Winning the War

What's the likelihood of a black man from West Baltimore becoming passionately interested in the American Civil War? If your view of West Baltimore was primarily shaped by The Wire, you'd probably think the odds of such individual existing in real life are fairly low. Perhaps so, but Ta-Nehisi Coates is alive and well. He's a journalist, author and leading public intellectual who found a home, and a large & like-minded following, at theAtlantic.

Coates recently received an unintended endorsement from the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The SVC is one of those Alice-in-Wonderland, Lost Cause groups who exist to deny historic facts. They recently singled out Coates as an advocate for unvarnished truth and based on the tone of their attack, they've been watching Coates' blog for some time.

Coates and his mob, alternatively known as a The Golden Horde and the Lost Battalion of Conversationalists have explored Civil War history for the past two years. Co-Horder/Conversationalist absurdbeats has compiled a list of links to all of Coates blog posts on the Civil War.

theAtlantic blogger Jeffry Goldberg, an international journalist who was recently invited by Fidel Castro to a multi-day interview session, conducted a hilarious interview with Coates two years ago. TheRaven has shamelessly copied it for your reading pleasure.....

Ta-Nehisi Coates is the New Frederick Douglass

Aug 6 2008, 12:30 PM ET

 

In this week's episode of "Know Your Bloggers," Ta-Nehisi Coates talks about black nationalism and hummus. Here is a transcript of our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Do you realize that you're the first black blogger at The Atlantic since Frederick Douglass?

TA-NEHISI COATES: He doesn't count. Frederick Douglass had a white father -- and he married a white woman. Thus by the evolved standard of our new post-racial America, Douglass wasn't really black. Thus, I claim the crown. My father was a Black Panther. I'm from West Baltimore. I haven't married the mother of my son. You don't get much blacker than that. I am The One. I am The Only.

JG: What about Harriet Tubman? Didn't she blog for The Atlantic? You're not going to write her out, are you?

TC: No, no. Harriet's the truth. Just not that Douglass character. But Harriet's a woman, so she doesn't qualify. There are no black women.

JG: You say that you are the One. But Barack Obama is the One. Does that mean that there are, in fact, Two?

TC: Ugh, how many times do I have to say this. Obama isn't black. I keep trying to tell people this. No black man could win in Iowa. Did you see him dancing on Ellen? Barack is half of One. I am The One.

JG: Do you like hummus?

TC: Dude I effing LOVE hummus. Hummus is awesome! My folks were black hippies and embraced anything that looked alternative -- and tasted good. In the '80s -- at least in West Baltimore -- that was hummus. Of course the real question is, do you like falafel?

JG:  I love falafel! Next question: What's your favorite Led Zeppelin song?

TC: "The Battle of Evermore." Come on, I played Dungeons & Dragons.

JG: Are you now, or have you ever been, a neoconservative?

TC: No, I'm not a neoconservative -- but I did laugh at the anti-war marchers in Union Square. Regrettably, they're now laughing at me.

JG: Who is the greatest Jew ever, Bob Dylan or Jesus Christ?

TC: Bob Dylan. He's one of the biggest reasons my Dad went into the Panthers. Which ultimately led him to meeting my mom. Which subsequently led to the birth of The One. Us black people have Jews to thank for everything -- even our very existence.

JG: Finally, the words we've been waiting to hear. On behalf of the Jewish people, let me just say, you're welcome. The inevitable follow-up: How, exactly, did Bob Dylan bring your father to the Panthers?

TC: Oh, man, you gotta buy, and possibly read (more concerned about the former than the latter) my book to get that story. You think I do this thing for free, Jeffrey?

JG: I'll buy yours if you buy mine. In my book, I tell how the Panthers made me a Zionist. Seriously. Page 48. Last question: What do you have against Jesus?

TC: Black Jesus or blond, blue-eyed Jesus? Black Jesus is a tool to get us to believe in the white man's religion. Blond blue-eyed Jesus is, well, blond blue-eyed Jesus. I think I could worship a Cablinasian Jesus. Maybe that explains why I'm for Obama.

High tech under the sea

Telecommunications has lost its technology luster. The telecommunications industry seems to have commoditized itself overnight, although its been a few years since the industry was in growth mode. I went looking for some scrap of the past to show us when communication over great distance was really fresh and exciting.

Three years before South Carolina committed treasonous acts that pitched America into the Civil War, Frank Leslie published the most high-tech illustration ever seen. Leslie was a cutting-edge engraver, illustrator and newspaper owner. In 1858, he published this map of the first trans-Atlantic telegraph cable.

Click image to see full size

Leslie indulged a bit of exuberance here. There were five attempts to lay transatlantic telegraph cables beginning in 1857 before permanent connections were established in 1866. The first transatlantic connection was completed on August 5, 1858, by Atlantic Telegraph Company, led by Cyrus West Field.

It lasted three weeks.

*********************************

BONUS: How many Frank Leslie's were there? Were they all the same gender? This piece at American Heritage is highly entertaining, especially for those who think the 19th century was all about Victorian  propriety, and shy & retiring women.

In the field, 1864

In the Field, September 20, 1864

I am happy to know that the wicked prosper not, and that the traitorous schemes of our political antagonists, the enemies of our country and our cause, are in a fair way to come to naught.

How sublimely ridiculous has been the performance of the whole farce -- the terrific splutter and fizzle at Chicago -- the high horse which they rode after "little Mac" was announced as the nominee of the party, and their subsequent great trepidation and disgust upon the receipt of the letter of acceptance of the little saint! I have always thought that the true and loyal men of the North would prove sufficient in the contests between parties, where the questions at issue are of so great and vital importance, involving, as they do, the principles upon which our government is based, and we exist as a free people, independent and united; besides the consideration of the great problem of humanity and morality which is now being solved, and which is to affect the whole human race, and influence the destiny of coming generations.

When I read the proceedings of the Chicago Convention, during its organization and continuance, crouching as I was behind a friendly heap of dirt, which only protected me from the balls of the sharp-shooters -- amid the roar of cannon, the bursting of bombs, the screeching of shell, and hurtling balls and hissing of bullets -- tons of iron and lead being pitched about in a most promiscuous and careless manner -- my heart almost failed me. I was fain to give up in despair and disgust. Then, in a day or two we got more particular accounts -- the speeches, platform, and nominations --  and my blood boiled in my fierce wrath and impotent rage!

I have no doubt but I made some wicked and foolish remarks and resolves, but I finally cooled off a little, and took a more extensive and reasonable view of the matter. I thought of the character of the men engaged, compared them with many others enlisted in the good cause and true party; compared platforms & c., and came to the conclusion that the thing wouldn't work. The people wouldn't swallow it, and although the party might cause us much trouble and sorrow, yet the mass of the people would, all in good time, show the true mettle and come to time.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." We must use every means of an honorable character to controvert and overthrow the designs of our enemies. Grant and Sherman are great generals; Farragut is king of his craft or art -- yet, would they make good presidents? It demands different qualities to constitute a soldier and a statesman and ruler of a nation; much besides scientific knowledge, or the great qualities even of patriotism, determination, and strong will.

Please excuse this hastily written letter; it is after tattoo, and I am sleepy.

I remain your affectionate cousin,

C. C. Cone

**************************************

The strong heart of Charles Cone almost failed him. Not because of the the roar of cannon, the bursting of bombs, the screeching of shell, and hurtling balls and hissing of bullets -- tons of iron and lead being pitched about in a most promiscuous and careless manner but because he's reading an account of the Chicago convention, while crouched behind a "friendly heap of dirt", in the middle of a battle.

He was fain to give up in despair and disgust not because he was in mortal danger, but because he was disgusted by the thought of the little general as a presidential candidate. He's more concerned with great problem of humanity and morality which is now being solved, and which is to affect the whole human race than with his own life. He's funny and articulate, too. Could there be any worse epithet for a general than "little saint"?

There is so much period context packed into this letter I almost don't where to begin:

A) He writes better than a lot of modern college graduates.
B) How many people today would be more worried about political process in a calm situation, let alone while they're being shot at?
C) So much for Johnny Reb's unique courage.
D) We make too few such men in modern America.

Charles C. Cone was appointed first lieutenant, Company I, in the 8th U.S. Colored Troops in late 1863. The son of a wealthy attorney in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, he had first enlisted in 1861. He was wounded in in the Battle of Olustee in Florida, in February 1864. Nine days after writing the letter, he was severely wounded at the Battle of Chaffin's Farm.

Lieutenant Cone died on October 23, 1864.

He was nineteen years old.

**************************************

 Click here for source and original comment.

The Lie that will not Die

We mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War in 246 days.

While April 12, 1861 saw the initiation of a shooting war accruing from hostility that had simmered for decades. Tension between North and South reached the boiling point almost 30 years before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter. Andrew Jackson's smackdown of nullification and almost three decades of ensuing compromises and appeasements couldn't prevent the inevitable cataclysm for one and only one reason.

Slavery caused the war.

Governor McDonnell's proclamation of Virginia's "Confederate History Month" four months ago set off a firestorm and a well-earned Presidential rebuke. McDonnell forgot to mention why the war was fought as he eagerly pandered to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other denialists. Realizing that Virginia's black voters outnumber her white idiots, a chastened McDonnell issued an apology. Analysis of his law school thesis reveals that McDonnell is a Christian extremist, a misogynist and likely a bigot. His apology is therefore a fraud.

Which brings up a question regarding big states of denial. Could any denialism top McDonnell's unpardonable proclamation? Only if proclaimed by the Texas State Legislature.

Texas elected officials saw fit to enshrine the lie that will not die by proclaiming "April is the month in which the Confederate States of  America began and ended a four-year struggle for states' rights, individual freedom, and local government control...".

Did they really say "individual freedom"?

Texas brushed off slavery with liberal use of legislated ignorance: "the morally abhorrent practice of slavery has in the minds of many Texans become the prime motivation of Southern soldiers, despite the fact that 98 percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a slave and never fought to defend slavery; and WHEREAS, Politically correct revisionists would have Texas children believe that their Confederate ancestors fought for slavery when in fact most Texans joined the Confederate armed forces to defend their homes, their families, and their proud heritage as Texans..."

Really?

Because only 2% of fighting Texans - over 2,100 men - were slave owners, Texas can disavow slavery as the cause of the war? The founding documents of the Confederacy explicitly cite the preservation of slavery as raison d'être. Texas was an acknowledged, belligerent member of the Confederacy. Therefore, Texas has ownership of slavery as the cause of the war. Notions of "proud heritage" in context of the Civil War are simply execrable.

Andy Hall, guest blogger at theAtlantic and purveyor of the insightful Dead Confederates, provides expert analysis of a deeper lie. The two-percent figure is an exercise in profound ignorance. Andy is a Civil War scholar with a Texan's intolerance for bullshit. His guest post on theAtlantic explains why slavery is the only root-cause of 600,000 Americans killed in a titanic struggle that redefined war itself.

Hop on over, give it a read and introduce yourself. You can mention TheRaven, they know me there.

Once upon a time, in Charleston II

This post provides and addendum to the prior one with another look at St. Michaels church, 140 years before I visited.

****************************

Photo: Shorpy
Charleston, SC
1865

Heritage of the Old Servant

Of all the cheap labels, linguistic shortcuts and tired slogans that pervade American culture, none are more execrable than Heritage Not Hate. This three-word defense of the Confederate flag recodes a Jim Crow taunt. Southern heritage is defined first and foremost by slavery. The south went to war to defend slavery and lost. The Confederate flag is nothing more than our enduring symbol of oppression, enslavement, racism and ignorance.

And, as with so many other modern observations, it's been said before, more elequently, by those who knew best.

************************************************

Dayton, Ohio, August 7, 1865
To My Old Master, Colonel P. H. Anderson,
Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter and was glad to find you had not forgotten Jourdan, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Col. Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville hospital, but one of the neighbors told me Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here; I get $25 a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy (the folks here call her Mrs. Anderson), and the children, Milly, Jane and Grundy, go to school and are learning well; the teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday-School, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated; sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel
hurt when they hear such remarks, but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Col. Anderson. Many darkies would have been proud, as I used to was, to call you master. Now,if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free-papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department at Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you are sincerely disposed to treat us justly and kindly and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years and Mandy twenty years. At $25 a month for me, and $2 a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to $11,680. Add to this the interest for the time our wages has been kept back and deduct what you paid for our clothing and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams Express, in care of V. Winters, esq, Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night, but in Tennessee there was never any pay day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve and die if it comes to that than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood, the great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

P.S. Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,
Jourdan Anderson

************************************************

"Letter from Jourdan Anderson to His Former Master," was originally published in The Freedmen's Book (L. Maria Child, Ticknor & Fields, 1866), which can be viewed in entirety at Google books. It was also published in Been in the Storm So Long: The Aftermath of Slavery (Leon F. Litwack, Knopf, 1979).

Fairly ironic

Photo by TheRaven

Nashville National Cemetery

Proximate Cause

Governor McDonnell's pronouncement of Confederate History Month deserves unending scorn because he pandered to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other groups that are akin to holocaust deniers. His proclamation skipped over slavery as the underlying cause for war and was clearly aimed at a largely uneducated white majority. McDonell's outrage renders his subsequent apology unworthy of consideration.

Perpetrators of the great southern lie - for it is only in the south that we find those who trade in the "War of Northern Aggression" and related nonsense - suspend disbelief to argue every possible excuse. They either lack critical thinking skills or, blinded by other dogmas such as biblical literalism, suppress the very skills that serve their professional life to propagate coded racism. An example of "educated denialism" is synopsized here...http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/scruggs-causes-uncivil-war030607.phtml and background on the author (Mike Scruggs) can be found here..http://www.markwhiteusa.com/AboutUs.html.

There were many proximate causes of the Civil War and each one is threaded to one, and only one, central issue. The proof is a simple question: if slavery had not existed, would there have been a war? Among all proximate causes, my two favorites are: weak Federal treasury, exemplified by lack of a national currency; the out-sized influence of abolitionists on northern politics. The premise for the importance of these two factors is: the inseparability of slave labor with the southern economy; and, another simple question: what other country had a slavery problem, and how was it solved?

The central problem leading up to the war was political paralysis. The underlying disease was slavery. This is a cautionary tale for our current climate of instant polarization. Abolitionists succeeded in painting slavery with a brush dipped in pure moral tones. Southerners heard a quite different message. Slaves were not only the source of most southern income; they also comprised its largest asset class. Slaves were so important to the southern economy that an insurance market sprang up around them (http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0300...). The southern ruling class heard a moral position and responded in kind, giving birth to the great southern lie.

The intractability of issue becomes clear if you consider how possible loss of slave capital was perceived to also imperil other forms of capital, such as the value of plantations, and that the southern ruling class was diametrically opposed to free labor. About the only thing more distasteful than the risk of losing slave capital was the notion of an empowered class of previously servile, poor whites. The southern ruling class viewed possible loss of virtually all of their capital and income through an narrow ideological prism. Proof of their pre-war view is found in their post-Reconstruction behavior. The slave economy was re-established in all but name and majority of whites lived the same disadvantaged existence as before the war.

In hindsight, Federal purchase and emancipation of southern slaves might have been a viable alternative. The southern ruling class would have lost their primary motivation to fight (loss of capital) and then, forced to negotiate on less ideological ground, the north would have been in better position to leverage southern white underclass resentment into a political force. Reasons why this couldn't happen include abolitionist success in framing the northern argument and a weak Federal treasury. It was the Civil War that enabled (or forced) creation of our national currency.

This isn't an exercise in "presentism". Northern politicians had a fresh example for possibly preempting war with purchase/emancipation. A successful national government program to do exactly that was concluded 20 years before South Carolina initiated hostilities. The British parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. The Act provided terms of government purchase for all slaves in Britain, but not in all British possessions. The British government funded a seven year purchase/emancipation with 20 million pounds. The Act took effect in 1834 and by 1841 slavery in Britain was history.

The two core differences in Britain's experience were: (1) acceptance of slavery's economic reality, as opposed to polarizing moral arguments; (2) a strong government treasury. The counter argument to this view is that slavery was less important to the British economy than it was in the American south. That's true and is illustrated by the Act's limitations. However, such view does not consider how a similar solution could have been adopted in America with, for example, a longer emancipation period. Plus, 20 million pounds wasn't exactly chump change in 1833. The British program shows that war wasn't necessarily a foregone conclusion.

In fairness to the reason why historic inquiry is so important, the "moral vs. economic" argument should also be studied in context of northern culture and subsequent events. With very few exceptions, Abolitionists were racist. Northern blacks were an intensely segregated northern minority and the notion of free blacks possibly moving north was an anathema to the northern majority. This was the period also characterized by intense animosity towards Irish immigrants. Fifty-two years after Appomattox, The Great War caused an unprecedented labor market vacuum that accelerated the Great Migration. White reaction in northern (or non-southern) states to growing black population mirrored southern atrocities. One can argue the southern-ness of Tulsa but few would call Detroit anything but northern.

The "moral vs. economic" argument is useful for widening the debate. It does not posit an alternative past in which peace could have been simply bought with a fat cheque. It does argue for complete inquiry, with all truths dragged into the light of day. Exploration of northern culture would provide necessary balance, however, the final conclusion would remain inescapable.

Slavery caused the war.

Sean Wilentz Strikes Back

Sean Wilentz literally wrote the book on early American democracy. His 2005 work, The Rise of American Democracy won the Bancroft Prize and was a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Wilentz' pedigree is immediately off-putting to the Risible Class: Yale, Columbia & Oxford, and he teaches at Princeton. The motley group of pundits and politicians who kowtow to evangelical nonsense and confuse random sound bites for legitimate argument dismiss scholars like Wilentz as elitist eastern liberals.

The Risible Class acquires power with twisted appeals to credulous voters. Their power base is white, mostly uneducated and largely fundamentalist/evangelical. People who accept the bible as literal truth are very easy to control. Proof lies in three decades of Republican use of so-called "values" to beguile the white working class into voting against its own interests. Drop a few code words, like "eastern liberal" and legitimate debate can be preempted by superstition. You don't even need complete sentences, let alone a paragraph or two. If Glenn Beck is any indication, the Republican base can be manipulated with incoherent babble.

Wilentz also writes for The New Republic and other media outlets. In the context of long-held views of consequential presidents, Wilentz' stand on Grant is fairly brave. He recently published a vigorous defense of Grant in the New York Times. The first sentence in his New Republic review of U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth begins thus: No great American has suffered more cruelly and undeservedly at the hands of historians than Ulysses S. Grant. In historical matters, Wilentz is not a stereotypical eastern liberal. That is not to say that the Risible Class will not continue to hold him in contempt as it was Grant who nullified the Klu Klux Klan.

TheRaven also notes that Jill Lepore, no lightweight among prize-winning, ivy-league historians, gave Wilentz a fairly wide berth in her NewYorker review of The Rise of American Democracy. With Wilentz established as a genuinely fair & balanced expert, we turn to the most execrable item on the "modern" Republican agenda.

Nullification.

That word should inspire anger, disgust, loathing and fear. In a constitutional context, nullification is the worst possible heresy. The notion that states can choose which Federal laws they will abide by was born in John Calhoun's fevered defense of slavery. Nullification is political rabies. Calhoun's nullification movement was smacked down by Andrew Jackson, yet it would not die. The plague returned in the 1850s but the Civil War only sent it into hibernation. Racial segregation was rabidly defended in the 1950s and now that (surprise!) America has an African-American President, slavering nullification proselytizers lunged for the bully pulpit once again. Wilentz' nullifer smack down can be found here: http: //www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-essence-anarchy?page=0,1

When state legislators threaten to disobey Federal law they mimic long-dead slave owners and cynically abuse the credulous. Legislators in Georgia, Oklahoma and other miscreant states fail the first test of their convictions: comparison to the most famous southern icon (who didn't commit treason). Andrew Jackson was a borderlands descendant, a self-made man, a slave-owner, a leader, a southern gentleman and a genuine tough-guy. He was a product of his times, with a personal code of honor. It's difficult to see how acceptance of slavery and a reliable sense of right and wrong could live in the same man but the 1820s were long ago in a cultural context. Slavery wasn't completely abolished in New York until 1827. The key to understanding the importance of Jackson's stand is comparison of what he had to gain versus what a southern gentleman President stood to lose from aggressive suppression of a pro-south political movement. The key point is that Jackson put country first in suppressing Calhoun's nullification movement.

Compare Jackson to our current crop of dissembling state legislators. That they dishonor themselves is without question. They also dishonor the men and women who gave their lives over the 223 year defense of The Constitution. Consider those Americans who currently defend our interests overseas. These "modern" nullifiers dishonor the very people they supposedly represent. Their deceitful use of the credulous is shameful, disgraceful and absolutely contrary to their obligations as American citizens and the oaths they swore to uphold the Constitution!

In a different time, their actions would be characterized with only one word.

Sedition.