'Sup &T,
I ask of you to please help me out in my cramming of revision for an upcoming exam I have. I understand the basic concepts, but American history, not least the South, just eludes me.
If someone could please explain some of the following, I'd be greatly thankful. Most of today (a real nice sunny day) has been spent revising in my small, cramped dark room with a fan on my back and getting nowhere.
- We were told in lectures that although the South had Slaves and were told it was wrong, immoral etc by the North - the North Union still held Slaves. There was, if this were true, a sense of hypocricy. Is this true? I cannot find any conclusive data or records anywhere.
- "The making of the South has much to do with it's opposition to the Nation [North]". Do you agree? And if so, or not, why?
- Was Reconstruction hated due to the paternalistic interference of the North on a battered South which was already pissed at how it's own Countrymen could inflict such damage and then allow the White "supremacist" status quo to be threatened?
These are the biggest questions I'm having shit with. It's difficult when I have enough prejudices, and don't get on with any of the lecturers as they refuse to help. I've tried my damned hardest, but these 3 points elude me. So mock away, but in all seriousness, help is required, brethren.
Thank you.
Comments
-What do you mean by the making of the south? The shaping of it into what it is today? Probably, but I think they only have opposition and resentment to begin with because of the war, and their losing of the war and their being forced to give blacks rights. Some probably just dislike that the north forced them to do anything, but there definitely are some who are mad that we came in and messed with the racial hierarchy.
-Yes. Also, there was a view that northerners were exploiting their situation. They probably wouldn't have been as upset if the north hadn't fucked their shit up so badly, though. We went sort of overboard at times (General Shermans march to the sea, for example).
EDIT: Also, never believe someone when they try to tell you that the south was close to ending slavery anyway, and that there was no point in the federal government abolishing it and making the decision for them. The cotton industry was thriving and growing every day. Slavery was also booming. Slaves were in higher demand and sold at higher prices than at any point before prior to the civil war. Blacks were becoming the majority in many places due to the rate of slave imports.
Time for some 1am quick revision after posting a monster guide. Why can I write almost 5,000 words of &T stuff but barely any educational stuff? Wish I enjoyed the USA module more. I'm a more modern history guy myself, but I cannot thank you enough for your time and effort here :thumbsup:
1. I don't recall hearing of any such thing. I know that the North freed slaves and that a majority of those slaves freed were sent to fight in Northern army. So..take what you can from that.
2. What do you mean "the making of the South"? The South was built on cotton. It's as simple as that.
3. I think reconstruction was hated because it was exactly what the South opposed. The Civil War was fought not because of slavery alone, the South fought for the very same reason America as a whole fought. For freedom. They wanted to run things how they wanted to run things, without government interference. After the war the South was crippled and had no choice but to accept aid from the North. So, yeah, the North got to come in and industrialize everything, and the South wasn't too keen on that.
Now a lot of this is probably very wrong but I just wanted to offer whatever two cents I could because I grew up here. Also I'm not racist nor do I support slavery, blah blah, I support rebellion.
Will be coming back to this thread as and when I'm doing revision today. Cheers guys
The questions I had were the following
I actually feel the most confident about this exam than any others. It was based between 1865 and 1970, and the exam question (#6) was answered in a very philosophical way. I quoted every Historian we were told about and their take on how the South was seen through their eyes. I then used my view on how the quest for a central theme is more important than the central theme itself. In other words, the journey is better than the destination as it tells you more than a sentence to sum the South up.