"A Consistent Viewpoint on Slavery..." Topic

I just received the new volume on Antietam, I Dread the Thought of the Place: The Battle of Antietam and the End of the Maryland Campaign by D Scott Hartwig.

At 960 pages it appears to be a thorough account of the battle, is well-sourced and documented.

Interestingly, in the Prologue on page 3, it reads succinctly 'It was well understood by all that this [slavery] was the divisive issue that had brought on secession and war…'

Sounds like 'the' cause of the war by yet another credible and reliable source on the Civil War.

So would you consider this secondary account more "credible and reliable" than, say, Chesnut's DIARY?

Because "well understood by all" is simply not true.

July 1861
Mr. Lamar, who does not love slavery more than Sumner does, nor than I do, laughs at the compliment New England pays us. We want to separate from them; to be rid of the Yankees forever at any price. And they hate us so, and would clasp us, or grapple us, as Polonius has it, to their bosoms "with hooks of steel." We are an unwilling bride. I think incompatibility of temper began when it was made plain to us that we got all the opprobrium of slavery and they all the money there was in it with their tariff.

July 1862
Table-talk today: This war was undertaken by us to shake off the yoke of foreign invaders. So we consider our cause righteous. The Yankees, since the war has begun, have discovered it is to free the slaves that they are fighting. So their cause is noble. They also expect to make the war pay. Yankees do not undertake anything that does not pay. They think we belong to them. We have been good milk cows—milked by the tariff, or skimmed. We let them have all of our hard earnings. We bear the ban of slavery; they get the money. Cotton pays everybody who handles it, sells it, manufactures it, but rarely pays the man who grows it. Second hand the Yankees received the wages of slavery. They grew rich. We grew poor. The receiver is as bad as the thief. That applies to us, too, for we received the savages they stole from Africa and brought to us in their slave-ships. As with the Egyptians, so it shall be with us: if they let us go, it must be across a Red Sea—but one made red by blood.

Yes, Chestnut was was a diarist with limited research capability and a clear bias, interesting but without context regarding the South as a whole. She is a pundit representing her own views. Apples to oranges.

+1 Tortorella.

@Brechtel.

I'll check out the book.

Chestnut's diary has a lot of question marks around it both in terms of sincerity and accuracy of behavior. Frankly, reliance on her and Phyllis Wheatley's poem to prove everything about the history of slavery and rebellion in the USA is both flimsy and disturbing.

A primary source is not a guarantee of veracity and a secondary source is not automatically suspect. It's worse when someone considers primary sources dispositive only when they support their own confirmation bias. For example, when someone believes Mary Chestnut's diary controls because they like what they're reading but dismisses the Secession articles of the Southern states because those publishings confirm that both race and slavery were at the heart of their motives for rebellion; something that same someone apparently finds inconvenient.

In addition, both types of source, primary and secondary, should be handled neutrally but skeptically.

Tort, no. Kevin asserted that his "credible and reliable" SECONDARY source reads 'It was well understood by all that this [slavery] was the divisive issue that had brought on secession and war…'

I agree that slavery was one of the divisive issues, and arguably the biggest one. But it is demonstrably NOT "well understood by all" when an important PARTIPANT thought it had more to do with the tariff. ALL would include, well, everybody, except it turns out it did NOT include Chesnut nor her friends.

Kevin likes to quote old rules, so here's one for him: "Never say 'never'. Or 'always" or 'all'.

And I think you mis-characterize Chesnut, who offers priceless insights into many aspects of the south and of the war. But who must be ignored because she doesn't fit the Narrative.

@Tort – I would venture to say every author and every speaker has their own bias. I know some would vehemently like to deny that, but it is what is. If a person wrote that slavery was the catalyst of the war, but the war was inevitable no matter what. There would be those who would refuse to buy the book, nor read it, but immediately claim it was not credible.

Someone with a love of Montgomery, McClellan or Napoleon, would have a tendency to emphasize and look for the positives of those figures and gloss or disregard the negatives.

It is human nature, even with historians as much as they scream and shout to the heavens that it is not true. Been that way throughout history and todays authors are no different.

We are creatures of our own views and perspectives, we like this author that agrees with us and they are credible. We disagree, and they are trash.

IMO

+1 Au Pas de Charge

I would consider the cited work more reliable than Chestnut's diary. As clearly stated by Au Pas above- +1

Someone with a love of Montgomery, McClellan or Napoleon, would have a tendency to emphasize and look for the positives of those figures and gloss or disregard the negatives.

Historians should not have a 'love' for anyone in history. And the above comment is an inaccurate one regarding credible historians.

Kevin asserted that his "credible and reliable" SECONDARY source…

Have you seen or read the book? If not, and as it is just out, then any comments on the book and its author are 'moot' and of no particular relevance to the subject at hand.

Someone with a love of Montgomery, McClellan or Napoleon, would have a tendency to emphasize and look for the positives of those figures and gloss or disregard the negatives.

If they did this they would be compromising their reputations. As an historian, you can have a personal preference but when you run into something you personally disagree with, you need to present it and explain why you think it should be disregarded. Who are these, presumably military, historians who gloss over or disregard the negatives?

It is human nature, even with historians as much as they scream and shout to the heavens that it is not true. Been that way throughout history and todays authors are no different.

We are creatures of our own views and perspectives, we like this author that agrees with us and they are credible. We disagree, and they are trash.

This is an eminently populist viewpoint. It suggests that there are no experts, there is no possibility of critical thought and analysis and that everyone just makes things up based on their own preexisting viewpoint.

In turn this justifies the sort of urban legend history of the uninformed to be just as good as the effort a credentialed historian produces. In some cases, in some circles, it might be held to be superior because, presumably, the urban legend "historian" hasn't been contaminated by exposure to corrupting outside influences such as education, research skills, knowledge, exchange of ideas etc.

Additionally, the idea that all people just push their own confirmation bias is neither an intellectual nor an historical tool, it is, rather, an ideological one.

Secondary works are inherently less authoritative than primary sources. They are necessary but limited. You guys are saying that a 21st century historian, living on the other side of a huge divide in attitudes and assumptions, understands an event better than those who participated in it? That is nonsense.

Of course participants are interested parties and have agenda and such. But the same can be said of later historians.

Of course a total reliance on Chesnut or any other single primary source would be foolish; but so too is a refusal to consider them because they threaten your comforting narrative.

Oh, and Kevin, have YOU read A DIARY FROM DIXIE? Betcha haven't. If you have, what is your favorite passage beyond the ones I have quoted? Surely you want to play by your own rules?

Secondary works are inherently less authoritative than primary sources.

Sweeping statements are rarely accurate or factual. It depends on the sources. I don't consider Chestnut helpful in the long run because she had a limited viewpoint unsupported by anything but opinion.

Well-researched secondary sources that rely heavily on primary material such as the referenced book on Antietam, are not limited in scope. Chestnut's diary is limited in scope and is based on a limited viewpoint and opinion.

The problem is not that 'they threaten' a 'comforting narrative' but that they make sense and are supported by factual material.

I have no idea what a 'comforting narrative' actually is.

the idea that all people just push their own confirmation bias is neither an intellectual nor an historical tool, it is, rather, an ideological one. Devotees of the Dinesh DSouza and Praeger schools of thought should take note.

Exactly.

doc mcb

How do you account for the fact that the deep south states in the initial wave of secession ALL listed Slavery front and center in their justification for secession?

If they're telling you they seceded because of slavery why don't you believe them?

I first heard of the Diary when watching Ken Burns' Civil War program on television.

And I read some of the excerpts from it when the book on the program came out.

I wasn't impressed, just as I wasn't impressed with Shelby Foote's participation in the program.

I saw no need to read more of either author. Neither furthered my interest in the Civil War nor would I use them as references in any study of the period.

35th, I agree somewhat about bias, but wonder about when it crosses the line as far as getting accurate accounts. Difficult to judge at times. A good narrative history has some passion and bias may creep in, or overwhelm it. Hard to say sometimes.

On her own, Chestnut herself is not a primary source regarding slavery or the war. She is a source for some Southern impressions of the war based on her limited vantage point. She is not an authority on the facts of the war, has little access to primary material. She does give a picture of how some people saw the conflict from the home front. We don't know for sure who her views represent or how many.

"Historians should not have a 'love' for anyone in history. And the above comment is an inaccurate one regarding credible historians."

As always in your opinion. I could say for people to go into the Napoleonic discussion forums and read if there is "love" for a specific person from any commenting in this thread.

I mean what is an expert? An Ex is a has been and a spurt is a big drip.

All all historians and teachers are fallible and creatures of their own beliefs, prejudices, cultures, upbringing, social class, associations and preconceived viewpoints. Credibility is based on the audience of that author. Normally, those who are like thinkers.

Most liberal arts professors just liked to hear themselves talk. I found out early, memorize your class notes, regurgitate them in essays on your midterms and finals and A's and B's followed. Independent thought was not appreciated in most cases. There were exceptions, but few.

I owe no other explanations, as these are my viewpoints. FYI, neither one of you was addressed in my comment. It was @Tort. But egos do sometimes get in ones way.

@tort

"On her own, Chestnut herself is not a primary source regarding slavery or the war. She is a source for some Southern impressions of the war based on her limited vantage point. She is not an authority on the facts of the war, has little access to primary material. She does give a picture of how some people saw the conflict from the home front. We don't know for sure who her views represent or how many."

Agree. Just as we do not know that the firebrands, abolitionists, slave owners or newspapers, represented the viewpoints of most southerners or northerners. But they are used by authors today as primary sources to prove their points.

My point really is, just as what was accepted 40 or 50 years ago as fact and credible, will I am sure, If we are still here, change in another 50 years as society changes.

Read the classroom history books of the 30's and 40's.

I'm not sure why we are continuing to flog this particular equine carcass, but I guess I'll weigh in.

First, Docmb argues that "secondary works are inherently less authoritative than primary sources," which is simply not correct. Historians must indeed rely upon primary sources when doing their research, but they also must recognize that primary sources have their own limitations, among them bias, faulty information, logical failures and so forth among them. It is patently obvious that primary sources can be simply factually wrong: I mean would anyone prefer Dan Sickles' first-hand accounts of Gettysburg to that of a competent modern historian?

Second, though, I haven't read Hartwig's book, so can't comment on it. (Personally, I would feel better if I could locate his CV, but he is not an academically trained historian, so far as I'm aware – I think his degree is in wildlife management or some such thing from the U. of Wyoming.) That said, though, he is certainly correct that the overwhelming consensus among professional historians today is that slavery was the sine qua non of the ACW, and that the primary sources of the period, particularly the writings of the principals solidly support that view. I guess the question then is what value one assigns to professional consensus. In science in particular and in academics generally, it is the single most valued arbiter of truth – it is the principle upon which peer review rests, among other things. Hartwig's book, btw, is out of Johns Hopkins, so doubtless has survived grueling scholarly review, which is an excellent reason to give him credence. I don't specialize in the ACW, nor in American or modern history generally, but I can still read enough of the work of my colleagues who do to get a sense of what they think. They might be wrong, certainly, but it is very unlikely, and the more complete the consensus the less the likelihood. So although folks on this list can and certainly will disagree, about this, about climate science, and so forth, I don't think there is really much genuinely substantial to argue about.

@BJ

"As for Mary Chestnut, I borrowed from the library years ago. I wasn't impressed. "Oh, this is terrible!" seemed to be her main theme. She think's Slavery is bad, yet she still held on to hers. I'm sure she loved hers, like you would love a loyal dog or your favorite horse."

That might be true and it might not be. We were not there to read her mind. We could not talk to her servants. We can not view their situations. So we really are guessing. If you wrote a book stating those views, you would be basing them on your viewpoints of all slavery and everything else that has influenced you and your life. Some would claim you credible, because they believe the same things.
But that is not credible history. That is my point.

You can say the Confederates lost the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg. That is credible and 100% fact. You can say the confederacy lost the Civil War. Again 100% fact. You can speculate as to why they lost, but at that point it becomes speculation and not 100% fact. It becomes influenced at that point by what you believe to be what those reasons were.

wpilon, of course the seccession declarations are important, and I've never said otherwise. But I'd evaluate them the same way I evaluate other political statements at the time, including Lincoln's. And Chesnuts. And others. Why would you give priority to some primary statements by political figures and not others -- except that they support your preferred narrative?

Of course primary sources can be wrong. So can secondary sources that rely on the primary ones. Duh.

Ambrose Bierce, THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY:

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.

Of Roman history, great Niebuhr's shown
'Tis nine-tenths lying. Faith, I wish 'twere known,
Ere we accept great Niebuhr as a guide,
Wherein he blundered and how much he lied.
—Salder Bupp

@HansPeter

": I mean would anyone prefer Dan Sickles' first-hand accounts of Gettysburg to that of a competent modern historian?"

Very true, nor some biographies on him

My posts have nothing to do with the slavery discussion. You all can argue that until the cows come home. Just "credibility" and those who claim some have credibility and some don't. Normally those who validate their "credibility" are like thinking academics. "Ahh yes! Very good!! By God old man, we think just alike.". The "Old boys network", which is pretty much the state of US academics today.

"He does not think like us! He must go"

They don't recognize their own elitism. And their elitist attitudes.

IMO

And Chesnuts. And others. Why would you give priority to some primary statements by political figures and not others -- except that they support your preferred narrative?

I dont see why you cant consider Chestnut without having to accept everything that she wrote was true or that it was reflecting popularly held beliefs.

When Jefferson Davis was captured fleeing in his wife's overcoat and shawl was it primary sources that related and then reported it? The soldiers, contemporary newspapers. We can rely on them completely, right?

At what chain of information do we accept that it was true that he basically disguised himself as a woman to escape?

link

Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour by William C. Davis

wpilon, of course the seccession declarations are important, and I've never said otherwise. But I'd evaluate them the same way I evaluate other political statements at the time, including Lincoln's.

So, the Southern states were being political when they said they were seceding because of slavery and white supremacy? What audience did they think would receive this positively? Why would they hold back and leave their real motives for secession out of their statements? It couldnt have been political correctness.

Lincoln can or cannot be taken at face value when he wrote he didnt like black people and didnt want to necessarily end slavery? Was he trying to placate certain audiences or was he out of step with his constituency?

"On her own, Chestnut herself is not a primary source regarding slavery or the war. She is a source for some Southern impressions of the war based on her limited vantage point. She is not an authority on the facts of the war, has little access to primary material. She does give a picture of how some people saw the conflict from the home front. We don't know for sure who her views represent or how many."

No. No. No. "Little access to primary material" when she was frequently a guest in the Confederate White House? sewed with Mrs. Davis? Slept with a Confederate general who was Davis' military secretary? And she interacted constantly with slaves, and was fascinated by them, trying to understand them. I have posted (on another thread) two stories she tells; these are primary accounts.

As for Mary Chestnut, I borrowed from the library years ago. I wasn't impressed.

I remember her diary being required reading in a college course and the overwhelming impression I retained is that she was a spoiled whining twit. She may be a good source for the opinions of rich spoiled Southern women but I'm not sure how important those opinions are as a measure of overall Southern sentiment.

After the surrender:

These Negroes are unchanged. The shining black mask they wear does not show a ripple of change; they are sphinxes. Ellen has had my diamonds to keep for a week or so. When the danger was over she handed them back to me with as little apparent interest in the matter as if they had been garden peas.

Chesnut, Mary Boykin Miller . A Diary From Dixie (p. 103). HarperCollins Canada. Kindle Edition.

McK, wonder why the prof thought she was important enough to require? maybe you missed something.

McK, wonder why the prof thought she was important enough to require? maybe you missed something.

Perhaps, like with Anne Frank's diary, it represents an interesting outlier. Unless you think that millions of Jewish girls were hiding in attics? Unless you believe that the exception proves the rule?

And although Anne Frank's diary is an important and fascinating piece of writing from the standpoint of surviving being hunted for persecution, no one uses it to prove anything about WW2. But we still study her book.

Late breaking news: Ms. Chestnut's diary may be a work of fictional, revisionist (Her own!), propaganda.

@ 23rdFusiliers

Thank you for bringing this up to our attention.

As always in your opinion.

Nope. Conclusion(s) based on historical inquiry-the collection of facts to form a conclusion.

McPherson on the subject of slavery does that very well.

I could say for people to go into the Napoleonic discussion forums and read if there is "love" for a specific person from any commenting in this thread.

You could say, but you would be wrong.

You can say the Confederates lost the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg. That is credible and 100% fact. You can say the confederacy lost the Civil War. Again 100% fact. You can speculate as to why they lost, but at that point it becomes speculation and not 100% fact. It becomes influenced at that point by what you believe to be what those reasons were.

I dont think so. Again, this is Lost Cause fodder. You can have reasoned, well researched, well analyzed, considered opinions and much of what we call wisdom and knowledge in the West resides in this approach.

However, what you're suggesting is if it isnt a fact, then it's just anyone's opinion? Beliefs are not always fact, motives are not always facts and neither are passions and yet we know that they influence behavior, culture and history.

For instance, you have maintained repeatedly that removing Confederate statues is erasing history. I dont see any facts presented by you or anyone to prove that this is or was ever a fact. And this opinion is continuously held in spite and in contradistinction to the impetus for the removal of the statues which are factually on public land, factually paid for by taxpayers, factually placed there by factual Lost Cause groups to factually intimidate blacks and were factually removed by the will of factual American citizens.

And I thought you believed that facts trump opinions?

At the same time our entire reality and culture relies heavily on both theory and circumstantial evidence. If you dont understand this, then I suppose you're going to have serious trouble seeing how some make decisions based on this vs inventing whatever they like.

My posts have nothing to do with the slavery discussion. You all can argue that until the cows come home. Just "credibility" and those who claim some have credibility and some don't. Normally those who validate their "credibility" are like thinking academics. "Ahh yes! Very good!! By God old man, we think just alike.". The "Old boys network", which is pretty much the state of US academics today.

"He does not think like us! He must go"

They don't recognize their own elitism. And their elitist attitudes.

IMO

Yes, a perfect demonstration of a populist approach to learning. Apparently, not only do the uninformed know just as much as the learned but they in fact are superior because their minds aren't cluttered with irrelevancies such as comparisons, analyses and the ability to draw conclusions based on evidence vs just believing in your heart that you know what is true.

23rd, on PW, yes, thanks.

On Chesnut, yes, she revised and extended. She was THEN at that point acting as a secondary historian using her own papers as a primary sources. Kind of like Grant and his excellent memoirs.

You know Woodward's edition won a Pulitzer, right? (iirc)

Mary Boykin Miller Chesnut

C. Vann Woodward

The Private Mary Chesnut: The Unpublished Civil War Diaries (A Galaxy Book) Paperback – November 15, 1984
by Mary Boykin Chesnut (Author), & 2 more
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 24 ratings 3.6 on Goodreads 70 ratings

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian C. Vann Woodward and Chesnut's biographer Elisabeth Muhlenfeld present here the previously unpublished Civil War diaries of Mary Boykin Chesnut. The ideal diarist, Mary Chesnut was at the right place at the right time with the right connections. Daughter of one senator from South Carolina and wife of another, she had kin and friends all over the Confederacy and knew intimately its political and military leaders. At Montgomery when the new nation was founded, at Charleston when the war started, and at Richmond during many crises, she traveled extensively during the war. She watched a world "literally kicked to pieces" and left the most vivid account we have of the death throes of a society. The diaries, filled with personal revelations and indiscretions, are indispensable to an appreciation of our most famous Southern literary insight into the Civil War experience.

To paraphrase one author

Usually the Victor writes the history of the war

The US Civil War is one of the very rare examples where the Loser was given the opportunity to write their own edited version of the war and they did and will continue to

Not a primary source

@ Brechtel All is your opinion. Granted from an author and teacher, for which I understand your inclinations to disagree with what I said. But I do understand your denials.

As to the other's response, as usual just the usual hot air and mindless blather and of course the normal and expected: "oh yeah!! Well you are a …. And a..".

But I realize it's easier to color everyone you disagree with, with your accusatory crayons of racist, supremacist, neo-confederate, southern apologist, lost cause proponent, uninformed, etc., etc.

I think Saul Alinsky practiced that type of discourse.

Accusatory crayons! I like that and shall steal it.

23rd, happily we have both, and you are unwise if you fail to take advantage of either.

As I mentioned earlier this is a fascinating insight into the lost cause mythology.

Then by all means share your insights; I expect we will all find them fascinating.

If you have any.

docmcb said:<Why would you give priority to some primary statements by political figures and not others…>

Because they were the people who ACTUALLY SECEDED, or tried to anyway. You're discounting the ONLY pertinent, evidence because it interferes with your moonlight and magnolias.

I won't dignify you with any further responses to your reprehensible malarkey.

Now doc, I never use that kind of language regarding your opinions. I know you are a big Chestnut fan, as the old chestnut Chestnut keeps appearing here.

There is no doubt that she is interesting. I don't know how much of her work may be self-serving. But there are also lots of tidbits in there, and the language evokes old movies about southern belles. In fact, she could be an interesting movie.

She brushed up against some historical figures and would be a great primary source on the sewing of Mrs. Davis. Her table talk report on why the war happened is a primary source for table talk in that time and place. I don't think she was in on many meetings in those days,I cannot tell who she represents or what supports her apparently second hand characterizations of Yankees. And she did not cite a source. But her story is compelling and captures facets of upper class life in those days.

As you wish.

Magnolias make me sneeze. But I do like moonlight.

Full disclosure.
All my people fought for the United States.
35th OVI, as he knows, honors the county I live in and most of my family are buried in.
My G-grandpa served in the 6th OVI, Army of the Cumberland so the 35th and the 6th ate the same dirt ducking rebel shot and shell.
I taught HS history for 34 years.
When I taught the Civil War Slavery was always the primary reason but there were others.
When looking for the sources in class we used PROP
P- Primary is usually more useful than secondary
R- unless the author had a reason to distort the narrative.
O- Is there other supporting data?
P – Personal or private. Private correspondence is probably more useful.
I am tired of all this blather. Slavery was the primary cause. This does nothing to help my painting or make my games more interesting and fun.
If you would all like to see a professional historian doing great work look at Earl Hess's book on General Bragg. That is a work of analysis on public and private statements and secondary interpretations. H

"I would consider the cited work more reliable than Chestnut's diary. As clearly stated by Au Pas above- +1"

Soooooo, an author writing 150+ years after the fact is more credible than someone writing at the time the event occurred when it comes to determining what the people at the time thought?

That seems very silly to me.

Dn J. YES!! My point exactly. And not just a random housewife; she was in daily contact with important men and their wives.