Reconstruction was effective, based on the number of African-Americans who sought and won political office during its duration, and considering the economic and social improvement of Black people during that time. Reconstruction, however, was abruptly halted by the Compromise - or Great Betrayal - of 1877, which saw Rutherford B. Hayes named President (he did not win a majority of the popular vote) over Samuel B. Tilden, who did win said majority. The deal that selected Hayes included the removal of federal troops from several Southern states and the end of voting and civil rights enforcement throughout the Old Confederacy. The counter-reconstruction process was led by what had been the pro-slavery wing of the Democratic Party, which continued to espouse and enforce American Apartheid, and whose Republican descendants still do. Human rights advocates and Black leaders commenced a struggle which included the classic civil rights movement and reached a high point in the signing of landmark civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s. That legislation led the Dixiecrats to leave the Democratic Party. They were welcomed by Republicans, who adopted their racist policies in pursuit of political power. Over time, those racially regressive political positions have come to dominate the Republican Party.
Electoral politics hamstrung Reconstruction. With perfect hindsight: the states that seceded should not have gotten their electoral votes back until AFTER Reconstruction had been completed. By ending Reconstruction early the attitudes that led to the Civil War persist even to this day. Just look at the crazy comments that precipitated Ryan's post.
The final nail in this coffin is to compare the Confederate constitution with the US Constitution. The only significant difference is enshrining slavery as a constitutional right. They also did some things I kinda agree with, moving much of the Bill of Rights into the body of the constitution itself, but that is really only a structural difference, not a semantic one.
The comments on that video make me sick. Just more revisionist history by the losers, just like the "Confederate Battle Flag" wasn't. It was the battle flag of the First Virginia. So if you are in a specific location in Virginia, then it's true.
I was raised in the deep south by people who preached the same crap as the losers in your comments. I've heard it all before an wasn't at all surprised, just disappointed. But I took history classes, I read a lot, and I think critically.
Don't forget the "Cornerstone Speech" by Confederate Vice President Stephens:
"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." --- https://www.google.com/search?q=stephens+cornerstone+speech
I would like to point out that Governor Sam Houston of Texas was against secession, and was forced from office because of his refusal to take part in the Texas plan to leave the Union. Yes he was a slaveholder, but he was also a patriot to the Republic.
Governor Houston's position, alas, was a minority view. You illustrate nicely, however, that convictions were not unanimous in either the North or South. Southern Illinois, southern Nevada, Southern California, and all of both Maryland and Delaware were hotbeds of Southern sympathy. Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia were about evenly split (Virginia fragmented). Missouri and Kansas were decidedly mixed. There are parallels - sobering ones - to our present political circumstances.
Dear Bob, I appreciate your note. History is full of nuance, and you captured it much more clearly than I did. I'm saddened that the trolls came out for Ryan, and it seems to be the price of digital conversations these days. All my best, Gordon.
I appreciate your nuanced and well-researched expression here, Ryan. However, I also look forward to reading comments to your elucidation above that continue to call you, in polite terms, misguided and misinformed.
Jesus could descend from Heaven and alight on the stormy waters next to their bass fishing boat, calm the seas with his words, and walk on the water to the boat while all onboard watch, saying, "Truly I tell you, the Civil War was mostly based the Southern states wishing to preserve the ownership of other children of God. Also, political parties change. Segregationist Democrats were called Dixiecrats, because they held very different views on racial equality than did their New England neighbors. And after the Southern Strategy employed by the GOP to bring Southern Christians onboard the party, Lincoln, the first Republican President, would frown in shame at what his party has become. In truth, Ronald Reagan couldn't win a primary today." Those bass fisherman would declare, "You're not Jesus. You just owned yourself you libtard commie sharia-loving Jew."
I think it's most accurate to say that the main cause was slavery but that while the south saw the abolition of slavery as unacceptable and wanted to seceed, Lincoln portrayed this as a means of preserving the union and did so to retain as much support in the north as possible. As the war progressed, Lincoln recast the North's mission as abolition as means of further bolstering domestic support. It was always his private intention to end slavery.
This politically charged debate over the Civil War IS about slavery, but ignores the economic changes technology brings. Some say slavery was the economic basis of the South- "Slavery was so profitable, it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America's southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation." https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
Others disagree "Under conservative assumptions about the value of non-working time to enslaved people, we estimate that the productivity gain was roughly 10% to 20% of gross domestic product." https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-24/
Efficient or not, I suggest the South reacted to the politics over slavery, when technical change was more insidious. While the war occurred before the tractor, "One tractor could replace about the pulling-power of five horses or mules" (historian B. L. Gardner). Gen. Sherman recognized a freedman and a mule as an economic threat to the South, and ordered "Forty acres and a mule"- so threatening Pres A. Johnson tried to repeal it.
The Civil War ACCELERATED the economic fall of the South- damage to infrastructure, a decline in the working population (just as slavery was becoming uneconomical), inflation, shortages, uncertainty, rise in debt and disruption to normal economic activity. (Just watch Russia's and Ukraine's GNP)
Technology began the South's economic primacy to fall, the War finished it. It's always EASY to blame a race or a group when we feel economically threatened (recently, USA's legal/illegal migrant labour). If anyone doubts the effects of technology- look at how AI/chatbots are changing our world, how drones are changing our world? What race/religion are we going to blame next? Or are we going to grow and adapt?
In order for machines to replace labor, the machines would have to be cheaper to operate and maintain. This was true in the North, where the Civil War and westward expansion caused a labor shortage, and where farm workers commanded salaries in addition to room and board. It was much less true in the South, as can be seen by the relatively slow pace of industrialization in the cotton fields and cane breaks. Less need for machines if labor is unpaid, and can in fact be used as collateral for the loans needed to finance the year's crop.
Or how cheaper fuel killed coal, or how robotic arms have replaced auto-workers, or how Amazon killed many brick and mortar bookstores, or Home Depot killed mom and pop hardware stores...
I was wondering how humanity would adapt to more and more workers being replaced by robots, machines, and now AI but it now occurs to me that we have examples from history at that a primary one is how the white property owners of the slave South adapted to being able to permanently buy labor rather than pay wages.
For better or worse, much of the technology world, the software world is no longer perpetual-license purchases, but subscription-based services. So things will be a little different than those older days. Until we buy robots that can reproduce themselves and expand our personal labor and skills forces, things won't get as bad as the lazy rich portrayed in Django Unchained. Bring on the bread and circuses, Adrian!
Sad and overlooked fact is that in many places there were black property and slave owners. Black slave owners often owned and operated more slaves than their white counterparts. Grouping slave owners as a collective "south" is not beneficial as each state did not necessarily have the same issues. Florida specifically had a system under the Spanish that allowed for anyone to own property. Many blacks did and many ran their property with slave labor. This created an issue the English had to deal with when they began their control of the State. The English answer was to run the native American tribes from the Carolinas to Florida to uproot both the original Florida Indians and the Black property owners. Specifically the history around St. Augustine has record of Native Floridians, Blacks and Spanish working together to preserve their property rights against the British and their imported native Americans attempts to displace them. History is messy. Final thought is that not all whites in the south owned slaves. Numbers vary, but the overwhelming majority of whites did not own slaves, much less their own property.
A large amount of text removed and reduced to this:
The biggest point I'd like to make is in the future, when you have copious amounts of free time relaxing in exotic places there will be an opportunity to dive into the Civil War history and battles and why it was such a turning point in our history. History also allows professional and novice historians to pick a clear point to start a discussion while not taking into full account the actions and inactions of those that preceded their chosen entry point.
I am the product of my own observations, experiences, study, education and understanding. I'm human. I am always learning. I strive to be an objective free-thinker. If we don't learn the lessons of history we are certainly doomed to repeat it.
"Pretending to be a normal person day after day is exhausting"
True- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Not "remembering", not being taught these details in school is the real issue Ryan raised here, IMHO. As for "repeating", I worry where anti-immigrant rhetoric is going to lead us?
Slavery was the single unifying factor in those States that left the Union in 1861. I believe the most important reason for the deep South States leaving was slavery. Lincoln intended to significantly raise tariffs to protect Northern industry and the agrarian South definitely did not want this. The greatest revenue source for the US in 1860 was tariffs. This was important to Louisiana as it was the second largest port in the US. Taxation was a real concern for the South depended on imports from foreign countries or the North for manufactured goods. I doubt that Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina would have left if Lincoln had not stated that the South would be invaded. Most Southerners did not own slaves though the economic and political elites tended to own them. If you want to get comments you can always count on the reason for the Civil War to produce a good volume of them.
Disappointed in the original comments. If you disagree say so, argue your points respectfully. This should be universal. Great work and reply Ryan. Also interesting as not from US.
As Mark Twain once said: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" ... and you told them were to go anyway! Kudos to you. Also, if you are a "Jewish something or the other" - you are my favourite one!
For a detailed discussion of many of the topics, leading to the succession of the southern states, I highly recommend Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. A pivotal issue was the expansion of the institution of slavery to the western territories, and the supreme court rulings known as the Dred Scott decision that would’ve allowed slavery in the northern states.
Reading some of those comments I'm thinking: "Reconstruction didn't go far enough."
Reconstruction was effective, based on the number of African-Americans who sought and won political office during its duration, and considering the economic and social improvement of Black people during that time. Reconstruction, however, was abruptly halted by the Compromise - or Great Betrayal - of 1877, which saw Rutherford B. Hayes named President (he did not win a majority of the popular vote) over Samuel B. Tilden, who did win said majority. The deal that selected Hayes included the removal of federal troops from several Southern states and the end of voting and civil rights enforcement throughout the Old Confederacy. The counter-reconstruction process was led by what had been the pro-slavery wing of the Democratic Party, which continued to espouse and enforce American Apartheid, and whose Republican descendants still do. Human rights advocates and Black leaders commenced a struggle which included the classic civil rights movement and reached a high point in the signing of landmark civil rights legislation in the mid-1960s. That legislation led the Dixiecrats to leave the Democratic Party. They were welcomed by Republicans, who adopted their racist policies in pursuit of political power. Over time, those racially regressive political positions have come to dominate the Republican Party.
Historically, could we say the assassination of Lincoln effectively hamstrung Reconstruction?
Electoral politics hamstrung Reconstruction. With perfect hindsight: the states that seceded should not have gotten their electoral votes back until AFTER Reconstruction had been completed. By ending Reconstruction early the attitudes that led to the Civil War persist even to this day. Just look at the crazy comments that precipitated Ryan's post.
Thank you for deferring to the history.
The final nail in this coffin is to compare the Confederate constitution with the US Constitution. The only significant difference is enshrining slavery as a constitutional right. They also did some things I kinda agree with, moving much of the Bill of Rights into the body of the constitution itself, but that is really only a structural difference, not a semantic one.
The comments on that video make me sick. Just more revisionist history by the losers, just like the "Confederate Battle Flag" wasn't. It was the battle flag of the First Virginia. So if you are in a specific location in Virginia, then it's true.
I was raised in the deep south by people who preached the same crap as the losers in your comments. I've heard it all before an wasn't at all surprised, just disappointed. But I took history classes, I read a lot, and I think critically.
Great post, Ryan. The Lost Cause narrative is so gross. https://www.nps.gov/articles/confronting-slavery-and-revealing-the-lost-cause.htm
It is so cringe worthy when some commenters smugly make statements that demonstrably are not true. Good on you for calling them out on it.
Don't forget the "Cornerstone Speech" by Confederate Vice President Stephens:
"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." --- https://www.google.com/search?q=stephens+cornerstone+speech
I would like to point out that Governor Sam Houston of Texas was against secession, and was forced from office because of his refusal to take part in the Texas plan to leave the Union. Yes he was a slaveholder, but he was also a patriot to the Republic.
Governor Houston's position, alas, was a minority view. You illustrate nicely, however, that convictions were not unanimous in either the North or South. Southern Illinois, southern Nevada, Southern California, and all of both Maryland and Delaware were hotbeds of Southern sympathy. Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia were about evenly split (Virginia fragmented). Missouri and Kansas were decidedly mixed. There are parallels - sobering ones - to our present political circumstances.
Dear Bob, I appreciate your note. History is full of nuance, and you captured it much more clearly than I did. I'm saddened that the trolls came out for Ryan, and it seems to be the price of digital conversations these days. All my best, Gordon.
"I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her."
I appreciate your nuanced and well-researched expression here, Ryan. However, I also look forward to reading comments to your elucidation above that continue to call you, in polite terms, misguided and misinformed.
Jesus could descend from Heaven and alight on the stormy waters next to their bass fishing boat, calm the seas with his words, and walk on the water to the boat while all onboard watch, saying, "Truly I tell you, the Civil War was mostly based the Southern states wishing to preserve the ownership of other children of God. Also, political parties change. Segregationist Democrats were called Dixiecrats, because they held very different views on racial equality than did their New England neighbors. And after the Southern Strategy employed by the GOP to bring Southern Christians onboard the party, Lincoln, the first Republican President, would frown in shame at what his party has become. In truth, Ronald Reagan couldn't win a primary today." Those bass fisherman would declare, "You're not Jesus. You just owned yourself you libtard commie sharia-loving Jew."
I think it's most accurate to say that the main cause was slavery but that while the south saw the abolition of slavery as unacceptable and wanted to seceed, Lincoln portrayed this as a means of preserving the union and did so to retain as much support in the north as possible. As the war progressed, Lincoln recast the North's mission as abolition as means of further bolstering domestic support. It was always his private intention to end slavery.
This politically charged debate over the Civil War IS about slavery, but ignores the economic changes technology brings. Some say slavery was the economic basis of the South- "Slavery was so profitable, it sprouted more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River valley than anywhere in the nation. With cash crops of tobacco, cotton and sugar cane, America's southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation." https://www.history.com/news/slavery-profitable-southern-economy
Others disagree "Under conservative assumptions about the value of non-working time to enslaved people, we estimate that the productivity gain was roughly 10% to 20% of gross domestic product." https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-02-24/
Efficient or not, I suggest the South reacted to the politics over slavery, when technical change was more insidious. While the war occurred before the tractor, "One tractor could replace about the pulling-power of five horses or mules" (historian B. L. Gardner). Gen. Sherman recognized a freedman and a mule as an economic threat to the South, and ordered "Forty acres and a mule"- so threatening Pres A. Johnson tried to repeal it.
The Civil War ACCELERATED the economic fall of the South- damage to infrastructure, a decline in the working population (just as slavery was becoming uneconomical), inflation, shortages, uncertainty, rise in debt and disruption to normal economic activity. (Just watch Russia's and Ukraine's GNP)
Technology began the South's economic primacy to fall, the War finished it. It's always EASY to blame a race or a group when we feel economically threatened (recently, USA's legal/illegal migrant labour). If anyone doubts the effects of technology- look at how AI/chatbots are changing our world, how drones are changing our world? What race/religion are we going to blame next? Or are we going to grow and adapt?
In order for machines to replace labor, the machines would have to be cheaper to operate and maintain. This was true in the North, where the Civil War and westward expansion caused a labor shortage, and where farm workers commanded salaries in addition to room and board. It was much less true in the South, as can be seen by the relatively slow pace of industrialization in the cotton fields and cane breaks. Less need for machines if labor is unpaid, and can in fact be used as collateral for the loans needed to finance the year's crop.
Or how cheaper fuel killed coal, or how robotic arms have replaced auto-workers, or how Amazon killed many brick and mortar bookstores, or Home Depot killed mom and pop hardware stores...
I was wondering how humanity would adapt to more and more workers being replaced by robots, machines, and now AI but it now occurs to me that we have examples from history at that a primary one is how the white property owners of the slave South adapted to being able to permanently buy labor rather than pay wages.
For better or worse, much of the technology world, the software world is no longer perpetual-license purchases, but subscription-based services. So things will be a little different than those older days. Until we buy robots that can reproduce themselves and expand our personal labor and skills forces, things won't get as bad as the lazy rich portrayed in Django Unchained. Bring on the bread and circuses, Adrian!
Sad and overlooked fact is that in many places there were black property and slave owners. Black slave owners often owned and operated more slaves than their white counterparts. Grouping slave owners as a collective "south" is not beneficial as each state did not necessarily have the same issues. Florida specifically had a system under the Spanish that allowed for anyone to own property. Many blacks did and many ran their property with slave labor. This created an issue the English had to deal with when they began their control of the State. The English answer was to run the native American tribes from the Carolinas to Florida to uproot both the original Florida Indians and the Black property owners. Specifically the history around St. Augustine has record of Native Floridians, Blacks and Spanish working together to preserve their property rights against the British and their imported native Americans attempts to displace them. History is messy. Final thought is that not all whites in the south owned slaves. Numbers vary, but the overwhelming majority of whites did not own slaves, much less their own property.
A large amount of text removed and reduced to this:
The biggest point I'd like to make is in the future, when you have copious amounts of free time relaxing in exotic places there will be an opportunity to dive into the Civil War history and battles and why it was such a turning point in our history. History also allows professional and novice historians to pick a clear point to start a discussion while not taking into full account the actions and inactions of those that preceded their chosen entry point.
I am the product of my own observations, experiences, study, education and understanding. I'm human. I am always learning. I strive to be an objective free-thinker. If we don't learn the lessons of history we are certainly doomed to repeat it.
"Pretending to be a normal person day after day is exhausting"
True- “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Not "remembering", not being taught these details in school is the real issue Ryan raised here, IMHO. As for "repeating", I worry where anti-immigrant rhetoric is going to lead us?
We do learn from history that we really haven't learned a d*** thing
Slavery was the single unifying factor in those States that left the Union in 1861. I believe the most important reason for the deep South States leaving was slavery. Lincoln intended to significantly raise tariffs to protect Northern industry and the agrarian South definitely did not want this. The greatest revenue source for the US in 1860 was tariffs. This was important to Louisiana as it was the second largest port in the US. Taxation was a real concern for the South depended on imports from foreign countries or the North for manufactured goods. I doubt that Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina would have left if Lincoln had not stated that the South would be invaded. Most Southerners did not own slaves though the economic and political elites tended to own them. If you want to get comments you can always count on the reason for the Civil War to produce a good volume of them.
Excellent job Ryan!
However, those who really need to read and heed this will simply makes excuses as to why it's fake news and carry on with their conspiracy theories...
Interesting read
Disappointed in the original comments. If you disagree say so, argue your points respectfully. This should be universal. Great work and reply Ryan. Also interesting as not from US.
As Mark Twain once said: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" ... and you told them were to go anyway! Kudos to you. Also, if you are a "Jewish something or the other" - you are my favourite one!
Keep up the good work.
For a detailed discussion of many of the topics, leading to the succession of the southern states, I highly recommend Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. A pivotal issue was the expansion of the institution of slavery to the western territories, and the supreme court rulings known as the Dred Scott decision that would’ve allowed slavery in the northern states.