Civil War – American History to 1877

April 30, 2014

Changes to the Original

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

The movie C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America portrays America with the same basic historical timeline as the one we know today but with many historical changes. As Max points out, this film was meant to be a more humorous take on the Confederacy, but it also shows the racism existing in the South during and after the war. The movie takes the stereotypical racist South to the extreme, having all of the subsequent decisions of the United States as exclusive and racist.

The most surprising changes in well-known historical events were the Great Depression and World War II. When the stock market crashed in 1929, according to the Confederate States of America, in order to get out of the depression the Confederate States revived the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade legally ended in the early nineteenth century in the United States, and it is surprising that in this fictitious racist country, the Confederate States decide to reopen this trade. The opening of the slave trade is followed by the start of Hitler’s reign in Germany and the beginning of World War II. In this alternate history, the Confederate States of America do not intervene in the war with Germany but instead begin a war with Japan. The Confederate States generally agree with Germany’s plan, but believe that the Japanese are weak due to their small structure. On December 7, 1941, the day we know for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Confederate States attack Japan. Both of these events are surprising changes based on the racism of the Confederate States.

The Confederate States of America portrays a different America than what we know but with the same historical events. Although we will never know if America would have been like what is shown if the Confederacy won, this movie shows the extreme of what could have been. I don’t completely agree with this extreme view because I think that even if the Confederacy had won, slavery would have been eradicated eventually based on the economy or a slave uprising. But the movie provides a historical take on what could have been if the Union failed to win the war.

April 29, 2014

The Accuracies in “The Confederate States of America”

Much like the Ask A Slave series, it is very clear that the Confederate States of America was also produced partially for its entertainment and comedic values. This “mockumentary” plays up the stereotype of the South as being a wholly racist region of the country, and depicts the way our country would have turned out today had the Confederacy won the Civil War. Despite its partly humorous intention, one aspect of the film that was particularly shocking to me was the series of commercials for extremely racist products that were advertised. While some of the products were simply made up, the end credits of the film note that some of the more racist ones had actual historical origins, giving their inclusion an overall sense of meaning.

An example of such a product that was advertised in the film was for Gold Dust Washing Powder, a cleaning aid sold in the United States from the 1880s to the 1930s. In the film, the product was advertised with two African American babies coming through and cleaning a household. Additionally, the commercial’s narrator used phrases like, “Are you a slave to housework? Let the Gold Dust twins emancipate you from the burdens of cleaning.” The implied image of two African American children coming to clean your house is an overt example of the racism inherent in the advertisement. Additionally, the use of the words “slave” and “emancipate” suggest a further connection between the product and the institution of slavery.

While I was initially appalled by advertisements like this one, I was even more shocked to learn at the end of the film that “both black children and whites in blackface were cast as Goldie and Dustie in popular Gold Dust Washing Powder advertisements.” The inclusion of these facts at the end of the film serve to justify the ridiculous claims the film makes about life in the U.S. after a Confederate victory. Moreover, it shows that we should not think of the Civil War as the end of racism and prejudice in the U.S., as these advertisements exhibit the many forms of discrimination that have endured over time. Additionally, as Emma highlighted in her blog post, the film notes some of the other historical accuracies of the Confederacy’s post Civil War plans. One example of these was the idea to expand the Confederacy’s influence into the Caribbean and South America to create a tropical empire to fuel the South’s plantation-based economy. The racist advertisements and historically accurate plans for the Confederacy’s victory suggest that despite some of the film’s ridiculous claims, it is a valuable narrative in that it brings to light some important facts about the Civil War era and complicates the history that many Americans take for granted.

April 29, 2014

A Different Outcome

The movie Confederate States of America was extremely interesting to watch. The movie started out with typical Southern music playing, and I knew I was in for an extremely biased and racist movie. That is just my perception though, because I am used to way of life we live now. If the Confederates won, we all would probably have had different thoughts regarding slavery today.

One big thing that struck me was the portrayal of Lincoln. Lincoln to us is one of the best presidents, who won the Civil War, brought the Union back together, and ended slavery. He is very well respected, and even called “Honest Abe.” In this movie, it is the opposite. Lincoln is seen as a coward, losing the war, and tries to escape to Canada through Harriet Tubman. He is disguised in blackface, and when he is caught, pretends to be a slave. He becomes a prisoner of war, and is sent to Canada for exile. This perception of him really irked me because even if he did lose, I don’t think he would have done all of this. I think Lincoln should have gotten more respect than this portrayal.

Another interesting part of this movie was that they outlawed every religion except Christianity(included Catholicism) and wanted the Jews to leave. This strictly goes against the right to have freedom of religion, and if this actually happened, would lead to less diversity today. America is prided on the fact that it welcomes all different types of people who practice different religions, and I believe there is beauty in that. I am a Christian, but I do not believe that it should be the national religion. That is almost like taking a step towards communism.

Another important difference was the aggressive nature of the military. In this movie, the C.S.A. believed strongly in manifest destiny, and wanted to expand their empire into Mexico, Cuba, and other Caribbean islands. Also, they bombed Japan first, and basically started a war. Everything was on the offensive in this movie depiction, which I don’t think is right. They also had a Cold War with Canada, and even created a wall. They partially agreed with the Nazis, and did not fight against them.

Because of all these events that occurred, I believe if the Confederates won the war, America would have never progressed. It was 1980, and woman still did not have the right to vote. Slavery was still widespread, and Canada was beating America out in many different ways. If the Union had not won, I do believe that America would not have been seen as the good guys, like we are today. We would still be a racist, slave filled society that is caught up in the past, and not progressing towards the future. As my classmate said “We see the Civil War today as the war that freed the slaves, an almost necessary evil that killed hundreds of thousands but ended the system of slavery.” The thing is, if the Confederates won, would all those deaths be worth it? Nothing really changed, and the system was back to its primitive ways.

April 28, 2014

The American Civil War Not Initially an Abolitionist War

In chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis discusses the death and destruction the American Civil War caused, providing the reader with statistics that are very difficult to grasp. As the author of “A Bloody War” mentions, “both sides of the war lost so many men, with the number of casualties over 600,000.” Poorly maintained prisoner-of-war camps, unwarranted executions of these prisoners, and warfare-related casualties all contributed to these staggering numbers and Davis does a great job of explaining that neither side deserved more blame than the other; the Civil War was one of especial deep-seated hatred and both sides were willing to do whatever it took to win the war. Nevertheless, Davis reiterates the claims of many American historians and abolitionists by maintaining that the Civil War was a “necessary and good war.” In addition to resulting in the emancipation of four million slaves, he explains that “the war led to the nation’s first civil rights legislation and to constitutional amendments that extended to blacks full citizenship and equality before the law as well as the right to vote (for adult black males).”

However, as Davis mentions, the American Civil War was not always an “abolitionist war.” He notes that in 1862, Washington politicians and even Lincoln himself, knew that fighting this kind of war would be impossible as “any radical policy against slavery would alienate not only Unionists in the secessionist South but also supporters of the Union in the absolutely crucial slaveholding border states.” In fact, when General Fremont proclaimed the emancipation of slaves in Missouri, Lincoln overruled this order in order to protect his executive authority and more importantly, to appeal to the border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, and eventually West Virginia. Lincoln explained why he believed it was necessary to maintain the support of the border states early in the war: “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we can not hold Missouri, nor, I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol.” Although Lincoln identified slavery as the cause of the nation’s problems at this time, it is no wonder why he adopted a more conservative stance early in the war – there was no chance of the Union winning an abolitionist war.

Eventually, Lincoln became more radical and on January 1, 1863, publicly issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which successfully liberated all slaves in the states that were still in rebellion. Davis ultimately does a wonderful job at once again revealing the complexities that are rarely talked about in American history. He presents the issues Lincoln was dealing with and successfully explains the president’s hesitancy at making the Civil War an abolitionist war in the first couple years of the conflict. My only complaint with Davis’ account is the lack of clarity he exhibits when describing the turning point in Lincoln’s agenda. Davis explains that Lincoln came to the conclusion “that it was a military necessity absolutely essential to the salvation of the Union” to free the slaves on July 13, 1862, but in my opinion, he does not do it clearly enough.

April 28, 2014

Southern Resilience

While no side of a war wants to concede defeat, the Confederacy seemed particularly resistant to a Union victory, especially towards the end of the war. Though we have been taught of the importance of slavery to Southern livelihood, Davis in Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage further explores Southern dependence on slavery. He emphasizes that “few wars in human history have led to such a radical outcome as the liberation of some four million slaves” (Davis 298). He quantifies that the modern comparison of the South losing slavery would be the United States’ GNP falling by “an estimated $9.75 trillion” (298). Even the North expressed concern that Southern defeat “would spark European intervention in order to protect the crucial supply of cotton” (314). As noted in “Great Britain’s Impact on the Politics of Slavery in the United States,” the South observed the effect of slave emancipation in Jamaica, which severely diminished the country’s production of valuable crops. With this background in mind, it becomes clear why the South pragmatically fought for slavery; without it, their economy would fail.

The do-or-die mentality of Southern leaders altered the Civil War. President Lincoln recognized Southern dependence on slavery, and he even lamented that “if all early power given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]” (306). This observation necessitated the Union approach Southern defeat with caution. Likewise, the South exhausted all resources in attempt to emerge victorious. The Confederacy lost over 260,000 soldiers, which “represented 18 to 20 percent of the Confederate states’ white adult male population” (300). More importantly, the South significantly expanded the powers of its central government. Davis observes, “In both North and South the central governments assumed unprecedented powers, typified by the military draft, which was first inaugurated by the South” (301). The Confederacy viewed the loss of resources and change in governmental power as necessary by the Confederacy in an attempt to win the Civil War-a war that they knew would have vast ramifications on their economy and life.

April 28, 2014

Reconstruction/ memory

In Chapter 15 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis discusses the ultimate events of the civil war and what they meant, and also what the entire war itself meant for the Union, the Confederacy, and the United Sates as a whole. He talks about how “the Civil War was an apocalyptic success in the sense that it brought an end to nearly a century of struggle and broken hopes regarding the ultimate extinction of African America Slavery” (Davis 299). As well as the success, the war also represented a major conflict in America; it showed the weakness and inefficiency of the American political and economic system. It showed that the nation had to go through war and hardship, causing many deaths of soldiers and civilians on both sides, in order to come to a resolution. After the war, the US had to reconstruct its economic system due to the freeing of all the slaves and necessity for more jobs and positions to be filled.

Obviously everything wasn’t completely fixed after the war; the southern slave owners deeply feared that their former slaves would retaliate viciously. The reconstruction of The United States depended on the North establishing compatibility with the South again to make decisions as one nation, especially those decisions regarding race issues.

As Emily mentions in her blog post, this war was the most devastating war in American history, yet its hard to think it wasn’t necessary. This is quite the staggering question; was a war this devastating necessary to force an end to slavery and the conflicts between the North and the South? Especially in such a young nation, growing and changing so rapidly that it was still finding its identity. In my opinion, that is the most devastating part of the war, that such a tragic war was necessary in the continuance of a young nation.

This reading was very interesting in that it covered the aspects of each side’s reactions to the war, and how that would affect the near and distant future of the nation. I liked the way Davis represented the importance of America’s reconstruction, and how, even after the war was over, it was still very crucial that the North and South come together as one nation again.

April 28, 2014

Not so Civil War

As Emily noted in her post, The Civil war is one that everyone knows about, but not in detail. One of the things that might get overlooked about the civil war is how deadly it was on the whole. As we learned in class, many northern people died, and in the south 1/3rd of all the men were killed in war time. If the alarming numbers of the Civil War do not impact us, the qualitative side of things surely should. Davis talks about how much hate there was on both sides of the war–to the point of inhuman acts. For example he notes that there were some, “Confederate women who wore the teeth of dead Yankee soldiers.” These were the kinds of things that were going on on both sides.

What was more intriguing, though, was Davis’ illumination of how the people who lived during the war thought about it at the time. One aspect of the War that seemed both interesting, and a little bit confusing, to me was the religiousness that people assigned to it. Davids talks about the writings of a girl named Josephine Shaw Lowell, who looked at the war as a means of showing Americans that ‘riches, luxury and comfort are not the great end of life’. From this reasoning Josephine, and others looked at the war as a ‘direct work of God’. People, including Abe Lincoln himself, Believed that this War, despite how terrible it was, was serving as a part of the Christian God’s plan. There are to ways to look at this. One is that there were people taking a positive away from such a negative and devastating experience. The other is that religion at the time had such a stronghold on peoples lives, that even a war (something that is violent and therefore fundamentally violates the religious doctrine of the day) that was not based in religion, can be ascribed these religious tones and assignments. In this light, people on either side of the war can believe that their cause is “God’s cause”. These are both fascinating, and frightening realizations.

April 27, 2014

A Bloody War

In the last chapter of Inhuman Bondage, Davis discusses the Civil War and the process of emancipation. Throughout the chapter, he talks in detail about the social and political battles during the war, and the feelings and emotions of each side as the war continued. Although I already knew that the American Civil War was the bloodiest American war to date, I did not fully realize the extent of this statement. Davis brings up the question, “Why was it that a democratic nation that prided itself on rational moderation, peace, common sense, expediency, and compromise became the scene of the world’s first “modern” war, pursued by the North until its armies achieved unconditional victory, totally crushing the South?” (page 300). Both sides of the war lost so many men, with the number of casualties over 600,000. Disease contributed heavily to these numbers, as they were overcrowded and had poor sanitation. Execution of prisoners of war was a surprising contributor to the death toll. I did not realized that both sides killed prisoners of war, like at Fort Pillow when the Confederate government massacred all of the black Union soldiers. Events like this show the deep-seated hatred on both sides of the war, and how either side was willing to take the next step in order to win.

Davis further discusses this idea of doing anything to win when he addresses how both sides expanded government power during the war. Both sides installed a draft to increase their army’s numbers, and the Union also started issuing bonds, printed more money, and started taxing income.

We see the Civil War today as the war that freed the slaves, an almost necessary evil that killed hundreds of thousands but ended the system of slavery. Davis highlights how this war devastated the country through the hundreds of thousands of deaths and the devastation of the land and plantations in the South. Although we will never know if slavery would have or could have ended without a war, the American Civil War still stands to be the bloodiest event in American history. The last few sentences of this chapter and book wrap up the Civil War by reminding us that the Civil War is our past, and that sometimes if takes a struggle to have greater equality and justice in the world.

April 23, 2014

The Civil War, Part I

A large factor leading up to the Civil War that Wilentz discusses in the reading is the panic of 1857. This panic occurred due to the combination of vast construction and industrial development that was funded by foreign investors, sudden sell-off of American securities caused by rising interest rates, and the the expectations of western lands. All of these factors lead to a bank panic where deposits were withdrawn, loans called in, and businesses went under, causing a depression that demanded a different solution because than that of 1837.

This depression demanded a different solution because of the spike in population during the 40’s because of immigrants who filled in the labor-intensive jobs in large cities. Now that immigrants made up a large portion of the working class, it was harder for current American citizens to find jobs. This labor reform spreading throughout the North was headed by George Henry Evans, who basically said that a wage slave would be free if he could own a portion of land. The slogan “Vote Yourself A Farm!” encouraged movement out west where there was more available land than in the highly populated cities on the East coast. These reformations represented the foundation for an America of free and independent labor.

As Emma talks about in her blog post, the North and the South each had their opinions that their way of life and production was better, but the growing idea that free and independent labor was the way to go pressured the South even more. This pressure simply added to the other factors to make the South secede.

This was again a very interesting reading, where Wilentz described the economic aspects that had a big impact on the nation’s future, in combination with several other factors, and could link it to the North vs the South leading up to the Civil War.

April 22, 2014

The Powder Keg of the Civil War

Chapters 23-25 in The Rise of American Democracy summarize what is happening in America right before the Civil War. Like my classmate said, Wilenz focuses on the political aspects leading up to the war instead of the battles themselves. This is very different than anything I have learned, because I did not know all of the specific details. I just thought that the South wanted slavery, and the North did not, but it actually was a lot more complicated than that.

During this time, many attempts at compromise were made, but none were effective. One big controversial topic during this time frame was the Dred Scott decision. He was a slave who traveled to a free territory, so he thought he should be free. It was decided that he was not a citizen, and he was not free. This decision escalated the sectional tensions throughout the United States. Wilenz says, “For antislavery northerners, the decision proved that the entire branch of the federal government had fallen into the Slave Power’s clutches.” (397) In Kansas, fighting between pro-slavery and antislavery people broke out, causing mayhem. Also, there was a financial panic in the late summer and fall of 1957 caused by “a vast expansion of industrial development and railroad construction, heavily funded by foreign investors, was followed by a sudden sell-off of American securities abroad driven by rising interest rates, which depressed the value of American stocks and bonds.” (402) Also at this time, many immigrants were flooded into America, and they were treated very poorly because they were poor and Catholic.

One important aspect throughout all of this was sectionalism. Some many different events created a huge divided in the United States, which I believe leaded to the Civil War. Each side thought their way of life was more successful, and Wilenz definitely supports that throughout these chapters. “On certain essentials, most slaveholders could agree: slavery created an economy, society, and polity superior to the crass and cutthroat North.” (409)

Lincoln was also introduced in these chapters. It is interesting to me how he lost to Douglas in the Senate race, but would end up beating him for the presidency. He disliked slavery, and when he was elected president, the South took action. They began to secede, and quickly. Buchanan said “that secession over Lincoln’ selection was conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.” (444)

As I read these chapters, I could not help but detect some bias regarding the North as morally correct. Wilenz seemed to make the South seem like the bad guy, and the North seem like the good guy. This said, Wilenz also speaks highly of Lincoln. I don’t recall him ever saying anything negative about him. Even though I do agree with this viewpoint, I think Wilenz should have made it more impartial.