2019 Reading

CharlasAmerican Civil War

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

2019 Reading

1rocketjk
Editado: Jul 15, 2019, 7:07 pm

This seems to be a mostly dry group these days, but anyway . . .

I finished Georgia and State Rights by by Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, originally published in 1902 as Phillips' doctoral thesis at Columbia University. Ulrich, according to New Georgia Encyclopedia, went on to become "the first major historian of the South and of southern slavery." Writing from 50 to around 80 years after the Civil War, Ulrich during his career never moved off his view of slavery as "a relation characterized by 'propriety, proportion, and cooperation.' Through years of living together, Phillips maintained, blacks and whites developed a rapport not of equals but of dependent unequals. Though masters controlled the privileges that the slaves enjoyed, Phillips considered blacks 'by no means devoid of influence.' Phillips considered slavery to be a labor system 'shaped by mutual requirements, concessions, and understandings, producing reciprocal codes of conventional morality' and responsibility."*

At any rate, the history is an interesting tour through the attitudes about Southern history from the perspective of the South circa 1900. Subjects like the "removal" of the Creeks and Cherokees from Georgia territories, the internal party politics of the state are provided through the lens of the debate between states rights proponents and those hoping to maintain a stronger Federal U.S. government. For example, Georgia states rights advocates were bitterly opposed to the Federal contention that the central government had the right to make states abide by the treaties that Washington had signed with Indian tribes. Luckily for these Georgians (and, of course, to the woe of the tribes), Andrew Jackson became president. That was that for Indian treaties.

Ulrich also makes it clear that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. He shows that even the non-slaveholding, poorer Whites became convinced that the economic prosperity of the state, and so their own prosperity, depended on the continuation of slavery. While many/most of Ulrich's attitudes on these issues are unpalatable, the history provided here is interesting.

* https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ulrich-bonnell-...

2Rood
Jul 15, 2019, 6:18 pm

1> "Ulrich also makes it clear that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. He shows that even the non-slaveholding, poorer Whites became convinced that the economic prosperity of the state, and so their own prosperity, depended on the continuation of slavery. While many/most of Ulrich's attitudes on these issues are unpalatable, the history provided here is interesting."

Now that is interesting. I've often wondered why ordinary non-slave-holding Southern White farming families could persuade themselves to fight and die in the interests of rich plantation owners. Considering the fruits of their labour were competing against slave labour, their choice would seem to be counter-intuitive to their own personal welfare.

3rocketjk
Jul 15, 2019, 7:07 pm

>2 Rood: Indeed. Though upon re-reading my post, I think my statement, "he shows that," is too strong. He provides sources, contemporary to the time, that claimed that, and showed that slave-holding gentry were attempting to convince the poorer farmers of that. Nowadays, it's fashionable to claim that poorer people fought for the South in order to defend **name of state here** from invading Northern armies and did not care about defending slavery.

One thing this book makes clear from quoting the speeches made in and positions taken by vote by the Georgia legislature: cessation was about defending slavery and only about defending slavery, although the degree to which that position was camaflaged by a reference to "state rights" varied by political party.

4jztemple
Jul 16, 2019, 7:28 am

>2 Rood: From my own reading, I often notice a desire of the populace to want a war, even volunteer for war. WW1 has to be probably the biggest example.

5DinadansFriend
Jul 16, 2019, 3:41 pm

I am delighted that you have found this interesting source. Without examples of the rationalization of the system, a dimension is missing from the exploration of American history. Creepy, though. :-)

6rocketjk
Jul 16, 2019, 5:03 pm

>5 DinadansFriend: "Without examples of the rationalization of the system, a dimension is missing from the exploration of American history."

Yes, my feeling exactly. Don't know if you have already, but the brief biography of Ulrich Phillips that I linked to in my original post, here, is worth a read. Georgia and State Rights, as I mentioned above, was only his doctoral thesis republished. Phillips went on to publish several full-length histories of the South and slavery. His scholarship was, and I guess still is, much respected, his attitudes evidently never changed from those described above.

7Marylandreb
Jul 24, 2019, 7:44 pm

I'm reading "The Real Horse Soldiers" by Timothy B Smith, really enjoying it.

8rocketjk
Ago 17, 2020, 1:15 pm

I finished Mr. Lincoln's T-Mails: How Abraham Lincoln Used the Telegraph to Win the Civil War by Tom Wheeler. This was a very interesting trip through the American Civil War with a close focus point of how the use of the telegraph gave Abraham Lincoln the ability both to communicate with far flung generals and gather information about unfolding events in real time. More importantly, due to how new telegraph technology was, Lincoln was the first head of state to have that ability.

This book was first published in 2005, and Wheeler makes effective comparison, as book's title suggests, between the advent of the telegraph and email, making a credible case that the telegraph was actually the much more revolutionary development. Wheeler avers early on that the Congress members of the early 1960s were much more able to conceptualize (and therefore vote funding for) sending a man to the moon that those of the early 1850s were to wrap their brains around the concept of sending electronic pulses long distance across wires.

We see through Lincoln's telegraphs, all of which are on archive, the poor quality of the Federal commanders over the early years of the war, and Lincoln's frustrations with their dithering and reluctance to go on the offensive. Eventually, Lincoln, who was also receiving telegraphs from post commanders and so knew where enemy forces were and which way they were going, became less and less reluctant to provide strategic recommendations.

Wheeler makes the point that Lincoln's gradual ability to fully master this new communication tool and its functions is one more indication of the president's remarkable character and intelligence. He was learning these things on the fly with--because the technology was so new--no blueprint to follow and nobody to advise him as he learned.