Posted on 01/24/2014 8:00:53 AM PST by rockrr
It seems fitting that the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War, which some people might still be shocked to learn the North won, turned out to be "Dixie."
After all, since Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox there's been no shortage of looking away, looking away at the reality of history when it comes to the Civil War.
Nowhere is that full flower of denial more apparent than among the followers of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is upset about a proposal to erect a monument to Union soldiers who died in the Battle of Olustee, regarded by historians as the largest and deadliest engagement in Florida during the "wowrah." Related News/Archive
Next month marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Olustee, about 45 miles west of Jacksonville. Some 2,000 Union troops died in the conflict, while 1,000 Confederate soldiers also perished in an engagement that did not substantially alter the course of the Civil War.
The 3-acre Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park includes three monuments honoring the Confederate troops who fought and died in the encounter. But when the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War pushed for a memorial on the site to pay homage to the sacrifices of their forbearers, hostilities ensued. So did illiterate silliness.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
does anyone realize that slavery based on skin color alone is a relativly new phenomenon on the rand scale of history?
Within the general public? Probably fewer than those who know that the overwhelming majority of slaves from the African slave traffic were not enslaved in the United States.
In almost every civil war in history, the civilian casualties were a significant multiple of the military casualties. And the winners after the war took massive vengeance by executions and confiscation of the property of the losers.
Uniquely, AFAIK, our Civil War had civilian deaths that were probably <50k and almost certainly <100k. Perhaps 10% to 20% of military deaths.
Exactly one CSA soldier was executed by the Union after the war for war crimes.
There was a truly massive confiscation of wealth when the slaves were freed, with the resultant loss of capital throwing the South into many decades of poverty. But confiscation of other types of property was little if any.
Let's recognize the virtues of our ancestors. Mine fought on both sides, with at least one fighting first for the CSA then for USA.
And even those numbers are grossly exaggerated speculation.
If you go looking for the names of confirmed civilians who died directly as a result of the Civil War, you could muster a few dozen names -- at most.
All the rest of those 50,000 or 100,000 alleged deaths are just statistical speculations, based on the population's growth rate from 1850 to 1860, versus the lower growth rate from 1860 to 1870.
Sure, with their menfolk off at war, women had fewer children.
And with disruptions in food & other supplies, some older people got sick, and died sooner than they would have in peacetime.
And there were occasional stray bullets in battle which struck and killed unfortunate civilians nearby.
But there were very few, if any, incidents of soldiers wantonly murdering civilians, incidents which in every other war have been considered unavoidable "collateral damage".
Even Sherman's army at its worst were under orders to make sure houses were unoccupied before they set them on fire. There is only a documented case or two of occupants either too frail to respond or too stubborn to leave who got caught in these fires.
You’re right. You have to look at the productive capacity of the investment and its ROI cash on cash. How much arable land would $500 buy?
I was trying to avoid the usual claims of whitewashing the suffering of southern civilians during the war by erring on the side of generosity in calculating civilian deaths.
Comparison with any other great civil war in history is just not in the books.
Even at Lawrence, where close onto 200 unarmed men and boys were murdered, the raiders, even though generally drunk, treated ladies with due courtesy. Often tipping their hats to them before tossing their husbands and sons into burning buildings.
Compare that to months of mass rapes in Berlin in WWII.
the Ottoman empire did not have slavery based on skin color, just conquest. that was through the 1800’s.
Slavery existed in the world long before Europeans came to North America, and continued to exist in the world after the Emancipation Proclamation and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It was, is, and will be, a morally abhorrent practice no matter the skin color of the slave or slaveholder.
Something in the neighborhood of 12M slaves were shipped across the Atlantic from the 15th to 19th centuries. At most 5% of this number came to what is now the USA. Largely because North America was the most distant market, limiting the number of trips a slave ship could make in a given period and thus profits per year.
Roughly the same number were transported across the Sahara and shipped across the Red Sea and Indian Ocean from the 7th through 19th centuries in the Arab slave trade. Which probably still continues today, on a greatly reduced scale.
So at most 2% to 3% of Africans traded off the continent came to areas now included within the USA. Yet somehow this vile practice has become sterotyped as peculiarly or even uniquely American.
Amazing how difficult it is to compare prices, wages and cost of living from one era to another, isn’t it?
The more you study the subject, the murkier it becomes.
I’ve given some thought to a universal metric.
Median income for a year divided by 2000 (50 forty-hour weeks).
The cost of food, housing, medical care (or slaves) could then be compared in “medians” from one year or century to another. I’ve never thrashed this out with 1860 due to inability to locate accurate median income figures.
One of the interesting things you find when looking into this subject is the way the price differential between things changes.
Food, for instance, used to cost a LOT more on a relative basis than today, at least if you compare staple foods. People think food has gotten more expensive largely because they insist on eating mainly processed and restaurant foods.
What do you think about my metric?
One relevant factor is that USA Army privates were paid $13/month during the war.
Which meant it would take 40 months earnings for him to buy a (low-end) $500 slave.
Base pay for a US Army E1 today is around %1500/month, a differential of 115:1. 40 months pay for an E1 would be around $60,000.
Of course, comparing wages and prices for slaves and army privates from 1860 to 2014 doesn’t make much sense. Which is kind of my point. These things are really, really hard to compare. And the usual inflation calculators are comprehensively worthless.
I hate to point out to the author a few facts that I am sure their limited knowledge of this time in american history is unaware, but I feel I must, since the ignorance is so deep that they believe the civil war was purely about nothing more than slavery.
2 States, West Virginia, and Maryland were both slave states and part of the Union, in fact author, West Virginia succeeded from Virginia purely because it did not want to succeed from the union... However upon its succession it did not abolish slavery within its borders.
African Americans fought and died on both sides of this conflict.
The overwhelming majority of southerners never did nor ever would own a slave.. Yes slavery was an abomination against humanity, but the idea that poor appalachian boys from hollers of Tennessee were willingly dying just to keep the blacks in their place is nonsense.
The Emancipation Proclamation, did not free one slave living in Maryland or WV or any other state in the Union. It was a political move that ensured Europe, who was contemplating entering the war on the side of the south would not get involved... very shrewed political move, but a political one none the less.
To dumb down the 70 year run up to the civil war as simply over slavery is just as if not more ignorant that those you attempt to mock. Do you know what the Nullifier movement was? How about the tariff of abominations? Or any of the other factors that played an ever building stress between the industrializing north and the agrarian south?
Now, to mock others ignorance, when yours is on display to see hopefully will make you go do some homework before you open your trap again.
As to the issue at hand, I don’t care if they erect a monument, put one up for the dead of both sides, because in spite of the dumbing down by fools like this author, this conflict still was the most deadly conflict in US History in terms of casualties by far... And whether you agree with one side or the other, they all need to be remembered because in spite of you and yours attempt to white wash this as a simple black and white issue (see what I did there?) It was far more complex and many a good man gave their “last full measure of devotion” on both sides. (See what I did there too?)
Inaccurate.
WV abolished slavery by state action in 1865. Its state constitution of 1863 had earlier provided for gradual emancipation.
MO abolished slavery by state action in January, 1865.
MD abolished slavery by state action in November, 1864.
In fact, all slaves except those in KY and DE (around 50,000) had been freed either by state action or by the Emancipation Proclamation before the ratification of the 13th Amendment in Dec. 1865. Or 98.75% of all slaves.
poor appalachian boys from hollers of Tennessee were willingly dying just to keep the blacks in their place is nonsense
Most of the mountain boys of Tennessee fought on the Union side, at least if given the opportunity and not forced into the CSA Army by conscription.
In 1860 around 1/3 of southern white families owned slaves. In fact, in two states, MS and SC, they were a majority of white families or very nearly.
The actual numbers are easily found farther up this thread. I don't think 2/3 as non-slaveowners qualifies as a "vast majority" by any logical standard.
I agree fully with your final paragraph.
In 1860, just as today, the price of land was based on three important factors: 1) location, 2) location and 3) location...
But, according to this site, farmland then was selling for circa $3 to $5 per acre, meaning $500 would purchase around 100 to 150 acres.
Today, a 100 acre farm in, oh say, central PA, costs circa $500,000 and in garden-spots like Lancaster County, over $1 million.
Again, the big point here is: you cannot possibly overestimate the economic value of slavery to their owners in 1860.
Slaves then represented over 20% of the US total assets' value, but in the Deep South, well over 50%.
That's why the political dividing lines, between those who demanded immediate secession, versus southern Unionists, was strictly based on the percentage of slave-owners in any particular region.
Or any other of countless atrocities.
The Thirty Years War, for example, is said to have depopulated 2/3 of Germany and lead eventually to many seeking refuge in the New World.
World War Two is also hard to estimate civilian deaths -- but not because they were too few to find, but rather too many to count.
So, even though millions of victims are known by name, untold millions more can only be estimated.
And those estimates start around 75 million total, about half of them civilians.
Tens of millions in WWII verses a few dozen named civilian victims in the US Civil War.
That is not simply a difference in quantity, it's a vast difference in the quality of soldiers and their leaders.
In post #178 above, those numbers came directly from the site I linked to, and what it tells us clearly is that direct comparisons between today and any long-ago period will produce a variety of results.
Two of those numbers correspond to your metric: unskilled labor wages and production worker wages.
In this example of $500 in 1860 those equate to $89,000 and $176,000 respectively.
Based on that, I said $500 in 1860 could equal anything from $100,000 to...
The higher number of $1 million is based on the site's "relative share of GDP", plus known farmland values then & now.
Based on those, I picked a high number of $1 million in today's values for $500 in 1860.
Bottom line: because everything is different today, there is no way to make a single valid comparison with 1860.
But, if we say that $500 then was the value of a large farm, or a nice house, then that should convey pretty well what we're talking about, don't you think?
Since you are a self-professed "expert", I'm certain you already know the basic facts:
Bottom line: the Deep South slave-power declared its secession "purely about nothing more than slavery".
But that alone did not cause Civil War.
Civil War came because those secessions first provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
At that point their fate was sealed, and Unconditional Surrender their only option.
Slavery was then utterly doomed, and Confederate states generally condemned to generations of relative poverty.
Of course, I'm certain you already know that, right?
The exact dollar amounts are much less important and your argument stands. The most important thing you’ve established is something that most Americans and I’d say FReepers no longer understand: economics and politics are joined at the hip.
Pocketbook issues matter and people vote their wallet. At the same time we’re deeply emotional, but when both align look out. I think we’re there as a nation. If Obama’s policies worked economically his politics wouldn’t matter as much to people. Instead they’ve learned not to trust Obama because his economics stink.
That’s a lesson today’s conservative politicians need to learn. The voter may view your socially conservative views with some skepticism, but recognize you as sincere and honest because of them. Tie that in with a strong economic growth message - jobs and wealth creation - and you have a winning ticket. Trust once lost is hard to redeem. Good discussion.
Have you ever been wrong BroJoeK? Don’t answer that, put your wife on and let’s hear the truth.
Price of farmland, or any other commodity, is based on supply vs. demand.
In the 19th century there was literally most of a continent of unoccupied land just sitting out there. (If you discount the Indians, which just about everybody did at the time.)
Because there was so much land, it was very nearly free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.