Writers like Margaret Mitchell Romanticized the Old South? What was it really like?

[hellboy30]

The entire point that we have been trying to get across is that slavery was the main underlying reason for the outbreak of tensions. In the Lower South, this was used by the Fireeaters & secessionists to really agitate folks & get the ball rolling. The Upper South was not so convinced. Yet slavery & keeping together with the rest of the slave states was important. They chose to believe that there was a way around the conflict OR that they would be better with the Federal government to protect the institute. Once Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to supress the rebellion, then the Upper South had to make a choice. For Virginia, Arkansas, & Tennessee, that meant that they decided to go with their fellow slave states & defend the institute. All three of the governors of those states acknowledged as much. The governor of Kentucky did too, but he was outflanked by the legislature of that state.

Slavery was the underlying cause for the South.....certainly not the only one, but the main one. But certain trigger events caused the actual push towards the outbreak of hostilities. Secession was one. The firing on Fort Sumter was another. Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers was another. These trigger effects were what caused the actual shooting. But the causes were what pushed them towards enacting those trigger effects. Slavery helped cause the sectional differences that led to these trigger events.

[Savez]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

The entire point that we have been trying to get across is that slavery was the main underlying reason for the outbreak of tensions. In the Lower South, this was used by the Fireeaters & secessionists to really agitate folks & get the ball rolling. The Upper South was not so convinced. Yet slavery & keeping together with the rest of the slave states was important. They chose to believe that there was a way around the conflict OR that they would be better with the Federal government to protect the institute. Once Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to supress the rebellion, then the Upper South had to make a choice. For Virginia, Arkansas, & Tennessee, that meant that they decided to go with their fellow slave states & defend the institute. All three of the governors of those states acknowledged as much. The governor of Kentucky did too, but he was outflanked by the legislature of that state.

Slavery was the underlying cause for the South.....certainly not the only one, but the main one. But certain trigger events caused the actual push towards the outbreak of hostilities. Secession was one. The firing on Fort Sumter was another. Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers was another. These trigger effects were what caused the actual shooting. But the causes were what pushed them towards enacting those trigger effects. Slavery helped cause the sectional differences that led to these trigger events.

You won't get much argument here but I think the "certainly not the only one" is a lot more important than people won't to admit. As far as triggers go, the formation of the Republican party was also one in my opinion. Most won't to place all the blame on the South for Civil War. I just don't buy it.

[Savez]

I think a major difference is that when I read quotes like these...

The people Down in these states (lower south) are not as much enlisted on principle in this war as we in Virginia. They regard it as a war to protect their property in slaves, and when they are lost take no further intererst in it. In Virginia we are fighting for the right to govern ourselves in our own way and to perpetutate our own customs and institutions among our people without interference. This feeling being universal, no loss of property or temporary defeat affects our people and they remain true."

---Captain Charles M. Blackford

“It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read and study that all the blood shedding and destruction of property of that conflict was because the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that although Southern soldiers were heroes in the field, skillfully massed and led, they and their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union, and to preserve human slavery, and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family. As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge, and denounce it as a calumny. We were not rebels; we did not fight to perpetuate human slavery, but for our rights and privileges under a government established over us by our fathers and in defense of our homes.”

---Colonel Richard Henry Lee

My people are going to war, & war for their liberty. If I don't come & bear my part they will believe me a coward--and I will feel that I am occupying the position of one. I must go and stand my chances.' ...I told [my commanding officer] we were going to fight for our ' liberty.' That was the view the whole South took of it. It was not for slavery but the sovereignty of the states, which is practically the right to resume self government or to secede.

E. Porter Alexander

"Coercion means civil war, and, though we have been educated in the federal school of politics and do not believe in the right of secession, we would never, as southerners, suffer a Southern State to be driven into subjection by armed force, as long as we could stagger under a musket. We have argued and protested against secession, but we should dishonor the blood that flows in our veins if we hesitated to beat back the armed aggressor."

---The Daily Herald, Wilmington, North Carolina

I tend to believe them. There are plenty other quotes like these and plenty of quotes that contradict these. My point is who gets to decide which ones are right and which ones are wrong? Was the New York Times wrong when it wrote...

The glorious news which is pouring in upon us from the Old Dominion is the theme of universal gratulation among patriotic men, while the sympathisers with secession are as blue as indigo. The victory of the Union Party was as unexpected as it would seem to be overwhelming. The most intelligent and well informed friends of the Union had no hope of such a result; and so late as yesterday, while the battle was raging, and while victory was perching upon the national standards, they utterly despaired of the Republic, and made the melancholy confession that all was lost. They believed that secession would carry the day by a majority as great as that which has been rendered against the pestilent heresy, and the joyous surprise with which the meagre returns in the newspapers this morning was devoured, was mingled with apprehension that it was delusive.

There can be no doubt that the surprise was as great to the defeated party as to the victorious, and their feelings of chagrin and mortification may be more easily imagined than described. Senator MASON had expressed the most unbounded confidence that the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of secession. His expectation were high; his bearing was haughty; and he would have shouted contemptuously the supposition that Virginia could be induced to vote for the Union. He made a mistake which we all made, and we therefore have no reason to reproach his judgment in the premises, however much we may commiserate his sad disappointment in the overthrow of his cherished plans of treason.

The secret of the universal mistake which has been made as to the real sentiment of Virginia is susceptible of an easy explanation. The Secessionists are all politicians — all noisy, windy, blustering demagogues, who had committed themselves to the declaration that, in a certain contingency, which has happened, viz., the election of a Republican President, they would go out of the Union. They had made so many threats to this effect that, for very shame, they felt bound to keep their words, and by dint of perseverance they succeeded in making the impression, at home and abroad, that the people were with them. But the result shows that the love of the Union is the normal condition of the public mind of Virginia, and that the utmost efforts of the politicians have not been able to rouse them from it. SAM HOUSTON said, in 1854, that if two slaveholders got into Kansas, they would keep up such a h[el]l of a howling you would suppose they were a hundred. So it has been with the Secessionists.

City of Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 1861

If a majority of citizens in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted not to secede over Linocln's election and its threat to slavery, and a majority of Confederate soldiers from all the South did not come from slave owning families, and people in the Confederacy like Patrick Cleburne existed and fought for it believing in their heart of hearts they were fighting for something other than slavery, then I owe it to them to understand it all. I won't to find out myself why they fought. I don't want McPherson and Chandra Manning or some blogger telling me why they think they fought. I want to know the truth, and I honestly believe we don't know the whole truth about this war yet, from either point of view, but there are many here who have already made up their minds one way or another.

[hellboy30]

A lot of the quotes depend on when they were spoken. Many folks said one thing BEFORE the war, then completely changed their tunes AFTER the war.

[Half Pint John]

In Virginia we are fighting for the right to govern ourselves in our own way and to perpetutate our own customs and institutions among our people without interference

And just what were those institutions and customs??

[Savez]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

And just what were those institutions and customs??

It sure wasn't protection of property in slaves.

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by Savez

It sure wasn't protection of property in slaves.

How can you be so sure? Do you have some historical facts. What customs did VA have that the later WV didn't agree with? Both were the same state at the time but the big difference was WV had few slaves an didn't seem so worried about their states rights. Then what is mentioned in most all of the states Articles of Secession? Customs, maybe but what customs?

[Savez]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

How can you be so sure? Do you have some historical facts. What customs did VA have that the later WV didn't agree with? Both were the same state at the time but the big difference was WV had few slaves an didn't seem so worried about their states rights. Then what is mentioned in most all of the states Articles of Secession? Customs, maybe but what customs?

Because he specifically said it wasn't for the protection of property in slaves. As for West Virginia you need to go back and read my earlier posts on Western Virginia counties. Read the "States Right" meeting from Harrison County. It is a western Virginia county. Jackson county in Western Virginia voted for secession straight out of the gate. Less than 1% of its population were slaves.

[Savez]

1. Resolved, That we hereby declare it to be our fixed determination to resist to the last any and all efforts; being now made or hereafter to be made by the Republican Administration, having for their object the subjugation of the Southern States.

2. Resolved, That we cordially approve the action of our State Convention, resuming for the State her sovereignty.

3. Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to any division, or attempt at division, of the State of Virginia.

4. Resolved, That our undivided allegiance is due to our beloved Commonwealth of Virginia, and to no other Government, and that in support of her sovereignty and just institutions, we pledge to her, our lives and our fortunes.

5. Resolved, That we approve the action of our representative, Col. B. W. Byrne, in the Convention so far as he explained his course to us in his address on Saturday night.

6. Resolved, That the Richmond Whig, Richmond Enquirer, and Weston papers are requested to publish the proceedings of this meeting, with a request for publication in all the papers of the Commonwealth.

JOHN S. CAMDEN, Chairman.
L. D. HAYMOND, Secretary


Public Meeting in Braxton County
Richmond Enquirer
May 15, 1861

Braxton County had a slave population of 2%. The idea that West Virginia went collectively out of the State of Virginia to the tune of "John Brown's Body" is a myth.

Resolved, That this meeting endorse and approve the resolutions offered by Mr. Woods, the able representative from Barbour, as being the true doctrine of State Rights and State Sovereignty; that we believe in the right of a State to withdraw her allegiance from the Federal Government whenever she deems it her duty so to do.

Resolved, That Virginia, recognizing no authority in any Government to coerce a sister State into submission to Federal dictation, she will regard any such attempt as a declaration of war, and we will resist such, should it be made, to the last extremity.

Resolved, That the Convention now assembled in Richmond, has proven to be the vilest and most contemptible humbug of the present age—a Convention assembled for low party purposes—a Convention of galvanized Demagogues, preparing the machinery of party, to ride into office and power, and that we earnestly request our representative to withdraw from such a corrupt body, shaking the dust from his feet at its threshold.

Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be signed by the President and Secretary, and copies sent to the “Barbour Jeffersonian,” Richmond “Enquirer” and “Examiner” with a request to publish.

JOHN B. TOWNSEND, Cha’n.
H. CAIN, Sec’ry.

Public Meeting at Gilmer
Richmond Enquirer
March 25, 1861


Gilmer had a slave population of 1.4% Unlike Jackson county, this county orginially voted against secession.

[hellboy30]

The "just institutions" include slavery.

[Savez]

In order to keep things balance and to show I understand the importance of slavery I like to post an opposite view or two within my ususal discourse.

Letcher gives a good indication of why non-slaveholders would fight in his speech I linked to earlier...

Many of the fanatics in the northern states are constantly calling attention to the fact, that the number of slave owners, as compared with the white population in the slave states, is small; and hence the inference that the non-slaveholder is not loyal to the state, and would not willingly defend the institution. This is a most serious mistake, and is well calculated to make an erroneous impression upon the northern mind. Such a representation does serious injustice to that loyal and patriotic class of our citizens. It is a reflection upon them, not warranted by their conduct, now or heretofore.

The number of persons in this state, in the year 1860, charged with taxes on slaves, was 53,874. The number of persons charged with taxes on lands in the same year, was 159,088. Most of the persons charged with taxes on slaves, are the owners of lands also; and others who own lands, own no slaves. The number of persons charged with taxes, other than owners of lands and slaves, is 201,000. "All these parties have a common interest in the protection of persons and property, and each feels that in protecting the rights and property of the others, he is securing and protecting his own, whether of little or great value." As the chief magistrate, and as a citizen of Virginia, it is a source of pleasure to me to know that there is no jealousy or distrust, and that harmony and confidence exist between these classes. If the northern people entertain the opinion that the non-slaveholders of the south are not reliable and trustworthy in all respects, they are most grossly mistaken and deceived.

And here is where I think the idea of the tax referendum came from or at least was rehashed...

“If these warlike appropriations mean anything—if we are to be involved in war, as I fear we shall be—where are you to find the men to fight your battles? Where will you get the strong arms to defend your slaves? From our glorious mountains of the West. . . . I wish to know whether Eastern gentlemen require us to submit all of our property to taxation, and fight the battles of the country too, while your property, which we are defending, is to be exempt from taxation?”

Speech by Waitman T. Willey of Monongalia County to the Convention on April 2, 1861.

If anybody knows where I can find the whole speech please let me know.


The Penn State site hellboy provide gives a great quote on the changing views that tax referendum carried with it.

Where the Confederacy arguably erected a slaveholder's republic, Virginia sought to shrink the economic, if not the social, division between slaveholders and non-slaveholders. I would stop short of calling the taxation amendment a step toward a more egalitarian Virginia, but it certainly did aim to adjust the political and economic relations between slaveholders and non-slaveholders in the state. Virginia's subsequent entry into the Confederacy only underscored the significant divisions that new republic would face over the issue of the political power of slavery.

This was in great contrast of the ideals of aristocratic Southerners like James Henry Hammond who said,

"The war is based on the principal and fact of the inequality of mankind--for policy we say races, in reality, as all history shows it as the truth is classes"

I would love to go back in time and give that guy a swift kick in the nuts.

[Savez]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

The "just institutions" include slavery.

include but not exclusive to

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by Savez

include but not exclusive to

Agreed!

[RedOwl]

Originally Posted by Pisces Adonis

When I watched Gone WIth the Wind 8 years ago I remember there was an opening Poem in the movie.



The poem alone gives such a romantic image of the Old South before the Civil War. It wasn't in the original book that Margaret Mitchell wrote.

I never managed to finish Gone With the Wind. I recently started rereading the book and got past the first 100 pages (and I intend to finish it from start to end this time) but something intrigues me.From what I remember years ago when I attempted to read this classic Southern Romance, they give an image of the South as a land of chivalrous gentlemen and feminine and refined fair ladies. With the exception of the protagonists Scarlet O'Hara and Rhett Butler, the male characters (especially one of the main characters, Ashley Wilkes) are Knights-In-Shining Armor who went out to fight a war to defend their homeland and their beloved way of life.

Southern Women-especially also one of the main characters, Melanie Hamilton who was the wife of Ashley Wilkes- are shown as supporting the men in every way they can through mailing gifts and weaving clothes and other ways of supporting the Southern cause. They are shown as a patriotic bunch who genuinely loved the Confederacy and the Old South and were loyal to the Rebel cause to the very end.

Slaves are quite shown in a mixed image. While many slaves indeed di d run away to their freedom during and after the war, the novel mentions many instances of slaves staying loyal to their master and sticking with them after the war, helping them during the tough times of the Reconstruction.

One of the main characters is actually a black slave, Mammy, who raised Scarlet from childhood all the way till adult years and she is shown as so loyal to Scarlet that she even puts Scarlet above her own children!

The novels mentions that while whippings did occur, the average slave wasn't treated like an animal but with at least some level of descency and for the more easygoing slave owners like Scarlet's father Kennedy O'Hara and Ashley Wilkes, they are actually given priveliges that supposedly only White men could have.

Its not just Gone With the Wind. Many older Southern Literature save for Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Narrative of Frederick Douglas and similar anti-slavery books, portray the same thing.

Even if Slavery is depcited as an evil of the South, in more modern literature like the North and South Trilogy, Cold Mountain, and The Killer Angels, Southern Soldiers are shown as a chivalrous Gentlement fighting to defend their homeland even if some of them did not necessarily agree with slavery and actually opposed it. I never read North and South nor Cold Mountain but heard elsewhere that they tended to have heroes who fit the Southern Gentlemen image. The Killer Angels, while a War Novel and not a Romance or Historical Fiction, portrays many of the Southern Generals as fitting this image especially Pickett.

What was the reality like? Was the typical Southern man such a refined and brave Knight-In-Shining Armor and the typical Southern woman a Feminine Dame of the utmost class?

What was the actually of Slavery?

It\s too bad that you didn't get past page 20. In fact I doubt that you got that far without knowing that Scarlett's Father was Gerald O'Hara. It's a terrific novel and although I love the movie, more than half of the plot of the novel was left out of the film.

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by RedOwl

It\s too bad that you didn't get past page 20. In fact I doubt that you got that far without knowing that Scarlett's Father was Gerald O'Hara. It's a terrific novel and although I love the movie, more than half of the plot of the novel was left out of the film.

Welcome aboard RedOwl.....thanks for the perspective!