re: The War of Northern Aggression

Bob, re:

>     Haven't been in the formal "educational
>system" for a number of years now, at least not
>as a student, but *I* love the way that it now
>apparently teaches youngsters to leap blindly for
>the easiest straw-dog instead of analyzing other
>possibilities. For example:

>    (1) My tongue-in-cheek response did *not*
>assume that "every white Southerner owned at least
>10 slaves" -- because if I recall correctly, no
>more than 10% actually did. It assumed at most
>that (a) such Southerners were opinion leaders
>(which is correct), and (b) through whatever
>propaganda devices, they convinced the poor dumb
>redneck majority to fight their war -- much as
>peasants waged feudal wars and the U.S. socio-
>economic elite avoided significant exposure in
>Vietnam.

>     (2) My reference to the immediate cause of
>the War is equally correct. The Republicans and
>and Lincoln's implementation thereof called for
>stopping the expansion of slavery, but *not*
>interfering with it in existing states. So the
>"fighting for home" nonsense is exactly that --
>the South started the Civil War because its most
>prosperous element feared stagnation and long-term
>erosion of its most obvious asset. Successful
>propaganda and often-praiseworthy-but-here-terribly-
>misguided bullheadedness did the rest ...


My original post referred to the Confederate Memorial in Kinston, North
Carolina.  North Carolina's experience in the Civil War was quite different
from that of other Confederate
states, primarily because North Carolina was very different from the other
Confederate states.  Forget the bullsh*t about "Tarheel" being a compliment
for North Carolina's fighting troops (the popular story is in some
unspecified Revolutionary battle the Carolinians held their line against
overwhelming odds and prompted the commander to say something along the lines
of "those boys held firm like there was tar on their heels.")  Tarheel was an
insult, much like "peckerwood" or "cracker".  NC's earliest industry was
naval stores--tar and pitch (from the abundant pine forests near the coast),
and the nickname implied that North Carolinians were stupid hicks who walked
around barefoot with tar stuck to their heels.  And that's pretty fair.

And that's pretty much the way it remained by the time of the Civil War.
 North Carolina had the LOWEST number of slaves, the LOWEST number of
slaveholders, and the LOWEST per capita of either of those figures (also the
lowest literacy rate).  Slaveholders were outnumbered 2 to 1 in the General
Assembly of 1860-61.  In the east, you had poor white dirt farmers and a very
few large slaveholding plantations.  In the piedmont, you had Quakers,
Moravians, and more dirt farmers.  And in the mountains you had REALLY poor
dirt farmers.  These were people who, by and large, either despised the
practice of slavery (Quakers & Moravians) or didn't give a flip one way or
the other as it had NO impact on their lives.

When South Carolina seceded, North Carolina was horrified.  As more and more
states followed suit, the issue came up in the General Assembly and was
defeated twice--pretty soundly.  Finally it came to a point where ALL of
North Carolina's neighbors had seceded. (In fact, North Carolina was the LAST
state to secede).  Still North Carolina stayed with the Union.  Clearly  the
"opinion leaders" (to use your words) didn't feel threatened enough by
attempts to stop the spread of slavery elsewhere (especially since only one
out of three actually owned slaves) or the threat of "economic stagnation"
(what economy?  with a state full of substenance farmers) to break their ties
with the federal government.

What pushed NC over the edge was the resupply of Fort Sumter.  Everybody knew
what was coming next.  And if you read the minutes of the NC General Assembly
as they decided to secede (as I have), you'll see that the "opinion leaders"
didn't much mention slavery or federal oppression:  their argument was "We're
surrounded.  What choice do we really have?"

Because of its geographic location, NC was doomed to invasion.  And so the
state cast its lot with its neighbors.  And because of its location, NC was
invaded.  It also was called upon disproportionately to provide men and
material (located right behind the main battleline, you know).  More Tarheels
served, and more died (and more deserted) than from any other state. Some of
the worst Union atrocities (and I'm not claiming the Confederacy was
blameless of the same) happened in the occupied NC mountains (ever hear of
the Shelton Laurel incident? Check it out.)  Union troops occupied the
eastern parts of the state from early on in the war, and you just TRY and
tell me that the dirt farmer from little Washington whose crops and livestock
had been commandeered by Union troops wasn't fighting for home.  You tell me
that his cousin from Kinston on up the road wasn't fighting for his home.  I
don't think you can.

I'm not saying my home state is pure and blameless and purely a victim of
circumstances. Slavery did exist here, and the slaveholders certainly wanted
to hold on to what they had.  But NC DIDN'T have the plantation economy of
other Confederate states.  It DIDN'T have the slave-holder dominated
government of other Confederate states.  I think the only "straw dog" around
here is the assumption that every person (and every state) fought the Civil
War for the same reasons.  Something to think about, anyway. . .

'Twas not for honor, or glory, but home--and right he wrote.
AThosWhite