Civil War: the divided South

[nancylebov]

http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/stories/2008/08/24/south_confederacy_civil.html

This is about Bitterly Divided, which is about the southerners, both black and white, who opposed secession (the majority of whites outside the deep south) and the civil war.

The north's advantages were considerably amplified by many southerners-- a quarter of the Union army was southerners.

Q: The deprivations at home led to a very high desertion rate among Confederates. How bad was it?

A: By 1864, two-thirds of the Army was absent with or without leave. It got worse after that.

Q: There was a sort of Underground Railroad for deserters?

A: Yes. It surprised me that many Confederate deserters could count on the support of slaves to hide them and move them from one location to another.

Q: How important were black Southerners in the outcome of the war?

A: They were very important to undermining the Confederate war effort. When slaves heard that Abraham Lincoln had been elected, many of them thought they were free and started leaving plantations. So many eventually escaped to Union lines that they forced the issue. As other historians have said, Lincoln didn’t free the slaves; the slaves freed themselves.

Link thanks to laurent_atl.

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

As other historians have said, Lincoln didn’t free the slaves; the slaves freed themselves.

Unless, of course, Lincoln had accepted various compromises floated prior to the election of 1864 that would have restored the Union but not ended slavery in the South. Or, had Grant and Sherman not won significant military victories at a key time, Lincoln may well have been defeated by Fremont who was running on exactly that platform.

There is an important point to be made that African Americans -- both slaves and free Blacks in both the north and south -- were utterly critical in forcing the abolition of slavery. The myth of the white God "Father Abraham" freeing the helpless slaves as an act of compassion is one that deserves to be put to rest. But so does its antithesis. The notion that "blacks freed themselves," as if Lincoln, Seward, and the white abolitionist movement were irrelevant or compelled by the forces of history (and thus their actions lack nobility) is equally simplistic and absurd.

As a policy wonk who frequently gets sucked into the "inside the beltway v. grassroots" debate, I can say with conviction that both are necessary. Facts on the ground drive policy, policy drives facts on the ground. The integration of the south would not have happened without the civil rights movement, but also would not have happened without JFK sending in the national guard and making it clear (as LBJ did afterwards) that the vast resources of the federal government would -- at long last -- be used to enforce the laws against racial segregation. Black slaves did much to disrupt the civil war effort, and black soldiers did much to sway the centrists in the North of the justice of the abolitionist cause. But these efforts would not have been possible if Lincoln and his government had not created the policies that enabled this action.

If people demand simple histories, they will never learn the things they need to understand for the present.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Very good points. Thanks.

[(Anonymous)]

"simple histories" -- forgetting Eisenhower sending in troops.