thanks for another interesting post.
Learned a similar lesson from my long deceased father-in-law. One day we were driving through his small Georgia town and he stopped at a historical marker, showing where Sherman’s army had skirted the town itself, on the way from Atlanta to the sea. I realize now that he had grown up around a lot of older people who remember when this happened.
When I was a kid, the civil war seemed like ancient history - in 1944, the civil war was only a long lifespan away. The societal racism I saw when I was a kid, was a lot more, shall I say, ‘humane” than the calculated political kind that surrounds all of us now.
Thanks for the memory.
I live in Atlanta today, married to a man whose family hail from rural Georgia, not far from the beautiful town of Madison left intact by Sherman’s troops. Their beautiful antebellum homes are a popular tourist destination. People in towns around there such as Monticello, Buckhead and Union Point always suspect the Madison residents entertained, wined and dined General Sherman, almost turncoats.
Made me think of books that influenced me. I first read Catch-22 nearly 60 years ago. I learned that it was OK to joke about anything at all if your heart is in the right place. Somebody said to Heller that he’d never written anything as good again. He replied, “Neither has anyone else…”
Truly one of your best pieces, Liza! Reading Margaret Mitchell's classic Gone With the Wind challenged you to rethink everything you thought you knew about the Civil War and the South and that perhaps there was more to the story then you had been taught. What you were taught in school wasn't wrong, it just wasn't all there was to the story of the Civil War. White Southerners faced hardships too, had families, lost loved ones, had their homes burned down, were victims of Northern war crimes, had their property stolen, etc. Gone With the Wind humanized people who you were taught you were supposed to despise. Yet you felt for Scarlett for all the suffering she went through, her love for her native land, her love for her daughter and how she grieved for her after
her untimely death, falling in love, and Scarlett's boundless ambition.
I agree completely Liza that literature should never, ever be a political vehicle. Margaret Mitchell exemplifies this perfectly. She wasn't trying to advocate for the Confederacy or the Southern cause nor trying to write a Lost Cause screed. She was showing the very human struggles and emotions of a young Southern white woman; someone we are taught by the modern education system we are supposed to despise. There are indeed two sides to every story and people even who we disagree with or who believe in bad things, are people too. Indeed, Liza this is the beauty of literature in that it shows you different perspectives, makes you think and helps expand your worldview. As to the Civil War itself, there is so much I could say about it and that time period that is misunderstood or not known by the general public.
I think the problem with how we talk about the Civil War today is it is plagued by oversimplification, glorifying the North and vilifying the South. We need to remember that the North was no racial utopia and was just as prejudiced as the South was. Racism was prevalent on BOTH sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Free blacks who lived in the North faced racial segregation, discrimination and being treated as second-class citizens. Ever hear of the 1863 New York City Draft Riots? It was when mostly Irish-Americans in New York City rioted and killed 120 people, injured about 2,000 people and caused about $1.5 million in property damages. Guess what in part caused it, the Emancipation Proclamation. Black people were targeted during the riots for vicious racial violence. Angry mobs would attack any random black pedestrians they found on the street. One black man was lynched and set on fire. The city's Colored Orphan Asylum was burned to the ground. As a result of the riots, the black population of the city collapsed, and thousands of black people fled Manhattan.
It should also be known that the first Jim Crow laws were implemented in the North. Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison and their fellow abolitionist activists fought streetcar segregation not in Alabama, Mississippi or Kentucky but in places like Portsmouth, Salem and Boston. Let's also keep in mind black soldiers who fought in the Union Army weren't treated well either. They didn't receive equal pay, couldn't have black officers, fought in segregated units from white soldiers, and could be executed on the spot if captured by the Confederates. Discrimination against black and foreign-born soldiers was rampant in the Union Army. If accused of rape, a foreign-born or black soldier would be treated much more harshly than a native-born white soldier would be. Also, the white officers of black Union soldiers didn't always get on well with them. Their officers sometimes stole their pay or whipped them or imposed other brutal and barbaric punishments on them. This is why black soldiers in the Union Army mutinied more frequently than white soldiers did. It is also the case that Northern states would sometimes use trickery or coercion to get black soldiers to join so they could meet recruitment quotas. Lastly, some advocates of enlisting black soldiers into the Union Army favored doing so because they thought blacks would make good cannon fodder.
Slavery was NOT the only cause or the Civil War but rather one of many. Nor did the South fight just to preserve slavery nor was that the only reason the Southern states succeeded. Most soldiers on both sides didn't fight for or against slavery. Most Northerners fought to preserve the union, and most Southerners fought to defend their home state from what they considered an invasion. Northerners sought to hold the precious, fragile union of states our founding fathers created together and Southerners fought what they believed, was the Second American Revolution. When asked why they were fighting Confederate soldiers usually replied, "I'm fighting because you're down here." It should also be noted there were about 3,000-6,000 black Confederate soldiers and sailors. It is true the Confederate Congress passed a law forbidding black men from enlisting in the Southern armies. That is why black soldiers were never enlisted by the Confederacy on a large-scale until the war was nearly over and by that point it was too late.
However, anyone who wanted could volunteer and a small but significant number of blacks did. You also had black slaves and body servants who arrived at camp with their masters but would come to double as soldiers too overtime as they picked up guns and shot at the Yankees. They were sort of like the Helots of Ancient Greece. Let us also not forget that not all slave owners in the South were white. Free blacks, mixed-race people and Native Americans also owned slaves. William Ellison, Andrew Dunford and Milly Pierce were all free black people who held slaves of their own. Some Native American tribes had been holding and trading black slaves since colonial times. The so-called Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminoles fought alongside the Confederacy in the Civil War, in part to preserve slavery. The Cherokee and Catawba tribes in particular were known to hate black people. After the Civil War, the Cherokee forbade free black people from becoming tribal citizens. The Choctaw in their tribal constitution, forbade free blacks from settling on their lands though they often did allow white men to do so. Choctaw who were mixed with white could occupy positions of power, Choctaw who were mixed with black had no such privileges. Choctaw tribal members caught having interracial relations with blacks were punished with whippings, fines and even expulsion from the tribe.
None of this is to say that slavery wasn't one of the reasons the South fought the Civil War of seceded or to ignore that slavery was protected by clauses in the Confederate Constitution, Alexander Stephens' infamous Cornerstone Speech or that people of color were second-class citizens in the Confederacy. It is to merely to show that the story of the Civil War, the Confederacy and America itself is more complicated than we've been taught in school. The Confederacy was a slaveholding republic, a pretty typical society for its time. We shouldn't particularly vilify the Southern Confederacy for having slavery when slavery was the norm at the time and existed in every corner of the globe. It is also the case that not all slave owners were brutal or cruel to their slaves though many were, some were also kind to them and saw them as strange as it may sound, as part of their family. What I mean by that is NOT to say they treated them as equals, but rather they saw them as (this is an imperfect analogy) faithful old employees. In turn, some slaves were loyal to their masters and their family and formed bonds with the master's children who they after all did help raise. This does NOT mean they didn't also want to be free or didn't sympathize with their fellow black brothers and sisters in bondage. Again, I'm not trying to romanticize slavery or say it was right. I mean only to show the complexity of the institution and how it could manifest itself. The best historical works on Southern slavery you can find out there are those of the historians Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese.
I lived in Boston in the early 80s and heard far more openly racist remarks in a couple years there than I have ever heard living at various times in Charleston, SC, Chapel Hill, NC and Atlanta.
Well said Noah. One of my great great grandfathers came from a mixed race family in Eastern NC. He fought for one of the NC regiments out of Brunswick County.
Regarding the good/bad dichotomy, there were plenty of ex-Confederate officers who supported not only reconciliation, but also improved race relations. Lee himself, Longstreet, William Mahone, and even in his later years, despite being a Klan founder, Nathan Bedford Forrest: see below
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pole-Bearers_speech
It is well-known that WT Sherman was a racist and LIncoln advocated at one time returning Blacks to Africa, so yes, race relations were extremely complex during those years and varied from those who felt that Blacks should be free and equal to whites, to those that viewed Blacks as inferior but needed care and guidance, those that saw them as inferior and not to be tolerated, and those that treated them as property.
“ No school system would have shown me the deep flaws of adherence to tradition and the simultaneous nostalgia that came with preserving the ways of the past.”
Well, you didn’t grow up in the South. We learned in school that slavery wasn’t the cause of the Civil War, it was “states rights.” I had peers who still believed the South would rise again. There was a sense of grievance and victimhood about how 150 years ago the North was unfair and Sherman and if it wasn’t for that, the South wouldn’t have the troubles it has today. Quite frankly, I found it pretty shameful. People need to stop making excuses for themselves and there’s a poisonous romance to the South’s culture.
I think it’s healthy to take away from Gone with the Wind a message about our common humanity and what happens to normal people caught up on the wrong side of climactic events. And sure, if you’ve only ever learned the woke version of history in school, it’s a healthy corrective. But there’s a sick romance and nostalgia that has crippled the South for generations and Gone with the Wind is emblematic of it. And I say that as someone on the political right, who opposes affirmative action and some of the other policies to come out of the civil rights era.
Yes, I too stopped dead at "no school system would have shown me the deep flaws..."because I also grew up in the South with "slavery wasn't so bad" and the "it was all about state's rights" lie. The demonization is strong against both sides depending on where you were educated. It has taken a lot of digging through original sources to feel like I have a better grasp on the history now.
But, thank you for digging into the perspective of 'the other side' and sharing your takeaway. It is important to understand what both sides think and why.
Yes. It was only in college when I took a course where we had to read the arguments made by the orators South Carolina sent to the other states to try to get them to secede that I realized how bad the states rights argument was. All of the orators were making arguments about the need to preserve slavery. Their only reason for leaving the union was this. It was only on the question of why slavery was necessary to be preserved that they differed.
High five for college broadening our horizons!
I had the same reaction when I read the book. I had ignored it for years, thinking it was a hyped-up Harlequin romance. But when I read it, I thought what you did: Mitchell's humanization of the south spoke to my heart. Then came the burning of Atlanta. My mother always said I was too sensitive, so it's no surprised that I cried.
There is a compelling school of thought that argues the civil war was not about slavery and that the north did not crush the South over wholesome values. You might look into it. If you are curious. It appears, in this context, that the war was about money.
Read South Carolina's original Declaration of Secession and see whether you think that the school of thought that slavery was not the cause of the war is so compelling.
You're going to need to read a lot more history before you can claim to know anything about it.
The South Carolina Declaration sets out in their own words exactly what motivated them. After some preamble on their right to secede, they enumerate the following grievances: (1) the Northern states have not been returning escaped and freed slaves as the SC contends that they are legally bound to do; (2) they elected as President a man “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” (Lincoln) who believes in the “ultimate extinction” of slavery (although Lincoln had not yet taken office); and (3) some states have given citizenship to free blacks. That’s it. Those are the reasons. Nothing about tariffs, money, etc. Mississippi’s declaration is to the same effect.
Not sure how additional reading is needed on the causes.
I am with you and agree the sources are there to say repeatedly and emphatically the cause was slavery. But I also think to fully understand and not get caught up in the rhetoric of all that was and is still being said, the more research anyone does, the better understanding they will have.
The only catch here is in the "them." The declarations of secession by the planters' representatives in the state legislatures definitely confirm that preservation of slavery was *their* motive. But this is a different matter from the motives of ordinary Southern soldiers, who mostly did not own slaves.
Generally, I find it’s more useful to go directly to the primary contemporary sources with the words from the people who made the decision at the time, rather than writings by subsequent apologists with an ax to grind. We’re lucky that in South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession explains exactly why they did it.
And you think a single citation tells the entire story? As in, lawmakers on the payroll of the period's corporate agriculture barons defend slavery, a practice almost exclusive to corporate agriculture, and this explains how southerners deserved it when Abraham Lincoln turned the army of the Republic on its own people? Talk about an axe to grind.
Why, it's almost as reductionist as saying the root cause, as any fine Marxist demagogue will tell you about everything, was money.
Okay. Now that is a fair statement. Acknowledged.
The north was an economy of factories, while the south was fueled by agriculture. In that way, the North was also far wealthier than the south. When Lincoln got in office, he was starkly opposed to slavery. With the south fearing what he may do, I.e. essentially strip all plantation owners of their main laborers, they succeeded. In many ways this was the Southern war of independence. Regardless, they lost and slavery is now illegal (thank God).
Though, even today farmers rely on cheap labor of migrant workers because farming, unlike factory work, requires hard, manual labor done by human beings.
So in today’s age, how do we ensure farm workers are making a decent wage without the farm owners losing the ability to maintain and keep their farm?
If you read _Twelve Years a Slave_ by Solomon Northup, you see Northup describing one of his owners as evil, another as a lazy and deeply stupid, and another as a very good man. That a person held in slavery would consider a slaveholder a good man is not what one expects if everyone in the South is evil. But you will also see why Northup thought that.
It was the movie I watched first at Douglas MacArthur HS in Levittown, an allwhite suburb I moved to from Queens in the middle of sophomore year. I had few friends so one of the teachers offered LAP period as an alternative to the cafeteria at Lunch period and they showed classic movies. I then read the book. I used to think how sad it was that Scarlett's plantation burned down but it was the tumultuous 70s and nobody spoke openly about that. I too studied the Civil War again in college. It was always taught similarly as you describe. And moral reprehension of course to slavery and racism is the usual feeling I've had. But there has alaso been a soft spot for Scarlett in the story. I so appreciate your essay here and pointing that out at the end. Gone with the Wind can be taught more openly as literature not history. But that's just from a reader's point of view. You're the expert.
Great post concerning the books that challenge us to think for ourselves and be more open in how we look at life and other people's experiences, even if fictional. Many people don't write about which books have had the most impact on how they look at life. If there are any other books you think we should know about, it would be great to see your thoughts concerning what they offer.
I love how you explained the importance of reading beyond a single narrative. Literature at its best complicates our neat moral binaries. I’d add: we can still be critical of the context and what’s left out, even as we see humanity in these characters.
And frankly my dear we do give a damn😎
Yes, beware of the popular narrative! Keep your mind open to the alternate possibilities. Excellent post!
I still love GWTW and its beautifully-drawn characters and many memorable passages. It taught me me a lot about that era of our history, and humanized and shed light on the “Cause”. And yet never once did I doubt the evil of slavery.
I think about this a lot. We can disagree about the things others believe, but it does us no good to pretend they don’t also have feelings. Compassion and dialogue are the best way to bring about positive change.