Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
22. I got it from "The Battle Cry of Freedom".
Thu Oct 25, 2012, 05:19 PM
Oct 2012

And that author tended to look at direct, contemporary sources. Historians often rely on the work of previous historians. So if it changed somewhere along the line, it remains changed. Take Sherman's March to the Sea.

In "The Battle Cry of Freedom" the author looked up contemporary southern diaries and newspapers articles. Source after source damned the retreating Confederates and praised Sherman's men. In particular, they praised Sherman for feeding the starving southerners. By that time the South had converted to food crops, but war time inflation was so bad that the Plantation owners were unwilling to sell the food.

First city Sherman came to he was astonished to see the people starving in the breadbasket of the south. That is when he ordered his men to start confiscating food. Not as part of a burnt earth, total war policy. But to save the southern people from starvation!

And, except for the plantation owners, of course, that is all you find in the contemporary record. Flash forward a few months and some of the same people who praised Sherman are damning him. But as we have seen many, many times in the past, Conservatives are extremely Orwellian. The problem with a military culture, and the Norman South was most definitely a military culture, is that people are raised to believe what they are told.

"Gore is so stupid, he thinks Islamic terrorism is a bigger national security threat than China! LOL!" - Bush and Cheney over and over again in 2000

"Bet you're glad Gore didn't win now?" - every GOPer in the US, 2001-09-12, the day after we were attacked by Islamic terrorists


**Note: what most amazed Sherman about this post-war revision was that his army *did* engage in a scored earth polity on the march through South Carolina. In addition to South Carolina starting the whole bloody thing, but being far away from where most of the war's action took place, escapees from Andersonville showed up at their camp the night before they entered South Carolina. Sherman said he probably couldn't have stopped what happend in South Caroline had he wanted to, and he sure as hell did not want to stop it.

But nobody was talking about that. Instead, they relocated what happened in South Carolina to Georgia for some odd reason.


A big question would be how much longer would the exboyfil Oct 2012 #1
Very interesting question. redwitch Oct 2012 #2
Not long. If I recall my history, south wanted to secede 'cause north was going to outlaw slavery... Honeycombe8 Oct 2012 #3
Slavery was already in decline in the border states by 1861. Spider Jerusalem Oct 2012 #4
Was a funny movie about that topic JPZenger Oct 2012 #5
"CSA": Confederate States of America AspenRose Oct 2012 #15
That movie is on Netflix LeftInTX Oct 2012 #19
I would imagine that WWI would have been the end of the last of slavery aikoaiko Oct 2012 #6
Too depressing to think about too much gollygee Oct 2012 #7
the value of labor has declined steadily since 1820 KurtNYC Oct 2012 #8
As slavery died out in the south east it moved west. Canada and water would stop it eventually. 1-Old-Man Oct 2012 #9
It's not as cut and dry now. We're in more of a Ford vs. Chevy condition rather than regional. HopeHoops Oct 2012 #10
Way too many factors to be sure, but interesting to think about. n/t porphyrian Oct 2012 #11
Poor whites hated slavery for economic reasons vinny9698 Oct 2012 #12
Not long. England had already abolished slavery in 1833. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #13
It would have lasted until the slaves died out. ieoeja Oct 2012 #14
according to most history i've read, slave populations in the us did expand by natural increase. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #17
"South grew half to three-quarters of the corn crop harvested between 1840 and 1860"? ieoeja Oct 2012 #20
it's not the only reference that says so, but be that as it may: give me a source that says HiPointDem Oct 2012 #21
I got it from "The Battle Cry of Freedom". ieoeja Oct 2012 #22
"Battle cry of freedom" is searchable in google books, and here's what it says: HiPointDem Oct 2012 #23
Only read the book once. Must have read that backwards. Thanks for the correction! nt ieoeja Oct 2012 #27
The spread of slavery into the new territories was led more by rice and cotton than corn. 1-Old-Man Oct 2012 #29
A shockingly long time, imo. 1920 or so. reformist2 Oct 2012 #16
Quite some time, I believe. Lincoln flatly stated that if he could preserve the Union by Egalitarian Thug Oct 2012 #18
Until Jimmy Carter got elected. RagAss Oct 2012 #24
Slavery was becoming a system too costly to maintain. Kaleva Oct 2012 #25
Read this editorial from the time and you will understand it a lot better 1-Old-Man Oct 2012 #26
Economically the South was in decline. JackRiddler Oct 2012 #28
I think eventually the Federal Government would have bought the freedom of the slaves. They could yellowcanine Oct 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How long would slavery ha...»Reply #22