Chamblee54

It is a truism that history is written by the winner of the war. This seems to apply to the naming of the conflict. There was a horrific armed struggle in North America between 1861 and 1865. The name used most often is Civil War. To many in the South, it is the War Between The States. In PG’s humble opinion, WBTS is a better name.
In fifth grade, PG had to write an essay about the Battle of Atlanta. The essay was a device for teaching grammar, utilized by the english teacher, Miss McKenzie. The contest was sponsored by the Daughters of the Confederacy . The expression “Civil War” was not permitted. The proper name for this conflict was War Between the States.
In many ways, this conflict started as soon as the United States became independent from Great Britain. The South was an agrarian society, with slaves to work the fields. The north was becoming an industrial society, with a need for an independent work force. The north wanted high tariffs to protect her industries, while the south wanted to sell it’s cotton to Europe. There were plenty of ways for this conflict to manifest.
Slavery was a very important factor. The south wanted to keep “the peculiar institution” intact, while many in the north were horrified. There were numerous compromises over the years, as Congress struggled to keep the Union intact. This ties in with a central dilemma of the american experience … how much power to give to the states, and how much power to give to the federal government.
The phrase civil war is defined as “A war fought between factions of the inhabitants of a single country, or the citizens of a single republic”. By the time the shooting started, the southern states had left the union. They formed a confederacy of independent states, rather than one monolithic union. It was, indeed, a war between the states.
This is a repost. Pictures, of Union soldiers, are from The Library of Congress.

The recent destruction of #SilentSam, was defended by a quote from the 1913 dedication speech. Here is something else that Julian Carr said that day: “In the knowledge of subsequent developments, the progress, peace and prosperity of our united, common country, victor and vanquished now alike believe that in the Providence of God it was right and well that the issue was determined as it was. And the people of all sections of our great Republic, moved by the impulse of sincere and zealous loyalty, of fervent and exalted patriotism may say: “All is well that ends well.”
The demonization of the Confederacy has intensified lately. Yes, slavery was a wretched institution. However, much of the rhetoric today does not take into account many of the other causes of that war. And it forgets that *the war is over.* The early twentieth century was a time of reconciliation between the north and the south. Yes, there was Jim Crow, and white supremacy. People of color (both black and non black, both north and south) were treated horribly. Creating a more perfect union is a slow, and uneven, process.
Part two of today’s feature is a double repost. Part one is based on an interview with Shelby Foote, where he goes into some of the points made above. If you get a chance to listen to the link, you can hear Mr. Foote talk for an hour in a luxurious Mississippi accent. The second part of today’s feature goes into some of the financial causes of the War Between The States. It is an old truism that all wars are about money. The causes people are told about, both at the time of the conflict and historically, are not always the real reason for the war. Look at how WMD was used to justify “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” WMD was the excuse for the conflict, not the reason.
PG spent a pleasant Saturday afternoon editing pictures from The Library of Congress (which illustrate this post) and listening to a 1994 interview with Shelby Foote. There was a book to be sold, and Mr. Foote made the necessary appearances to sell the product. The gentleman has a handsome Mississippi accent, and is a delight to listen to. There is a transcript, aka the lazy bloggers friend.
A few of the things he said are timely. When this show was taped in 1994, Mr. Foote spoke of healing from the War Between the States. Today, we seem to be regressing. Trash talk about the Confederacy is back in fashion. It is a good time to revisit these comments. Shelby Foote died in 2005, and can no longer comment.
“Slavery is a huge stain on us. We all carry it. I carry it deep in my bones, the consequences of slavery. But emancipation comes pretty close to being as heavy a sin. They told — what is its million or 7 million people, “You’re now free. Hit the road,” and there was a Freedman’s Bureau, which was a sort of joke. There were people down here exploiting them. Three-quarters of them couldn’t read or write, had no job, no hope of a job, no way to learn a new job even, and they drifted back into this peon age system under sharecropping, which was about all they could do.
To this day, we are paying and they are paying for this kind of treatment. I don’t mean there should have been a gradual emancipation. I mean there should have been true preparation to get this people ready for living a kind of life. They were free and should have been free all along, but they were not prepared for living in the world. They’d been living under conditions of slavery, which kept them from living in the world…..”
“The Civil War, there’s a great compromise, as it’s called. It consists of Southerners admitting freely that it’s probably best that the Union wasn’t divided, and the North admits rather freely that the South fought bravely for a cause in which it believed. That is a great compromise and we live with that and that works for us. We are now able to look at the war with some coolness, which we couldn’t do before now, and, incidentally, I very much doubt whether a history such as mine could have been written much before 100 years had elapsed. It took all that time for things to cool down….”
(Booknotes host Brian) LAMB: “Was the Civil War inevitable? FOOTE: I think that it was necessary. I do not believe that those differences could have been settled without bloodshed. The question is the horrendous amount of bloodshed. That was not necessary. That could have been stopped at some point. God knows. But there apparently were differences so profound between the abolitionists in New England and the fire-eaters of South Carolina that dragged the rest of the country into this conflict that I’m inclined to agree with Seward, who called it an irrepressible conflict….” (Chamblee54 recently published a post, Why Was The War Fought?. about the financial aspects of the War. Follow the money, and find the truth. The post is seen below.)
LAMB: “From what you know now and your own political philosophy, if you had a voice and you lived back there, which side would you have been on? FOOTE: There’s absolutely no doubt. I’m from Mississippi. I would have been on the Confederate side. Right or wrong, I would have fought with my people. LAMB: Why? FOOTE: Because they’re my people. It would have meant the end of my life as I had known it if I fought on the other side. It would have been a falsification of everything I’d lived by, even if I opposed it. No matter how much I was opposed to slavery, I still would have fought for the Confederacy — not for slavery, but for other things, such as freedom to secede from the Union.”

Last week, this slack blogger found a tweet. The tweet said that Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy fought the Federal Reserve, and both were killed. I did a little research, and found something that questions the conventional wisdom about the War Between the States.
Before getting to the quote, a disclaimer is in order. 100777.com is a sketchy website. What is says cannot be taken as literal truth. However, the statement about WBTS does raise some questions.
“One point should be made here: The Rothschild bank financed the North and the Paris branch of the same bank financed the South, which is the real reason the Civil War was ignited and allowed to follow its long, and bloody course.”
Maybe it was not the Rothschild Bank that financed WBTS. Somebody did. War is a profitable enterprise. People are going to egg on the combatants, knowing that there is money to be made. Someone encouraged the southern states to secede. Others encouraged the north to take a hard line on slavery, knowing that it would lead to a profitable war. Was slavery the reason for this war, or the excuse? Follow the money.
Rhett Butler was a central character in Gone With The Wind. He was a blockade runner, bringing in supplies to the south. He said this: “I told you once before that there were two times for making big money, one in the up-building of a country and the other in its destruction. Slow money on the up-building, fast money in the crack-up. Remember my words.”
It should be noted that slavery was a big money operation. “But I think we think of it differently when we realize that the value of slave property, some $4 billion, enormous amount of money in 1861, represented actually more money than the value of all of the industry and all of the railroads in the entire United States combined. So for Southern planters to simply one day liberate all of that property would have been like asking people today to simply overnight give up their stock portfolios.”
When the thirteen colonies declared independence, they were not creating a union. The idea was to kick out the British. The concept of a federal union, made up of more-or-less independent states, was fairly new. States had conquered other states, and formed empires, for a long time. A federal union of states was a new, and controversial, idea. Many European states wanted to see this federal union fail. These states encouraged the south to secede. Some people say the War Between the States began the day the British left.
Pictures from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library “… a collection of images of downtown Atlanta streets that were taken before the viaduct construction of 1927 – 1929. Later, some of the covered streets became part of Underground Atlanta.”