Why The Civil War Hypocrisy?

By J. H. Segars · Originally published September 2016 · pp. 18–19

We of the South have borne too long and too patiently the many misrepresentations concerning us, and we cannot afford to be patient longer. There is a hope that some of the omissions may enter future history, but what hope can there be of these misrepresentations ever being righted if we neglect to do it now? They have condemned us; they are condemning us; and they will continue to condemn us, if we longer remain indifferent. Let us remember … If history as now written is accepted, it will consign the South to infamy.” Mildred Lewis Rutherford, 1914 The impact of the American Civil War can’t be ignored. It’s still with us in news headlines. States’ rights vs. Federal authority issues. Disagreements over the usage of Confederate symbols, flags, and memorials continues. Activists in Memphis, New Orleans, and other cities seeking to remove statues that honor Southern patriots. Editors guessing at the motives of the cowardly shooter in the Charleston, S.C. Church murders. Delegates at the Southern Baptist Convention condemning Confederate Battle Flags against the wishes of their local members. The removal of historical stained glass at the National Cathedral and important names from academic building at colleges. Even stranger, some historians continue to say that Sherman’s March was more akin to a group of college boys doing mischief than what it actually was—unconscionable vandalism and life-threatened abuse of Southern civilians. And, more recently, elitists are now proclaiming that the “Lost Cause” was really a myth and Southern valor didn’t exist. And, of course, loud voices continue to scream that the Civil War was fought over the single issue of Slavery and nothing else.

Remembering the American Civil War

Today’s news is delivered 24 hours a day on countless radio and television stations. This method of communication, however, is what most Americans want—simple, short and uncomplicated sound bites, brief explanations to fit busy schedules. This doesn’t work very well when explaining American history. Opinion in popular culture is driven by past history and is fluid and constantly changing. It is also dependent on those with the loudest voices and the strongest media platforms. As Civil War enthusiasts and American citizens, we sometimes have need to think critically about all this: about historical interpretation and how history is sometimes explained in order to accommodate the 21st Century mindset. This cataclysmic conflict of 1860-1861 remains important for a lot of reasons, especially for the implementation of federalism and for settling the slavery issue. The Civil War also needs to be remembered for the unbelievably large death and casualty rates suffered by both sides. A national calamity filled with human tragedy that is still hard to comprehend. At the beginning of the war, the North had a population of 22 million while nine million lived in the South. Union armed forces numbered 2.1 million and Confederate troops 1.1 million. Death and casualty statistics differ with some sources but this chart published by the Ohio State Dept. of History provides a good overview: Union dead: 364,511 Union wounded: 281,881 Total Union loss: 646,392 Confederate dead: 260,000 Confederate wounded: 194,000 Confederate total loss: 454,000 The total number of dead in the Civil War is estimated to be 624,511 and more recent studies place the death total at 850,000 or more; 405,399 American soldiers were killed in World War II, and until the Vietnam War, the number of deaths in Civil War surpassed all other American Wars combined.

Interpreting American History

From the outset, Americans couldn’t even agree on what to call this calamitous event. Now generally accepted as the American Civil War, the conflict also had other names to include “The War Between the States,” “War of the Rebellion,” “War of Secession,” “War of Northern

Aggression,” “The Freedom War,” The Second American Revolution,” and “The Late Unpleasantness.” And if Americans first had trouble agreeing on a definitive name for the war, then, no wonder there still remains disagreement about many other aspects. It’s complicated. Interpretation depends on regional upbringing, ingrained biases, and culture. For many of us, the best way to learn about the Civil War is to study authentic accounts written by soldiers, North and South, and by the women, servants, and others who lived during the times. Also, by reading the works of eminent historians who immerse themselves in letters, diaries, and reliable sources, historians like Bell Wiley (1906-1980) author of The Life of Johnny Reb and Life of Billy Yank and his former students: James I. (Bud) Robertson, Jr., Charles P. Roland, Richard McMurry and Steve Davis. Also, reading Jack Davis, Mauriel Joselyn, Burke Davis and other good researchers who can be trusted in their writings and historical interpretation. For many of us, the real story of the war can be found in first-person accounts rather than pretentious editorial opinions. For example, here’s a story that is drawn from the family papers of Ellen Denham of Putnam County, Georgia, from an interview in the early 1900s. Ellen, ten-yearsold at the time, had returned to her family’s plantation home and tannery after a visit by Sherman’s left wing: “Although the house had not been burned, it had been terribly abused. Windows were shot out. Doors had been chopped up for kindling. Animals had been quartered in the parlor. All the carpets were ruined and most of them cut to shreds. All the beautiful china and crystal had been wantonly broken to bits and strewn about. The furniture had been chopped up. Mama’s beautiful rosewood piano was in the barnyard where it had been used to feed and water animals. Everything valuable that had been buried had been found, dug up, and taken away … All the privies had been turned over and some of them partly burned. All the wells were filled with garbage and human and animal offal.” By looking closely at the words of those who were eye-witnesses to history, we can separate fact and fiction. In this example, we don’t need a historian to tell us what Sherman’s men did to civilians and it serves no purpose to continue telling Southerners today that Union vandalism and destruction was minimal. It serves no purpose. Perhaps a better question we should be asking is: “What kind of people would pour human and animal manure down the wells of defenseless families (as described above) or purposely take measures that would leave women and children to starve?” Well, one answer could be: These same Union soldiers of this army who went to the Western frontier in order to fight Native Americans, burn villages and murder innocent women and children with Yankee precision, skills that were being developed on Sherman’s March to the Sea.

Causes of the War

In modern society, many believe the war was all about slavery or it had nothing to do with slavery: both are incorrect conclusions. There are many complex reasons for the conflict and Martin Kelly provides good explanation in his article entitled “Causes of the Civil War” (About. com American History), summarized as follows: 1. There existed great economic and social differences between the North and the South. The Southern economy, dependent on cotton, a one-crop economy, called for slave labor. The Northern economy, industrial and diversified, meant that slavery was no longer needed and could be abolished state by state. “This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitude.” 2. States versus federal rights. Under the Articles of Confederation, states had the right to withdraw from a national union. The creation of a new Constitution dismissed the rights of states to act independently and created great tension. This argument over the powers of the federal government and individual states remains with us today. 3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents. This volatile issue involved “the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free.” This national dilemma involved Congressional action taking place over several decades: The Missouri Compromise (1820), the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Fighting over this issue also led to border wars (1854 to 1861) in Missouri and in “Bleeding Kansas,” a prelude to the Civil War. 4. Growth of the Abolition Movement. “Increasingly, Northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders.” Critical national events stirred both regions: the publishing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Decision, John Brown’s raid, and the Fugitive Slave Act. 5. The election of Abraham Lincoln. The election of Lincoln with less than forty percent of the popular vote (against three other candidates) pushed the Southern states into secession. “They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests.” There was also another underlying issue that simmered for a long time: The issue of trade tariffs that favored Northern industries while penalizing Southerners who were more dependent on imports. Southern “crops were sold to cotton mills in England, and the ships returned with cheap manufactured goods produced in Europe. From the early 1800s, northern factories were producing many of those same goods, and northern politicians were able to pass heavy taxes on imported goods from Europe so that southerners would have to buy goods from the North. These taxes angered southerners (Kentucky Educational Television).” With all these historical situations in play, the stage was set for the country to be torn apart. Patrick J. Buchanan, national commentator, syndicated columnist, and Confederate descendant writes: At the firing on Fort Sumter, April 12-13, 1861, the first shots of the Civil War Virginia was still inside the Union. Indeed, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy. But, on April 15th, Lincoln issued a call for 75,000 volunteers from the state militias to march south and crush the new Confederacy. Two days later, April 17th, Virginia seceded rather than provide soldiers or militia to participate in a war on their brethren. North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas followed Virginia out over the same issue. They would not be a party to a war on their kinfolk.” It’s hard to dismiss the fact that Lincoln’s call for troops to invade the South had a lot to do with the war. In today’s world of polarized, political opinion, a large number of well-meaning folk still shout, “It was all about slavery!” James McPherson, Professor Emeritus of American History at Princeton University, agrees with this assessment when he says, “everything stemmed from the slavery issue.” But McPherson (in his book For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War) does offer a broader perspective when he writes: The ideological commitment of so many of those volunteers of 1861 and 1862 was one reason for the high casualty rates of Civil War armies. Fighting for liberty was a dangerous business. The kind of liberty that most Americans today associate with the Civil War was the liberation of four million slaves. But that was not the liberty for which most Civil War solders initially fought.

Forgotten History

Today, it is well understood that there is no defense for slavery; yet, what is not reported is that the albatross of this evil institution shouldn’t just hang around the neck of the South because New Englanders were also involved. Fair historians know that it is hypocritical to omit the North’s well-documented complicity in the perpetuation of the slave trade and to remain silent on other reasons for the Union entering the War. General Grant famously said, “Should I become convinced that the object of the government is to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side” (Democratic Speakers Handbook, p. 33). And George Lunt, wartime editor of the Boston Courier says in The Origin of the Late War, p. 432: “A war simply for the abolition of slavery would not have enlisted a dozen regiments for the North.” What seems to be forgotten, according to Buchanan, is that Lincoln initially endorsed a constitutional amendment that would allow slavery in fifteen states where it existed, and he offered to help Southerners find their fugitive slaves. Moreover, in a letter to Horace Greely in 1862, Lincoln said that if he could do it, he would restore the Union without freeing one slave. When the President’s offers to keep the South in the Union failed and battles were going badly for the North in 1862, Lincoln came up with another plan that changed everything – the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863. This presidential act freed slaves in the South but did not free slaves held in the North or in the borders states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. This changed the historic perception of the Civil War from the Union’s original act of suppressing the rebellion to the more acceptable social reason that the North was primarily fighting to free the slaves. This political maneuver was brilliant strategy: it kept England and France out of the war and changed the historical perception for years afterwards. “If slavery had not existed, would there have been a war?” is a question often asked. Yet, should we not also question: “If President Lincoln had not called out 75,000 troops for suppression of the South, would there have been a Civil War?” “Slavery was not the cause of the war,” insists Buchanan. “Secession was that and Lincoln’s determination to drown the nation in blood if necessary to make the Union whole again. Nor did Lincoln ever deny it.” We do have the recorded words of some Confederate leaders who advocated slavery, but there is another side to this story. Historian Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1851-1928) says: “There were many men of the Northern army who owned slaves themselves or were sons of slaveholders or had married women who owned slaves. Among these may be mentioned General Winfield Scott, Commodore Farragut, Gen. George H. Thomas, Gen. Grant. Pres. Lincoln’s wife came from a slaveholding family, and Stephen Douglas’s wife was a very large slaveholder; while many of the leaders on the Southern side did not own slaves. Gen. Lee had freed his. Gen. Stonewall Jackson had never owned one until a husband and wife begged him to buy them to prevent separation. Gen. Albert Sidney Johnson never owned a slave … No, the war was not fought to hold slaves, but a few selfish Southern people may have thought so.” Truths of History, 1998 reprint, p. 171. For many who have studied the conflict, the Civil War seems to have been “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” Anyone native to the South and familiar with her culture

The Magazine knows full well that it is ludicrous to think that Confederate soldiers would give their lives to protect the property (slaves) of wealthy landowners. Confederate leaders who owned slaves did speak for their own interests, but the majority of Southerners who were toiling on small farms were not wealthy and, as most historians acknowledge: the majority of Confederate soldiers didn’t own a single slave and wouldn’t have fought for that single issue. On the other hand, Southern soldiers did give their lives in an effort to repel an invasion of their homeland. Similarly, Northerners wouldn’t sacrifice lives to free slaves, but many did die to preserve the Union. (Again, put all this to the test by reading the personal letters and diaries of both Southerners and Northerners during the period to see what they say.) Bell Irvin Wiley of Emory University, who is said to have read over 30,000 soldier letters, adds this to the conversation: “In marked contrast to those whose primary interest was in freeing the slaves stood a larger group who wanted no part in a war of emancipation … Some Yanks opposed making slavery an issue of the war because they thought the effect would be to prolong the conflict at an unjustifiable cost in money and lives. Others objected on the score of the slaves’ ignorance and irresponsibility, while still others shrank from the thoughts of hordes of freedmen settling in the North to compete with white laborers and to mix with them on terms of equality. The opposition of many seemed to have no other basis than an unreasoning hatred of people with black skins.” The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Civil War, p. 4

Civil War Mythology

Contemporary claims of Civil War mythology are influencing today’s popular culture and those unfamiliar with American—and Southern—history might not know what to believe. Calling for the removal of Confederate monuments and questioning Southerners on why they honor their history is truly counterproductive. If we agree there are different perspectives to history, then perhaps historians might want to spend equal time in examining how the people of both sides were treated. Also, was Andersonville really designed to kill Northern prisoners? How were Southerners treated in Northern POW camps such as Camp Douglas, Elmira, and Point Lookout? Why were Black Southerners given Confederate pensions and photographed in attendance at UCV reunions? And what were the living conditions for millions of white factory workers in the North? (I could go on; please forgive me … I digress.) Today, the “Lost Cause” perception of the War is being challenged by some elitists as mythology. This thesis, advanced by Edward A. Pollard in his postwar books, is now defined in modern society by popular websites like Wikipedia as “a set of beliefs in the common in the white American South during the 19th and early 20th that describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The beliefs endorse the virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life, while minimizing or denying the central role of slavery. While it was not taught in the North, it did win acceptance there and helped the process of reunifying American whites.” This general and accepted description leaves very little to argue about except perhaps the role of slavery. So where’s the mythology? Well, the game of marginalizing Southerners—and other good folk around the country who view the Civil War a little differently—never ends, and continues to make for good sport. Perhaps the self-righteous manufacturing of historical mythology makes critics feel better about themselves. “Southerners would appreciate more humility on the part of their northern critics,” writes Dr. Wiley. “All too frequently these critics seem to approach the South’s intricate problems with a certainty and impatience bordering on arrogance. They appear to be completely unaware of the fact that there are no simple and easy solutions to these problems and that many southerners of broad mind and good will have for a long time been grappling with them.” (The Bell Irvin Wiley Reader, p. 55)

With the North’s documented duplicity in the extension of slavery in early America and with the recorded cruelties to our defeated countrymen during the War and Reconstruction, shouldn’t honest historians be asking this pertinent question: “Why the hypocrisy?” J. H. (Hank) Segars is the author and editor of books about the American South to include The Bell Irvin Wiley Reader (LSU Press) and Andersonville: The Southern Perspective (Pelican Publishing). Segars is retired from the Georgia Department of Education and currently writes for regional magazines. He earned an A.B. degree in Political Science and Sociology from West Georgia College and M.Ed. in Adult Education from the University of Georgia. To contact the author for speaking engagements, please email hsegars@ ymail.com. Sources and Recommended Reading: Buchanan, Patrick. “The New Intolerance.” Townhall.com. or Buchanan’s blog.org. Davis, Burke. Sherman’s March (1980). Kentucky Educational Television. “Causes of the War.” KET.org/civil war/causes. Palen, Marc. “Not Even Past: Debating the Causes of the Civil War.” The Department of History, the University of Texas; notevenpast.org/ debating-causes-civil-war. Rutherford, Mildred Lewis. Truths of History (1920) and Wrongs of History Righted (1914). Wiley, Bell Irvin. The Life of Johnny Reb: The Common Soldier of the Confederacy and The Life of Billy Yank: The Common Soldier of the Union (both LSU Press).