Mark Twain's two-week stint as a Confederate soldier
historynet.com
historynet.com
Grant was a very skilled man throughout his life in regard to arithmetic, equestrianism, and military arts among other things. However, he truly found a new skill and passion in writing while literally on his deathbed.
i've read about half of his book, which can be quite funny in places. but relies (naturally) on some detailed appreciation of the geography of the battlefields, and geography has ever been my least favourite area of knowledge, so i had to give it up.
With at least one striking exception.
In most countries, civil war begets civil war and each one sows new seeds for the next one.
Would a marshal plan style rebuild/de-confederation of the south caused a second civil war? Most likely not? Would it have helped black people not be screwed over for the next hundred years? I sure hope so.
My general understanding is the South wished to secede. There were many differences between that region and the rest of the country, slavery being only one difference. The Deep South continues to be a distinctive region and is more religious than most of the rest of the country.
I read a compelling account of how Grant was an alcoholic and ne'er-do-well for much of his life and attributes that fact as the cause of Grant's decision to be unexpectedly compassionate when he set terms of surrender.
Lee was reluctant to surrender. Surrendering was typically a bad thing.
Grant laid out only three conditions, one of which was "You must let us help you rebuild." This is why there were carpet baggers.
I'm not going to argue this further. As stated above, "from what I have read....etc."
You aren't required to agree with me.
What you've read seems to include a lot of Lost Cause lies. Slavery is clearly mentioned in most of the Ordinance of Secession [1] as a fundamental cause, including and especially the first one ratified (by South Carolina [2]).
The decision of the Union to emancipate slaves did come later in the war, but it was what most of the Ordinance of Secession already feared was a likely outcome prior to the war even starting and became a bit of a self-fulfilled prophecy.
You don't have to take my word for it, but it is incredibly well documented by the Southern states themselves how much the Southern states seceded primarily because of slavery. Most of the other "takes" on the war are lies after the fact trying to bury the facts. It's not an argument of opinions, it's a fight between known historic facts versus centuries of later propaganda and subterfuge.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Declaration_of_...
Slavery being listed as a fundamental reason for secession and their fear that the North would at some point interfere with their self determination in that regard doesn't actually contradict anything I've said.
I'm not pro slavery, but if you believe this is an internal matter and other forces are trying to interfere, it's not unreasonable to conclude that they are being aggressive towards you and you have no choice but to defend yourself.
Them being morally in the wrong on the detail of slavery doesn't mean they were just making stuff up about the North being "aggressive" and trying to interfere.
Deciding to secede due to such interference as a matter of self determination means self determination was per se the issue, not slavery.
The Southern states had signed a contract - the Constitution - in which they promised to abide by the democratic process. In exchange for giving up some of their sovereignty to a federal government and respecting democratic rule, they reaped the economic benefits and security of being a part of a larger unified country for almost 100 years.
By the 1850s, the majority of the country (as well as the rest of the world) were opposed to slavery. For good or bad, in a democracy, majority rules. The South decided they didn't like that they were in the minority on this issue (and no other) and decided to unilaterally break their contract with the rest of the states as a result. This was and is unacceptable - can you imagine what would happen to a democracy if any time a group of people lost an election or were in the minority on an issue, they called for a revolt, civil war or "national divorce?"
It would have been perfectly fine if there was a democratic decision to let the South leave as voted on by all the states, but that's not what happened. Thus the "self determination" or "northern aggression" argument holds no water. The southern states, after agreeing to be part of a democracy, had no right to leave in an undemocratic manner because simply they didn't like being in the minority. By not allowing secession, the Union wasn't being aggressive, it was just holding the South to their contract and preserving the fundamental basis of democracy. Getting rid of slavery was a bonus.
The exact form of organization initially chosen had a history of failing and it gave the federal government no means to fund an army, therefore no meaningful means to raise an army. So that was soon abandoned and the agreement was updated.
No, it's not crazy talk for the Southern states to believe they had self determination that the Northern states had no right to interfere with. That was the original arrangement agreed upon by the various states -- state typically meaning independent nation and not "some layer of organization above municipal and county but below nation."
Over time, our conceptualization of the organization of the US has changed. Originally, the states were conceived of as separate nations allied for one purpose: The ability to adequately defend themselves to preserve their independence.
Besides the fact that this would only apply to 4 of the 11 confederate states, they were all part of the country as the relationship between state and federal government changed, or had agreed to join it as it was.
In fact most of the first 15 presidents were from the South. Virginia specifically had the most presidents and the largest representation in the House because of the 3/5ths compromise, as well as Southerners controlling the Supreme Court (remember Frederick Douglas) and half the Senate. The South was fine with the federal system until they were going to lose slavery. If they had the votes, they would have been quite happy to force the North to accept slavery (and they tried). When they were outvoted, instead of respecting the democracy that they helped create, the South rebelled to preserve slavery. Any other version is a distortion.
None of this of course will affect southerners opinions and alternative facts, I'm sure.
You're addressing the shame and internal conflict of someone who "believes" they are a "good" person, but have met reasonable evidence to show otherwise, and instead of address the conflict, they would prefer to retreat into denial (not unlike Southern Revisionists!)
Meanwhile the online callout/shaming culture makes a habit of putting the nastiest spin on what other people post. That's exactly what we're trying to avoid here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
This is an unwarranted and rather ugly personal attack. I have neither shame nor internal conflict on this topic. My ancestors were not slave owners.
I was born and raised in the South, but my father and mother were both from elsewhere.
I didn't bother to reply to the comment you are praising because it also contains ugly personal attacks, which are in violation of HN guidelines and responding to such is not typically a good means to foster the kinds of discussion HN is intended for.
I stand by my original comment that my understanding is that Grant's compassion in how he handled terms of surrender is likely a large part of why the US has only had one civil war.
I regret replying to the seemingly angry response someone left about broader topics than just Grant. I'm taken aback at how ugly the replies are here. It's not what I have come to expect on HN even though I post as openly female and that's got a long history of being stupid levels of drama at times.
This is where I believe you have cause-and-effect entirely backwards (and for good reason): the Lost Cause factions of the South made up all the stuff about the North being "aggressive" after the War, when at every stage of the war it was the seceding states doing all the "aggression".
They were unhappy with the results of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the election results of President Lincoln. That wasn't "aggression" in any way, shape, or form, that was democracy in action.
They were unhappy with what they saw of the federal government failing to enforce the "Fugitive Slave Acts". "Not policing" isn't an "aggressive" action, it's a lack of action or possibly a failure of action. It might be considered "passive aggression", but even most school children understand the different between passive-aggression and real "aggression".
The act of emancipation itself wasn't even properly on the table in the North which saw little stake in it either way prior to the Civil War. Lincoln was explicitly anti-emancipation in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Emancipation Proclamation only happened after severe casualties and a lot of Southern Aggression (which certainly was not passive-aggression in any way, but the actual aggression of war) during the Civil War and it was clear no compromise was likely to be made by the South.
Here's the deal, I grew up in a border zone of Lost Cause rhetoric and I know exactly how common that idea was made, and how much sympathy those lies have tried to engender for the Southern states. I know how critically deep it is tied into those states' ideas of pride and accomplishment and works to keep them from feeling terrible and guilty all the time in modern society. Wishing to believe the North was the "true" aggressor in the Civil War makes all the moral wrongs of being pro-slavery seem like "lesser crimes" than if those states actually look in the mirror of documented facts and properly recognized that they aggressively started a war for pro-slavery. I sympathize with those that don't want to feel in modern society like they live in a state that was so aggressively pro-slavery to start a war on it. I understand how much it does feel better to believe all the propaganda lies of the Lost Cause narrative. I know that's a large part of why those lies exist.
I don't think you are wrong. I think you are, at worst, misguided. I'm not expecting to convince you that I'm right. I don't expect you trust me at all as a guide towards historic facts, because it definitely sounds like you've made up your mind and don't care to change it. I'm pointing out facts for other kids like me in border zones and other weird pockets of Lost Cause propaganda that don't yet know what to believe because they keep hearing both sides without enough force to show that one side always lies and the other side tells truths so painful people prefer the lies. Both sides aren't equal and it isn't just "opinion versus opinion", and more kids need to know that.
Your framing of this and mine are just different. Me understanding why some people in the South see it a certain way is absolutely not bound up with a lot of the stuff you are lumping it in with.
It started over slavery for the South, as is clearly laid out in secession documents, founding documents of the confederacy, the Cornerstone Speech, etc.
It started over preserving the Union for the North, but most of the vehemently pro-slavery faction having buggered-off out of the Union during the war, and the provocation of the war itself being a factor, the war also tipped the political balance against slavery.
> My general understanding is the South wished to secede. There were many differences between that region and the rest of the country, slavery being only one difference.
Slavery was the main difference, as the seceding states said fairly explicitly in seceding, but also as even a casual review of the conflicts (both political and violent) leading up to secession makes very clear.
> My general understanding is the South wished to secede.
The slaveholders and their political allies wished to preserve slavery. Some of them chose to secede as a means of doing so.
> The Deep South continues to be a distinctive region and is more religious than most of the rest of the country.
Yes, it remains the seat of power of a large and powerful religious community founded not too long before the Civil War by seceding from a broader national group explicitly over the issue of preserving slavery (the Southern Baptist Convention), very much like the later political secession.
Not sure how that does anything but underline the contemporary (to the Civil War) importance of slavery in the region and how it is foundational to the regions enduring culture and institutions.
And a general who trusts too easily, just might possibly trust too readily, sir.
He was no Sherman, but his "governance" of the south led to carpetbaggers and "south shall rise again" BS that remains to this day.
If Lee had won the war or McClellan . . . we would have very different, much stronger ideas of republic today.
As far as McClellan winning the war!! That really moves the alternate history from the realm of Science Fiction to one of Fantasy.
Arguably, the reason "the South" is a contentious topic as it stands presently - is a lack of folks being touched by the better angels of our nature. Grant wisely understood that in order to rebuild the nation, one couldn't become punitive towards his erstwhile and future countrymen.
A while back I read a tweet from an anonymous Army officer: "Sherman should've mowed the deep south like a lawn, making multiple passes"
Are you sure this can't be explained much more easily as pride?
searching for gaming, public domain, and copyright all come up empty - do you have more details.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_Mark_Twain#....
I remember when it first came out, which was surprisingly recently, in 2010.
They published it in secret in 2001 so that it is not considered "unpublished" and doesn't enter public domain in 2003. Although I don't understand how "publishing in secret" is still considering publishing.
A quote I like: "Samuel Clemens later observed, "Civilization began when slavery was abolished."
Many in the south remained unreconstructed racists and opposed to Grant. Clemens didn't.
It's always interesting to read about historic figures intersecting.
While I'm not going to claim nearly any president was without scandal (really almost none, sans maybe - maybe - George Washington), evidence suggests he was a really ineffective president all things considered, particularly in controlling his cabinet members and managing economic affairs
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_administration_scandals
Even though surrounded by corruption, he achieved important success by using his platform as by far America's most famous living person to push the country forward significantly on unpopular civil rights issues. To this end he developed as a public speaker and self-publicist while in office (as a poor judge of character he couldn't really rely on those around him).
In this case? Anachronistic still. Anachronistic just means something like "belonging to a different time period," and it doesn't strictly imply earlier or later.
From Oxford Languages:
>a·nach·ro·nism
noun
a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.
"everything was as it would have appeared in centuries past apart from one anachronism, a bright yellow construction crane"
an act of attributing a custom, event, or object to a period to which it does not belong.
"it is anachronism to suppose that the official morality of the age was mere window dressing"
Newfangled?
Past sins become permanent tattoos far too easily these days.
What is this in reference to?
The GOP emancipated the Democrats slaves.
Maybe they should've been less subtle.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...
Then there were the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, in the era before modern medicine or antibiotics...
As a left-libertarian, I would like to recommend two great speeches regarding war:
Eugene Debbs: https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/eugene-v-debs-speech...
Smedley Butler: http://kether.com/words/butler-smedley--war-is-a-racket-1.pd...
"In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords . . .concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street, go to war."
Feudal lords most definitely went to war, died in those wars, their who families were exterminated in those wars. This was the case everywhere in the world, from England to Japan.
In the end you can protest all you want but when dudes with guns show up, they care not about it. They will take your stuff, they will rape your wife and daughters, they will murder your sons and you. That is the history of humans from WAY before any feudal lords.
Emperor Napoleon III personally led the French army, but when he (and 100K men) were captured in the Battle of Sedan in 1870 it practically won Prussia the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan
> after news hit Paris of Emperor Napoleon's III capture, his wife said "why didn't he kill himself?"
Do you mean the police?