Bitterly Divided: The South’s Inner Civil War

[RamboLiberal]

Q: You write that most Southerners didn’t even want to leave the Union.

A: That’s right. In late 1860 and early 1861, there were a series of votes on the secession question in all the slave states, and the overwhelming majority voted against it. It was only in the Deep South, from South Carolina to Texas, that there was much support for secession, and even there it was deeply divided. In Georgia, a slight majority of voters were against secession.

Q: So why did Georgia secede?

A: The popular vote didn’t decide the question. It chose delegates to a convention. That’s the way slaveholders wanted it, because they didn’t trust people to vote on the question directly. More than 30 delegates who had pledged to oppose secession changed their votes at the convention. Most historians think that was by design. The suspicion is that the secessionists ran two slates — one for and one supposedly against — and whichever was elected, they’d vote for secession.

Q: You use the phrase “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” several times. Does this history anger you?

A: I don’t think it would be unfair to say that. It seems like the common folk were very much ignored and used by the planter elite. As a result, over half a million Americans died.

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

Sounds like a fascinating read for those of us who enjoy reading Civil War history.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thanks for the link

The first draft law in America was in the Confederacy--and they made exemptions for large slaveholders. The arrogance of the Southern elite is what led to the downfall of the South.

[raccoon]

2. It was a "rich man's war and a poor man's right" on both sides.

In the North:

"...passed in March 1863, the (National Consciption Act) made all single men aged twenty to forty-five and married men up to thirty-five subject to a draft lottery. In addition, the act allowed drafted men to avoid conscription entirely by supplying someone to take their place or to pay the government a three hundred-dollar exemption fee. Not surprisingly, only the wealthy could afford to buy their way out of the draft. "

http://www.vny.cuny.edu/draftriots/Intro/draft_riot_intro_set.html


Thanks for the link, OP.

[Sequoia]

3. Thanks. No. 1 on the libary's wait list. (First time I was first!)

"Lincoln didn't free the slaves; they freed themselves." Hot diggity dog!

[raccoon]

4. I requested my local library order this, and I'm reading it now.

The introduction alone is great. It certainly presents a different picture of the South than we've gotten previously from US history.

[Captain Hilts]

5. The South didn't even have the same rail gauge throughout the South they were so insular. nt

[raccoon]

6. I finished this book yesterday. I highly recommend it.

After this, I'll never look at the Civil War the same way again.

The last chapter I thought was particularly good. The author says the "Lost Cause" was basically a mythology created after the war. That's why most of us believe, and have for decades, that most white Southerners were in favor of secession, and were very united in their resistance to the Union.

The book/movie GONE WITH THE WIND contributed to this mythology. I believe there are many people who think GWTW is an accurate representation of the antebellum South. I think most DU'ers know better, though.

Anyway, I highly recommend this book.

[RoyGBiv]

7. This is a pretty good book ...

It's greatest value is in its synthesis of a thesis that has been around in bits and pieces for quite awhile now.

That is, a lot of it is an analysis of what has up to now generally been regional or topical history, e.g. the Gainsville Massacre, the so-called Free State of Jones, the vastly under-studied effect of slave resistance, Richmond bread riots, desertion from the Confederate armies for the purpose of defending home and family from Confederate commissaries, etc. and a broader examination of the total effects of these elements throughout the war itself. Many historians have almost instinctively known all this for some time. I mean, the theme has been around long enough it's made it to some extent into popular culture through vehicles such as the movie _Shenandoah_. It's also a theme in what are generally military studies of the war such as _How the North Won_ and _How the South Lost_. But, we have lacked a coherent synthesis of these ideas into a general theory.

Williams does bottom-up history in the tradition of Howard Zinn, and that approach can have its limitations when it is applied to a subject that inherently has top-down elements, e.g. the fierce political battles within the South over secession and the economic effects of the war on the South during the war itself. I need to give the book a closer reading and pay more attention to how he deals with the data and thesis put forth by people such as Ralph Wooster, heretofore a mainstay of source material for examining the secession conventions, why they were put together, who was involved, etc. For example, one of Wooster's findings, based on empirical data and not merely interpretation of a sampling of written opinions as had been the standard before him, is that in the upper South, secessionist conventions were generally populated by moderates on the secession question that held the planter class at bay until the incidents surrounding Ft. Sumter. Ft. Sumter and the shenanigans that led to it are a major linchpin in the argument of showing how far the conspiracy to force the secession question was willing to go.

I would like to have seen more about the role of gender and gender-based dynamics. That is, other studies have been done on the role of women in empowering male soldiers both to fight and resist. This is addressed, but not adequately, in my opinion.

And we still need a fuller accounting for the non-military aspects of campaigns such as Shiloh, Sharpsburg, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Mobile. In other words, military historians need to apply these lessons to their own studies and stop perpetuating the idea that war is won and lost entirely on the battlefield. There are a few who do this, but they aren't very popular among the establishment.

In any case, I'm very glad to see this book and look forward to the response and derivatives from other historians.

[BDW1964]

8. MY GGGG Grandparents

were devoted Unionists and lived in northern Alabama. They were persecuted during the Civil War by their friends, family and neighbors for being against secession and the CSA. Their two oldest sons, both ran away from home at 18 years of age and joined the CSA Army. One died at Gettysburg and the other was seriously wounded. I have a copy of my GGGG Grandparents file to the Southern Claims Commission in the 1870's, which details much of this with testimony from neighbors and from Union officers. Like much of the non-planter class of people who were born to parents of the Revolutionary War generation, the Union was treasured thing that they refused to abandon. The younger people (children) were more easily influenced by the propaganda and excitement of the times and tended to support the CSA in the military (men) and in general (women).

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. Great book!

The South was never of one mind. Winston County in North
Alabama always went their own way to name one place.

[bikebloke]

10. Just finished it.

The way the confederate government waged war against their own common people, reminded of the neocons war against us today.