Joe,
Well said.
L.Derry
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joe Dent
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: War (1861-1865)
List - In my opinion, this is just a great example of how the writers and poets often get to significant meaning long before most of the rest of us. We need more of this and less "fact" in regard to the details that will always be in dispute based on perspective, heritage and a hundred other biases. Well said Linda! I'm going to Amazon now.
Joe Dent
American University
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Derry" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:53:19 AM
Subject: Re: War (1861-1865)
Histarchers,
As long as we are on the Civil War topic, I wanted to mention a nifty
tie-in with historic site interpretation and preservation. I am the
director of an archaeological park, which includes the ruins of a prison
that was used to house captured union soldiers. Most of the soldiers that
died aboard the Sultana (said to be the large maritime disaster in U.S.
History) were prisoners released from Cahawba who were returning home to
their loved ones after surviving the war and this P.O.W. camp.
Last weekend, I had David Rothstein, the author of a new novel called
Casualties: a Novel of the Civil War do readings from his novel to an
audience while all sat within the ruins of the walls of that prison. It was
very emotional and I believe created emotional ties between the participants
and our archaeological site that are already paying off, as people speak out
about budget cutbacks after our governor declared historic and
archaeological sites "non-essential."
The book is not about the glory of battle but about how everyone
(Confederate, Union, solider, homefront, black and white) were devastated by
that war. For the most part, the setting for the novel is in the prison,
that was converted from a cotton warehouse and whose remains are now part of
our archaeological site. Here is what the author said in his afterword:
"if you go to Cahawba today and sit quietly under the live oak trees, you
will feel the spirits of the people who lived and suffered and died there.
If you stand in the center of the space that was the warehouse, you can
trace the remains of its brick foundation where they once were kept, and
they will speak to you. It feels as if Cahawba is still holding its
breath."
You can't even buy a better advocacy piece than that!
In fact, I'm finding that our archaeological site is increasingly becoming
the muse for novelists, poets and song writers. I think this is an
underappreciated avenue to constituency building, and it might be a very
effective one since it does touch the heart and play to the emotions.
If anyone is interested, here's a link to reviews of the novel on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Casualties-Novel-Civil-War-ebook/dp/B004DNWJFO
Linda Derry
Site Director
Old Cahawba
719 Tremont St.
Selma, AL 36701
ph. 334/875-2529
fax. 334/877-4253
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert
L. Schuyler
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: War (1861-1865)
I find the entire discussion a bit odd. Why is fighting the Civil War
over slavery (which was clearly the immediate and emotional issue
that set the stage) and over states rights mutually exclusive. One of
the basic rights of the Southern states was the right to practice the
basis of their economy - plantation agriculture based on slave labor.
As far as the South not recognizing the slavery issue it was clearly
incorporated into their new constitution (based on the US
Constitution but with changes (e.g. one term presidency)) although
the Slave Trade was still outlawed.
Some points for the South and for the North:
(1) All known civilizations since ancient times practiced slavery
and only rare voices were ever raised against it. When someone did
speak against slavery it was usually only to say "do not enslave your
own kind" (e.g. Greeks enslaving Greeks or Moslems enslaving other
Moslems). As far as I know Jesus Christ, for example, never said
anything about slavery
or spoke out against it. In the Ten Commandments I do not think
another's 'man servant' or 'maid servant' meant salaried employees.
(2) All the American British colonies and most of the new American
states had slaves and continued to practice slavery although by 1783
a movement was underway against it. The South found the northern
states hypocritical in their newly found abolitionist stand (which
was a minority view even in the North).
(3) The states had entered the new American union (Constitution)
voluntarily and nothing in that document says they could not withdraw
the same way they came into it. Groups in New England, for example,
had earlier discussed succession at the time of the War of 1812.
(4) States Rights was critical because the South was afraid they
would be eventually outvoted in Congress as new states came into the
Union and the government might outlaw slavery as it was clearly
already trying to block it geographical expansion.
(5) The South (lower Southern states) did withdraw peacefully and
amazed everyone by successfully forming a new and viable government
with a President, Congress, Constitution and election (CSA).
(6) Technically the South started the war by firing on a federal fort
but it is clear the North set the stage and forced the issue.
(7) The War was not fought to destroy slavery. The federal government
and the President (Lincoln) clearly said it was initiated to save the
Union, not to destroy slavery in the southern states.
*************************************************************
(1) No federal President (Buchanan - Democrat or Lincoln -
Republican) could allow the South to leave the Union and expect the
USA to survive. Lincoln was not the President who refused to remove
federal forces from Charleston harbor. That had already happened
before he took office.
(2) In the past other Presidents made it clear what would happen
(e.g. Andrew Jackson - a slave owning southerner) - WAR.
(3) If the South had been allowed to withdraw peacefully (and if so
the Upper South might have stayed in the Union) war might well have
already started over who would control the western part of North
America or other issues.
**************************************************************
The War was a major disaster for America brought on by a bunch of
fanatics in the North (immediate abolitionists) and fanatics in the
South ("fire eaters") while a slower and compromising approach would
have gotten rid of slavery. All national legal slavery was gone on
Earth by 1890. Slavery, of course, still survives in illegal pockets
all around the world.
The equal disaster was the assassination of Lincoln which allowed the
Radical Republicans to make revenge-war on the South and eventually
fail at Reconstruction and set the country back for a century. If
Lincoln had lived with the victory in the war, with firmness but
fairness toward the South, things might (??) have been quite different.
Back to Historical Archaeology: How do all these changes show up in,
say, a county in the "Black Belt" in settlement patterns and in the
landscape. What was county "X" like in 1860 vs. 1870 and later how
did Reconstruction impact the county, and then how did things change
again when the "Redeemers" created the segregated South between 1880
and 1960? Are there major changes generated by these changes or just
ripples in the pond?
Bob Schuyler
At 07:52 PM 4/14/2011, you wrote:
>Charles Dew's *Apostles of Disunion *does an excellent job of covering the
>secession movement and the various secession commissions that were sent
from
>the deep South to the states of the upper South. It's a great place to
start
>and provides a pretty thorough examination of the various secession
>statements.
>
>Travis Shaw, M.A.
>Archaeologist/Historian
>R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates
>
>On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Sean Doyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Bloody smart phone. Sorry about the odd sentence at the end.
> >
> > Robert Leavitt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > The secession statements of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and
> > Texas are available at htttp://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
> > and are most interesting. Georgia's is almost solely a rant in favor
> > of slavery and against the anti-slavery attitudes of the north.
> > Slavery is a significant issue in the statements of Mississippi and
> > South Carolina, and, along with the attitude that "y'all are against
> > us just because we hold slaves"," is well represented in the Texas
> > statement. I've not found on-line sources for statements of the other
> > nine seceding states, but I'd be willing to bet that slavery was, at
> > the very least, one of the major concerns they all addresse.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >>X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1302818704-0dd8e5390001-yTOJpu
> >>X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: [log in to unmask]
> >>X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 129.219.19.183l
> >>X-ASG-Whitelist: Client
> >>X-Originating-IP: [65.81.146.136]
> >>From: "Linda Derry" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: "'HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY'" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Subject: RE: FW: Today in history
> >>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:05:00 -0500
> >>X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: FW: Today in history
> >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
> >>Thread-Index:
>AQHL+WwglfQaCZ7SX0iP2qbQAcDIAZRd642AgAALvgD//6f2AIAAA3QQgABAO6A=
> >>X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at asu.edu
> >>Sender: [log in to unmask]
> >>List-Help: <https://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=HISTARCH>,
> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>List-Subscribe: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>List-Owner: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> >>List-Archive: <https://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=HISTARCH>
> >>X-Barracuda-Connect: lists.asu.edu[129.219.19.183]
> >>X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1302818704
> >>X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES256-SHA
> >>X-Barracuda-URL: http://129.219.117.210:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
> >>X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at asu.edu
> >>X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
> >>X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390
> >>LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
> >>X-pstn-settings: 4 (1.5000:1.5000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
> >>X-pstn-addresses: from <[log in to unmask]> [2121/86]
> >>X-RCPT-TO: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>X-IMail-ThreadID: 6f91024a0000b5cd
> >>
> >>Hi Ya'll,
> >>
> >>As historical archaeologists, we should all agree that it is always good
>to
> >>work with PRIMARY documents, right?
> >>
> >>With that in mind, I have to say that from where I'm sitting, the old
>Black
> >>Belt or cotton belt of Alabama, it sure does appear that slaveholding
took
> >>center stage in the primary documents that speak to this issue. ( as
> >>opposed to the rationalization that appeared along with the "Lost Cause"
> >>narrative in the late 19th/ early 20th century.)
> >>
> >>Nothing could be more primary that Alabama's secession ordinance, so I
> >>looked it up, and it does state a need for a union of "Slave holding
> >>States of the South" and then at the convention they refer to the new
>nation
> >>as "a Southern slaveholding Confederacy."
> >>
> >>I'm betting that secession documents in most Southern states have
similar
> >>statements - So, if you hold to the state's rights point of view, why
not
> >>test your theory by locating this ordinance for your state. (& find the
> >>complete ordinance, not something excerpted by folks with agendas).
> >>
> >>
> >>Just thought it was worth throwing out to the list - I REALLY don't
want
>to
> >>argue about the cause of the war (since I live with this rhetoric on a
> >>daily basis) but was just thinking that in our professional community,
> >>these secession documents ought to be our reference point rather than
>stuff
> >>silly old arm chair historians or journalists write! <SMILE>
> >>
> >>
> >>Linda Derry
> >>Site Director
> >>Old Cahawba
> >>719 Tremont St.
> >>Selma, AL 36701
> >>ph. 334/875-2529
> >>fax. 334/877-4253
> >>[log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
geoff
> >>carver
> >>Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:40 PM
> >>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>Subject: Re: FW: Today in history
> >>
> >>I keep wondering what rights other than the "right to own slaves" was
> >>covered under "states rights" anyway.
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>He contends that the war was always about slavery from the very
beginning
> >>but why after the war concluded, historians, politicians, and the media
> >>ignored or downplayed that reality, be they northerners or southerners
> >
|
