Watching It so You Don't Have to - Civil War #1

[GenerationCedarchip]

Okay. I'm going to watch tonight's Civil War (or as Doug calls it War for Southern Independence) lecture and this is where I'll put my commentary. I think I'll call this week Root Causes and Rose - the latter is chilling in the fridge already.

My orientation email says I can send Bill Potter questions during tonight's adventure - anything you want me to ask?

[formergothardite]

Thank you! I can't wait to hear Dougies version of the Civil War. I'm sure it won't include any of those pesky facts.

[RachelB]

Okay. I'm going to watch tonight's Civil War (or as Doug calls it War for Southern Independence) lecture and this is where I'll put my commentary. I think I'll call this week Root Causes and Rose - the latter is chilling in the fridge already.

My orientation email says I can send Bill Potter questions during tonight's adventure - anything you want me to ask?

"What, precisely, was the logic that lead to the South tearing up farmland that was producing edible crops in order to plant yet more cotton, when they'd already cornered the cotton market, leading to widespread malnutrition?"

[formergothardite]

"What, precisely, was the logic that lead to the South tearing up farmland that was producing edible crops in order to plant yet more cotton, when they'd already cornered the cotton market, leading to widespread malnutrition?"

:clap:

[hoipolloi]

Okay. I'm going to watch tonight's Civil War (or as Doug calls it War for Southern Independence) lecture and this is where I'll put my commentary. I think I'll call this week Root Causes and Rose - the latter is chilling in the fridge already.

My orientation email says I can send Bill Potter questions during tonight's adventure - anything you want me to ask?

Yes, ask him for the real story on why he's no longer a top Ph.D. candidate in history at William & Mary. :lol:

Oh, and Doug Phillips Is A Tool.

ETA: Thank you for doing this & I look forward to your reports!

[CynicMom]

This is too easy:

"Some people say that the war was started when northern Christians read anti-slavery messages in the Bible. What do you think?" (ie, are you claiming this was a war between a secular North and a Christian South)

"I have a friend who says that black slaves had to be forced to fight for the south and didn't have free will because they were slaves. Is there any truth to this?"

(ie, black people at the time were anti-slavery. Are you claiming otherwise?)

"If the South had won the Civil War would there still be slaves today?"

[Loveday]

Yes, ask him for the real story on why he's no longer a top Ph.D. candidate in history at William & Mary. :lol:

Oh, and Doug Phillips Is A Tool.

ETA: Thank you for doing this & I look forward to your reports!

This. I REALLY want to know the true story. :think:

[Arete]

Since the agricultural and slave owning South was economically far behind the industrialized North, what was the purpose of shedding blood to keep this maladaptive economic system in place?

If protecting State's Rights is the answer to the above question, is their no limit on State's Rights when the issue being defended is actually against the societal and economic interests of the people in the state/s affected?

Thanks for taking this hit for the team.

[GenerationCedarchip]

okay. Some of these (slaves fighting for South, etc..) are probably topics for later episodes, but I have sent on the cotton question and the "northern Christians reading scripture" (I'd LOVE to see the answer to that!), and the states' rights questions. We'll see if he answers any of mine.

And I would really like to know the story behind Potter leaving W&M. So far my network there has come up empty. :(

[GenerationCedarchip]

So far they're just playing music. I gotta say, Ken Burns had a better soundtrack. Heck, I've been in elevators with better soundtracks! :lol:

[GenerationCedarchip]

Before we actually "learn" about the Civil War, there's a marketing survey to see how many courses/tours we've all been on! Under "other", I should put only vicariously via FreeJinger.

BTW, this seminar appears to be Potter speaking into a webcam via Skype. Really bad video quality. I think I could do better on my little laptop.

Potter says this is the most important event in American history (Um...what about the Revolution?)

He's intro-ing by talking about how he and his brother had fun playing battle and going to 100th anniversary events. Said it was a huge part of their lives and now he's seeing many people who have no idea about the War.

Interesting point - he says issues of tax, secession, states' rights, etc.. are all still with us 150 yrs later and that slavery is the only issue settled by the war.

Another interesting point - acknowledges that both sides thought they were following God's will.

[salex]

Interesting point - he says issues of tax, secession, states' rights, etc.. are all still with us 150 yrs later and that slavery is the only issue settled by the war.

I wonder what he'll say about the fact that more southern states are net receivers of federal tax money ... speaking of taxation

[GenerationCedarchip]

Potter: Christian faith was undergirding principle for American society in mid-19th century.

Church denominations split between north and south before the political secession occurred, and much of this occurred over slavery. He thinks church was one of few institutions uniting nation and that sep. of churches = precursor to split in nation. There is much emphasis on "hand of providence" in history, and how we must look at what God is doing through churches - split in churches was a warning that nation should have heeded and they didn't so got hit with war.

There's definite hint that the speaker agrees slavery is wrong (never thought that would have to be in question but with this group you never know). However, that's definitely getting glossed over in favor of the church issue and the arguments over federalism going back to 1780s.

As a sidenote, the background on the skype of this one really makes it look like Potter is doing his lecture via webcam from the public library.

Salex - Oh, he's totally avoiding the tax issue so far!

[DefraudedByPlaid]

Before we actually "learn" about the Civil War, there's a marketing survey to see how many courses/tours we've all been on! Under "other", I should put only vicariously via FreeJinger.

BTW, this seminar appears to be Potter speaking into a webcam via Skype. Really bad video quality. I think I could do better on my little laptop.

Potter says this is the most important event in American history (Um...what about the Revolution?)

He's intro-ing by talking about how he and his brother had fun playing battle and going to 100th anniversary events. Said it was a huge part of their lives and now he's seeing many people who have no idea about the War.

Interesting point - he says issues of tax, secession, states' rights, etc.. are all still with us 150 yrs later and that slavery is the only issue settled by the war.

Another interesting point - acknowledges that both sides thought they were following God's will.

[Dandruff]

If you can, please ask him what Jesus would have thought of the war and whether he thinks Jesus would have supported one side over the other.

[DefraudedByPlaid]

Sorry for empty post...smartphone ineptness on my part.

I was going to say that I need to try not get my hopes up that this webinar will contain some actual thoughtfulness and balance. Although, even though the whole William and Mary thing is sketchy and clearly he puts forward a lot of troubling views...you have to be able to do soooooooome decent historical analysis to initially get into a PhD program, which he did. Let's hope that part wins out in this particular series.

[debrand]

"What, precisely, was the logic that lead to the South tearing up farmland that was producing edible crops in order to plant yet more cotton, when they'd already cornered the cotton market, leading to widespread malnutrition?"

I didn't know that the south decided to produce cotton instead of edible crops.

Just a guess. They will probably bring up the tariffs that were enacted in the 1820's and 1830's to support that the war was about taxes. The tariffs were lowered after the 1840's, about two decades before Lincoln took office.

[GenerationCedarchip]

And now we're on to Polk and the Mexican War. Potter obviously loves Polk - and I obviously have the They Might Be Giants Polk song stuck in my head now.

He says the idea that slavery = only cause of Civil War is WRONG. (big shock)

He says that northerners basically had the same ideas on race as southerners, and that northern politicians really didn't care too much about slaveholding in the south. Essentially, they were just cynically trying to shore up their own political positions. [um, if northerners didn't care about slaves, then why would their politicians need to go all abolitionist to get their votes? That makes no sense.]

He emphasizes many times that slavery was important but it's not THE issue. He even claims A. Lincoln didn't oppose slavery and that when war started, he offered to put in constitutional amendment protecting slavery if only the South would come back (Is that true?)

He then goes on to start talking about taxes, tariffs, different visions of what federalism should look like and then....

the sound punked out on my computer!! :angry-banghead:

I tragically lost out on about 20 minutes or so of lecture, and then came back in just in time to hear the tail end of John Brown's hanging, Lincoln's election (which is called the direct cause of secession) and then on into the list of states seceding. Potter points out that 80% of Southerners didn't own slaves so that idea that they fought to protect slaves not 100% accurate.

No answering of our questions yet, but he said he'll be answering questions during the week before next week's lecture, so we can only hope!!

BTW, there is a chat window on the sidebar during the class. Lots of love of the boys in gray going on there.

I found this a little frustrating because it seemed to gloss over a lot. However, I will say this for Potter: He is actually an interesting lecturer and he's one of those folks who seems to have a genuine love of what he's talking about.

And as for the rose, it was a little on the cheap-tasting side. I'm holding out more hope for next week when we do Ft. Sumter and Shiraz!

PS Dandruff - I just sent in your question!

PPS Edited to fix spelling. I can't listen to lecture, liveblog and drink wine all at once. Multi-tasking fail!

[GenerationCedarchip]

I didn't know that the south decided to produce cotton instead of edible crops.

Just a guess. They will probably bring up the tariffs that were enacted in the 1820's and 1830's to support that the war was about taxes. The tariffs were lowered after the 1840's, about two decades before Lincoln took office.

Oh, you totally called it on the tariffs! :clap: I didn't hear the whole analysis though because he was just starting to go there when my computer punked out.

[salex]

Good old John Brown. Here is a painting featuring him that is a mural in the Kansas Capitol Building. Totally freaks out students who have transferred from Virginia, I learned from a coworker (who had transferred from Virginia).

[DefraudedByPlaid]

And now we're on to Polk and the Mexican War. Potter obviously loves Polk - and I obviously have the They Might Be Giants Polk song stuck in my head now.

He says the idea that slavery = only cause of Civil War is WRONG. (big shock)

He says that northerners basically had the same ideas on race as southerners, and that northern politicians really didn't care too much about slaveholding in the south. Essentially, they were just cynically trying to shore up their own political positions. [um, if northerners didn't care about slaves, then why would their politicians need to go all abolitionist to get their votes? That makes no sense.]

He emphasizes many times that slavery was important but it's not THE issue. He even claims A. Lincoln didn't oppose slavery and that when war started, he offered to put in constitutional amendment protecting slavery if only the South would come back (Is that true?)

He then goes on to start talking about taxes, tariffs, different visions of what federalism should look like and then....

the sound punked out on my computer!! :angry-banghead:

I tragically lost out on about 20 minutes or so of lecture, and then came back in just in time to hear the tail end of John Brown's hanging, Lincoln's election (which is called the direct cause of secession) and then on into the list of states seceding. Potter points out that 80% of Southerners didn't own slaves so that idea that they fought to protect slaves not 100% accurate.

No answering of our questions yet, but he said he'll be answering questions during the week before next week's lecture, so we can only hope!!

BTW, there is a chat window on the sidebar during the class. Lots of love of the boys in gray going on there.

I found this a little frustrating because it seemed to gloss over a lot. However, I will say this for Potter: He is actually an interesting lecturer and he's one of those folks who seems to have a genuine love of what he's talking about.

And as for the rose, it was a little on the cheap-tasting side. I'm holding out more hope for next week when we do Ft. Sumter and Shiraz!

PS Dandruff - I just sent in your question!

PPS Edited to fix spelling. I can't listen to lecture, liveblog and drink wine all at once. Multi-tasking fail!

I think Lincoln did initially promise the border states they could keep their slaves if they stuck with the Union rather than secede. But by the end of the war, this changed. (Please correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly.)

Thank you for doing this!

[RachelB]

I didn't know that the south decided to produce cotton instead of edible crops.

Just a guess. They will probably bring up the tariffs that were enacted in the 1820's and 1830's to support that the war was about taxes. The tariffs were lowered after the 1840's, about two decades before Lincoln took office.

In James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, there are a couple of maps that show agricultural land use in the South before and during the war. I looked at those maps and said aloud, "But what are people going to eat, given that they can't legally trade with the North, which now has an advantage in staple foods?" Then roughly 100 pages later I found out the answer: Not much. Not enough.

Starvation sucks, especially when it's preventable.

[debrand]

I can buy that for the north, the war wasn't just about slavery. However, for the south it was about slavery and it was the south that started the war. Yeah, there were a few other reasons but the main one was slavery. One thing that has struck me when I learned about the years leading up to the war was how belligerent and full of assholery the south was. The entire south had a huge chip on its shoulder.

It doesn't matter if the majority of southerners owned slaves or not. I imagine that poor southerners were similar to the modern lower middle class and poor white Republicans who vote against their own interest to support the wealthy class.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I think Lincoln did initially promise the border states they could keep their slaves if they stuck with the Union rather than secede. But by the end of the war, this changed. (Please correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly.)

Thank you for doing this!

I had read that part in bold, too. However, Potter specifically stated that Lincoln promised the seceding states that if they came back, they would get an constitutional amendment to protect their slavery. That was the part that was totally new to me. I did a quick Google search, but the only place I could find with info on this was the website for the Confederate Heritage Fund. Admittedly, I didn't do the world's most thorough research here. confederateheritage.org/Lincoln-Endorses-Permanent-Slavery-Amendment.html

I would be curious to know the true story on this, though.

[debrand]

Can you take a screen shot of the comments in the chat sidebar? It would be interesting to discuss the reaction of some of the other listeners to his speech.