Edited by author 08-11-2003 08:17 AM
     Assumptions and preconceptions about the North, caused many Southerners to be extremely apprehensive about the arrival of the Federal soldiers in 1861. These “men without honor . . .would most certainly be savages . . .[who] would pillage, destroy, and rape.”[1]# At the beginning of the war, for some Southerners, these preconceived notions were proven false by many of the Federal soldiers who exercised a great deal of discipline, especially towards the women. Many Southerners, specifically the women, took advantage of the Union’s use of a “rosewater policy.” Losing patience, the Federal soldiers put into effect a harsher policy of occupation in 1862. With the help of individual accounts, Stephen Ash proves how this new policy, the internal divisions, and the external pressure led to the eventual demise of Confederate morale and resistance.
 
     At the start of the Civil War, it was the intent of the Union army to reassure the Confederate citizens that they came only to “stamp out rebellion.”[2]# Whatever their intention, they were met with mixed reactions. The Unionists and the blacks in a way saw the Federal army as Moses, coming to let God’s people go. Aristocrats and yeomen, for the most part, were not thrilled at the idea. However, ironically, in some cases the Union men were welcomed in order to bring order to the chaos created in the community by their own boys. In making sure that the Union soldiers were left with ruin, the Confederates set about destroying public and even private goods. Louisa Pearl hoped that “the Northern army will come and take possessions soon . . .” for she was scared that the Confederates would “take it into their heads to burn [them] out.”[3]
 
     The citizens, taking advantage of the rosewater policy, defied the Union soldiers in all the ways they could think of: from preaching sermons for the Confederates to actually spitting in the Federal soldiers’ paths or on the boots. At first the soldiers, just laughed these incidents off. But when soldiers began dying at the hands of citizen, either directly or indirectly (housing members of guerilla warfare), it was decided that enough was enough. They invoked a harsher policy upon the citizens. The citizens did not see the responsibility that they should hold for this stricter policy. But they did see themselves as victims to the North’s duplicity once again. “The North acted like they had our interests at heart, but it was just a scam in order to get us to let our guard down.”
 
     Unfortunately, the occupation itself and the new plan, brought into the light the internal divisions that would help bring a end to the Confederate spirits. Community was vital to the Southerner way of life. Everyone needed the other and they all helped each other in some way. Planters gave Aristocrats food, Aristocrats gave yeomen money or whatever they needed, and blacks in exchange for their labor were given shelter and food. Many Southerners thought that their way of life was great until the Union army came along and destroyed their way of living. However, they soon found out that their perception of Southern living was not loved by everyone.
 
     As Ash puts its, many whites were under the impression that blacks needed them. They were greatly disturbed to discover that the reverse was more the truth: they needed the blacks. The idea that were “content in their bondage was a cornerstone of proslavery ideology.”[4] Their slaves left them; they went over to the other side. When this realization set in, many were ready for this war to be over for they just couldn’t bear to lose anything else.
 
     For the poor whites, Southern living was not their idea of a good time. Several of them became bandits and began victimizing the middle, but mainly the upper class. Life had not dealt them a fair hand, and the aristocrats made it a lot harder for them to play the poor hand they had. They were looked upon with disdain, treated like dirt, and in some cases, slaves were treated with more respect than they. Life for them became good, rather a little better, under the Federal occupation. The Northerners took pity on them, teaching them how to read, write, do math and gave them food and things when they could. But they also played them against the aristocracy, convincing them to join the Union side.
 
     Another division within the Southern community was location. Depending on where one lived in the garrison towns, the Confederate frontier, or no man’s land, determined how they fared. Those living in the garrison towns were a lot better off than the people who resided in the other two. In the garrison towns there was more protection, better structure, and they were provided for. In the Confederate frontier, there was protection every now and then from both sides, leading to little structure and no one helping them out. And in no man’s land, they were definitely on their own.
 
     Many Southerners saw themselves as victims, as do many when they lose. Unfortunately a lot of their hardships were caused by their own stubbornness and pride. It was this pride that kept the war going and this pride that eventually caused their loss.


[1]Stephen V. Ash, When the Yankees Came: Conflict and Chaos in the Occupied South, 1861-1865, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) 12.
[2] Ibid., 28.
[3] Ibid., 18.
[4] Ibid., 223.

When the Yankees Came

 Stephen V. Ash’s book, When the Yankees Came, discusses Southern communities that were invaded by Union forces during the Civil War. The Union’s occupation started a chain of events that redefined the aims of warfare at that time. This began with the disruption of local southern communities, which in turn provoked resistance by the south, and resulted in new tactics that the Union armies would use against the Confederate south.
 
   Before Yankee invasion, the South was dependent upon its various trades due to its high efficiency level of communalism. Different people of different classes worked together to create a social system of productivity. Even though the southern way of life was one of the most important aspects, their entire society was changed after northern occupation in southern territory. Ash describes how, for many farmers and yeoman, “the fear of losing home and livelihood prevailed over fear of the enemy”(19). This clearly shows how much southerners valued their land and their way of life.
 
   Upon the arrival of the Yankees, southern crops were seized and homes were destroyed. Poor whites, who had previously depended on the extensive southern communalism, in turn lost their jobs because their farmland was destroyed and the Yankees looted what little crops were salvaged. More aristocratic families of the south became afraid of the poorer class because these workless men would raid the homes and families of the wealthier citizens. Already, the southern classes were bickering amongst themselves and the sense of communalism was beginning to break.
 
   The longer the northern troops stayed in the south, the worse the conditions became for the Confederate states. Communities were collapsing more and more as time passed due to northern oppression and an increasing loss of morale amongst the southern people. However, the South did not go down passively; instead they came up with means of resistance. The primary southern war strategy to try to make the Northern troops retreat was that of guerrilla warfare. Other common means of resistance included “verbal defiance,” “noncooperation,” and smuggling contraband. Through these efforts, the South attempted to regain some kind of control over their disheveled community.
 
   The south developed a system of guerrilla warfare in hope of resisting northern aggression. Guerrillas were members of the southern community who attempted to defend the honor of the community against Union rule. Ash defines guerrillas as “not soldiers, but citizens; they were not an arm of the Confederacy, but of the community” (48). They used their network of friends and family to aid them tasks such as the destruction of railroad tracks, installing telegraph wires, and organizing ambushes against the northern army. This strategy combined the South’s strong desire for the return of communalism by making all efforts to save the honor of their society, which the Union army had tried so hard to destroy. By 1862, guerrilla tactics had become so effective that Union soldiers were afraid to travel outside fortified areas.
 
   Regarding the other means of resistance, Confederate women played a large role in rebelling against Union commands. Not only would the women degrade the Northern soldiers to their faces by holding their noses as they passed them on the streets; but also, they would refuse to walk under Union banners in the cities (42). Also, smuggling quickly became a very popular act of resistance. Confederates would take items such as clothing, food, and medicine to soldiers of their army in order to keep them nourished and in good health. Since the Yankee army had devised a plan of starvation and devastation of the South, keeping the soldiers strong became a difficult but imperative task for the southern community.
 
   In an attempt to stop the guerrilla warfare, the Union generals placed repercussions on Southern citizens for the actions of the guerrillas. These new war tactics did not end with such punishments; the Yankee army would also search and loot homes for supplies or guerrillas in hiding. This began the cycle of raids and destruction across the south, which ended in Sherman’s infamous march to Savannah. Yankees made a point of either stealing or burning anything that the South could use for survival during the war or even after the war was over. During this time, Southerners slowly turned against themselves and did whatever was necessary for their individual survival. This finally marks the end of what was once the tight community of the Confederacy.
 
   By hitting the South in a way that was most devastating for them, the Union managed to destroy what was the most important aspect of Southern life: communalism. Although the South tried to retaliate, their efforts were not enough to stop the Union army from stripping them of their homeland and dignity. The Yankees found every way possible to fight a war of no mercy and leave the South in utter destruction. This chain of events that ended badly for the South created a new way of fighting wars by targeting helpless citizens. The Yankees saw this as a logical way of punishing them for their participation in guerrilla warfare; yet, they demolished the South’s final attempt at communalism.

The writter for the Atlantic Monthly found the South divided and backward. Rich ruling classes controlled the poor who were ignorant and uneducated and taught to hate the Yankees. This sounds like the stereotypical South that the Northerner's believed existed before the war. This gives evidence to those who view the Civil War as not really causing much change or being a war of revolution. He believes that Southerners must be taught to respect all men and to respect labor, which they believed was degrading.

The correspondence among Sherman, Hooker, and Calhoun was entertaining. Hooker sounds to be like a bitter, complaining school girl that did not receive the memo that there is a war about. Of course Sherman wants to take Atlanta. Believe it or not Hooker, the enemy wants to win too. Therefore, he will obtain a vital town to the South. The least he could do is warn you and allow you to remove the families when occupation is imminent. I find it ridiculous to punch the gift horse in the mouth in this situation.

Three Months among the Reconstructionists struck me as the most interesting of the pieces assigned for today. The extent to which the author is a prisoner of his own stereotypes is amazing. The man appeals to stereotypes common at the outset of war- the overarching ignorance of southerners, for example. At one time the author asserts that “the people are utterly without knowledge. There is everywhere a lack of intellectual activity” (3). The inherent laziness of southerners, following on the early theme of “soft but violent planters” discussed in class, is also addressed by the author believing that the “chief end of man seems to have been to “own a nigger.”

Amazingly, the author also alludes to the vitality of the Slave Power, which had been discounted in early Federal invasions. The Federal occupying forces had discovered that the yeoman farmers were every bit as reproachful of the invading armies as the slaveocracy was, the author still insists that the “inherent antagonism to everything from the North—an antagonism fostered and cunningly cultivated…by the politicians in the interests of Slavery” (7) exists in strength. How the author can still ascribe to the greater truth of this idea in the immediate years following its very public and violent defeat is baffling.

The author also appeals to general stereotypes of the newly-freed slaves of the South. He describes the social complexity issues of the white and black southerners, and their commonly-held stereotypes of one another. Then the author asserts that “the Negro is no model of virtue or manliness, he has little conception of right and wrong, and he is improvident to the last degree of childishness” (6). The former slave shall also require “almost infinite patience,” for the black man “comes very slowly to moral comprehensions” (6). How a Massachusetts man, from the hotbed of the abolitionist movement, can ascribe to such common, ignorant stereotypes in the region that had originally attacked these conceptions is also perplexing.

The Sherman/Hood correspondence discounts many of the commonly-held conceptions, by southerners in particular, of the engagements in and around Atlanta. Surprisingly to many southerners, it is Sherman who commands the civilians to vacate Atlanta for their own personal safety, in the interests of avoiding civilian casualties. Hood, writing from his viewpoint and comprehension of southern society, refuses to allow the destruction the Atlanta sense of community so integral to the southern citizenry that Sherman was attempting to remove, albeit for the personal safety of the Atlanta citizenry. In fact, Sherman blames Hood for forming his lines so close to the actual city of Atlanta that unintentional destruction was unavoidable. Would it have been too difficult for Hood to move his lines forward in order to protect the city’s inhabitants? In the interests of preserving the rapidly diminishing Confederate forces, probably so. But the correspondence between the two men definitely debases some of the arguments demonizing Sherman, as the allowance of a truce to remove civilians and their personal effects from the city of Atlanta is a commendable move on behalf of Sherman.

However, the view offered by Sherman’s correspondence is not verified by the accounts of Mrs. Burge. She tells a tale more familiar to southerners- the complete devastation wreaked by the northern armies in Georgia. Mrs. Burge states at one point that she lost thirty thousand dollars in one day due to Yankee acquisitions. The utter cruelty, part of the intentional destruction of the southern will to fight, of Federal men in the treatment of Sadai is heart wrenching. What kind of a man would still a doll from a little girl? What purpose in the overall scheme of warfare and Sherman’s tactics does this theft serve? The example merely exemplifies the extent to which the Federal armies destroyed southern moral on the home front- not a man, woman, nor even a little child was spared.

The letters exchanged between Sherman and Hood Sherman asked Hood for the removal of all citizens out Atlanta. THe citizens of Atlanta also wrote to Sherman asking for him to not innvade, for they had no where to go and could not be able to take their sick and elderly. Sherman ridicules Hood and blames him for having his defensive lines too close to Atlanta and that this is why his muskets and cannons landed in the city. The fact that Sherman asked the people of Atlanta to vacate goes against the common view of southerners that northerners were all un hummane. Althought the destruction that Sherman inflicted on Atlanta was barbaric he did ask them to evacuate. The accounts of the destruction Shermans armies did were described by Burge's diary. She states that with the passing of Shermans armies she was "30,000 dollars poorer and a much stronger rebel."

I also found the piece for the Atlantic the most entertaining of the pieces assigned for today. I don't know whether to agree with Scott that he was a prisoner of his stereotypes about the South or to think that not much has changed. His tenth paragraph on South Carolina's arrogance holds true in some degree among many today as do his comments about Southern ignorance and popular education also ring true for the modern day. Surprising though were his comments that "the best citizens of to-day are the Confederate soldiers of yesterday" this is one instance I would point to as not seeming to fit into some Northern, stereotypical mold.

The Sherman-Hood correspondence is quite ridiculous when you consider that one wanted to annhilate Atlanta, but do so with courtesy and the other thought he could stop it by appealing to God and in the name of humanity. Did Hood really believe that Sherman would step back and say "no I won't do this to a brave people (the enemy) simply because the enemy commander asks." It seems Hood was effectively deluded by archaic notions of Commander's Courtesies. This only serves to mask in alot of ways what both guys were really doing, which explains why they get all incensed when someone mentions what they really have done.

Sherman's march to the sea caused much damage to the South and many see it as an over-aggressive act. Arson had been a factor in the war long before Sherman. As it stands, Sherman simply won the game of who could burn more stuff. New York, Vermont, and Pennsylvania had all been subjects of arson. The march was revenge for trying to burn out the North. Sherman even asked the citizens of Atlanta to evacuate and avoid the events to come, as others have already pointed out. Many people never hear that Sherman didn't even burn Columbia. In an effort to burn cotton supplies, the Confederates accidentally let the flames get out of hand and the fire spread rapidly. This is probably an event that just gets categorized immediately to Sherman's march, even though he wasn't fully responsible for the act.(I'm sure he didn't try and stop the fires) I also agree with others that Hood's pleas were stupid, but you can't blame him for trying.

Edited by author 08-12-2003 12:32 AM
I liked the correspondence between Sherman and Hood, Sherman the most though. Because he was sarcastic, straight-forward, started his first letter with much respect and patience. But by the end he was like forget it, I don't owe you anything. For Sherman, this war wasn't about freeing the slaves, it wasn't about trying to suppress the Southern civilians by taking their property or occupying their land; it was all about making sure that there was "a just obedience to the laws of the United States." And unfortunately whatever that entitled or whoever became subjected it could not be help, for it was nothing personal. Bringing me to my next point: Sherman made a statement that showed how he would be able to try and continue his relations with the South before the war. He would not hold a grudge for he understood that men were fighting for what the believed in. He believed in peace, but when that peace was achieved "you may call on me for anything. Then I will share with you may last cracker and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter." Then at the end of the correspondence, Hood sent him a longer letter to which Sherman responded with a paragraph in which he basically says, I was right you were wrong; I wasn't bound to give notice, you were bound to take notice, read on it; now I didn't start this, but I am going to finish it.
Sincerely, your obedient servant, Sherman. Classic.

 I felt that the correspondence between Hood and Sherman was one of the more interesting pieces we have read this term. You can see elements of David Hume’s argument we studied earlier, with Hood condemning acts Sherman has made during the war (when he might have been committing those same acts – i.e. Johnstone’s evacuation of Jackson), and vice versa. I think that further shows, along with the heated exchange between the two commanding generals, the hyper-emotionalism of both sides, and this emotionalism was even lasting to the last days of the war. Since we’re thinking about how earlier readings relate to this piece, I think you can also see elements of J.G. Randall’s propaganda theories in Hood and Sherman’s letters. Both men seemed to ramble off what there own respective sides official positions were on the causes of the war, and which side was just. There responses to one another concerning the wrongs of the early stages of the war look like something that could have come straight from the Richmond Whig or New York Tribune.

 I have to say I disagree with Siler and Joe in their comments regarding how Hood was stupid for trying to stop Sherman’s proposal by appealing to God and humanity. I don’t think Hood in any way felt that what he said to Sherman would effect his decisions, and in fact he accepted the “proposition to declare a truce of two days …to accomplish the purpose mentioned.” I took his protest in the name of God and humanity as Hood’s subtle way of calling Sherman a S.O.B.. Thus, the ensuing fiery exchange between the two generals. I think it is important to realize how much Sherman really wanted to protect the poor citizens of Atlanta. This was more of a punishment for secessionists, and the added bonuses of forcing these people to leave their homes is evident. This would mean more mouths for Confederates to feed, more feelings of needing to protect one’s families among Confederate soldiers, and ultimately a quicker end to the secessionists morale. The fact that Sherman was trying to pass himself as some kind of humanitarian is what pissed Hood off, and that’s why he called him a S.O.B..

 Also, I was kind of taken back by Sherman’s comments regarding African Americans. By this point in the war, the Northern cause was supposed to be heavily centered on freeing the slaves. However, Sherman says “we don’t want your Negroes” and claimed there were no “Negro allies” in his corps. I imagine he was so adamant of pushing the cause of Union because of the makeup of the corps below him. I imagine most of his corps were men from the Midwest, and they would not be to thrilled to think that the war was about emancipation.

President Johnson was to eager to reestablish the southern state governments. White southerners were still a people guided by the same beliefs and principles that they were fighting for in the war. Therefore, the government founded on these people and their values were as inherently prejudice as before the war. No matter what measure was made to provide for equal protection and administration of justice for freedmen, the result was void because prejudism implemented the measures, canceling them out.

Pres. Johnson attempted to use efforts to ensure freedmen's rights to make the southern states look good and gain credibility to win Northern support for restoration. Talk about blatant "false philanthropy!" His primary aim was to reestablish order without conflict, and Howard of the freedmen's bureau wanted to actually provide equality. Because his efforts could not stop broad interpretations by southern justices and politicians, and could not block Presidential interference, they were rendered ineffective.

The Black Codes only facilitated pseudo-slavery in the former Rebel states. Slavery existed, but merely in the sense of actuality than in a sense of legality. As Derick says, the same cultural ideals were in place for the South as before the war. Any attempt to change southern methods of existence was met only with fortified resistance. Nothing Johnson, Howard, or any other of the Reconstructioninsts could have done would have altered southern resistance, precisely as the current situation in Iraq attests. The black codes were a spit in the face of northern abolition, intentional and precise. "Freedmen" were now indentured servants to the ages of twenty-one or eighteen. Passes were required for movement, a policy that would be re-enacted in apartheid South Africa, to draw a modern parallel to the codes. The black codes were merely quasi-slavery...despite Johnson's attempts through the Freedman's Bureau to restore and reconstruct the former Confederacy.

During Reconstruction, the Freedman's Bureau was set up to provide freedmen with legal protection. However this was difficult due to the racial phobias still present in the South. Blacks accused of crimes against whites were refused to testify, eliminating the possibility for a fair and unbiased trial. Howard realized that police and local judges continually denied freedmen rights and privaleges. The Freedmen's Bureau was somewhat of a failure due to southern racism. Mississippi's Black Codes outlawed umemployed freedman the fight of assembly also it outlawed blacks to own any type of weapon. The civil libertys granted to the negro during reconstruction many went unenforced.

Edited by author 08-12-2003 07:24 PM
It takes a lot of time to transform people's mind from the old way of doing things to a new way of doing things even if the old way wasn't working, which is why I think the Bureau had a hard time.
  After reading Nieman's piece on the Freedman's Bureau, I was just curious as to what else they did. Like Ben said, they did provide legal protection to freedmen, but I found in the Valley of the Shadow that they did a lot more or rather they tried to do a lot more than just help not only freedmen, but "destitute whites" as well. They provided social services, such as clothing and food. They recieved many applications for help building churches and schools, however the budget being so small they were unable to meet all the requests. However, the Bureau is responsible for a number of churches in Augusta County. Unfortunately violence didn't end with the Civil War, many Freedman sought the Bureau's protection against local civil authorities, but the Bureau's efforts in that regard were futile, the most the did was to allow their office to be used as a haven for victims. Another service they perform was the help in reuniting families after the war as well as becoming a conseuling center for those with domestic problems. The Freedmen Bureau in Staunton was "deeply involved in labor issues" such as contract disputes, filing claims against the US gov't, and labor contract with former masters, as well as being an employment agency. "The people of Augusta County appeared to have neither cared much for the Freedmen's Bureau nor its purpose to aid freedmen. The community considered the Freedmen's Bureau as a symbol of hostile Northern intentions to advance the black community at the expense of the whites. Many Southerners believed that freedmen should turn to their former masters for aide." This feeling was probably not limited to Augusta County, I imagined many Southerners felt like this which is why the Bureau was limited in its authority, it's budget, and it's support. So it was not surprising to me that it ended with Reconstruction.

I like what Scott said about the modern day parallels to the Black Codes and South Africa and we could add Nazi Germany as well. I think this interesting because of the way we approach our own history and the way we approach others history. I think we have a tendency to view our own history as Americans, Southerners, descendents of slave-owners, etc. in a much less sinister way than we view, say, South African history. I would not go so far as draw direct parallels to Nazi racial policy, but I would say that Nazi racial policy was an aberration in German culture and quite surprising, however Southern racial policy was undeniably imbedded in Southern culture both before and after the war as seen from these pieces and there for maybe even more sinister? Yet I am still interested in my original question of how we come to terms with these negative portions of our history. Does the Freedman's Bureau help us come to grips with the negative portions by claiming it as our own and talking of it as the enlightened antidote?

I am also interested in what might have happened if as Kim pointed out the Bureau had not ended with Reconstruction. How much farther would Freedmen come if there had a been a continuous bureau (such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, whose history is pretty dicey I understand) to guide the process of economic and societal integration beyond Reconstruction and throughout the country.

 I like how Scott coined the “new” South as having a “pseudo-slavery” system, because after reading the Mississippi Black Codes this certainly seemed to be the case. It almost seems as if the South is closer to a European model feudal system than it was before the war. I just don’t see how a state legislature during Reconstruction would be allowed to pass such laws, and I would like to see the Republican response to these black codes. Given the reactions we saw from Congress against President Johnson’s policies towards Southern blacks (i.e. Swain’s proposal to put black trials in the hands of state courts) in the Nieman piece, you would think they would have blocked these Southern black codes. However, as we know from previous history classes, these black codes dominated the South for decades, so Congressional Republicans must have either been unaware (which I doubt) of the codes, they couldn’t do anything about them, or they simply ignored them. Whatever the case, it is sad that nothing was done to stop these codes until the 20th Century.

 I also liked Scott relating the black codes to apartheid in South Africa. I think Joe’s expanding that to Nazi Germany is taking it a little too far, but when you look at Civil war writers post WWII, the Holocaust definitely made them rethink their views of slavery. The old thoughts of slavery being some form of paternalistic system were lost for good, and that is why you will be hard pressed to find a positive view about slavery even amongst the most fervent Southern Apologists (not even in a Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting I would suppose). I also think the racial hatred we viewed in Germany had a profound impact of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s as well, and I would go as far as to say the movement wouldn’t have happened as fast without America’s World War II experience. However, Nazis were hell bent on genocide, which I don’t think you will find as wide scaled in the South during Reconstruction. You can’t get more racist than trying to eliminate an ethnicity. I wouldn’t say the South’s racial hatred was minute in comparison to the Third Reich, but to put them on equal footing is a stretch.

Edited by author 08-13-2003 12:02 AM
The Mississippi Black Code of 1865 shows how whites tried to keep black people down during reconstruction. The document is full of ways to get fined or have to go to work to pay off fines. Every few lines there is some fine lurking. The money collected from these fines goes to the county treasury for general county purposes. What exactly is a general county purpose? I can only imagine how much of that money was misused. The state kept blacks in the manual labor work force because so many of these men could not pay the fines they received. White officials decided on the amount the fine would be. They could make it the maximum amount so the man would be forced to be hired out for work when he could not pay. Though it may not always be the most ethical way to conduct business, states charge so much money for breaking the law that it deters criminals from committing crimes. They did it 150 years ago and they are still doing today. Ahh, what a great way to empty the pockets of the people to create a "better" state.