Sunday, October 21, 2012

Union within Disunion

This article describes how the South transforms from a disjointed, locally oriented rural nation into a new nation (albeit a failed one in retrospect). With the exception of Gone with the Wind, tales of southern nationalism and romanticization of Dixie are rarely told for the shame of slavery, Jim Crow, and the seeming backwardness of the southern tradition.

Does the article successfully disprove some of these notions? Do you believe that the Civil War helped create the modern South, even if the confederacy lost? Who was more nationalistic? North or South?

13 comments:

  1. For me, the article showed really persuading that the Civil War was,although a defeat, a process for the Southern states of becoming a well organized, modern state, that, although it lost the fight after four years, at least sustained to be an independent country, advanced in bureaucracy and having a remarkable social upheaval. The fact that these changes were preserved after the war shows, that it was kind of “useful” for the southern states.
    Vandiver says in the article, that the wartime made the people in the south stick together strongly and taught them comradeship. I believe that they became much more nationalistic through the war because for the first time, people that had only cared for their own farms or plantations, suddenly fought side by side against the Yankees.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the writer of this article that the South benefited socially from the war. Before the war many southerners were just concerned about their local needs. But, when the war began everyone was pulled away from their towns and had to experience new things, go to new places, and learn new things. This change in mindset let southerners connect with each other, thus leading the the recognition that they share the same ideas, dreams, etc. With this nationalism is born! Not only did the south improve socially but also economically as well. The article stated that they learned a lot more about business and management. This new knowledge could also have been a factor in increasing southern nationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I personally believe that this article represented how the South was transformed because of the war. It forced the south to join together, even in defeat. I agree with Nicki about how the Southerners tended to be more individualistic. They only worried about their economy and didn't look at the form of the United States government. Also, believe that they benefited militarily as well. They realized the strength of the Union, and knew that if they worked with them, they could become a very powerful military.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that the south's change fron individualism to nationalism was a direct result of the war. As Nicki stated, when the war broke out the southerners and the northerners had to go to new places away from home and saw horrific scenes of war, blood, and hell. i think that the southerners realized that the north's people where the same as their own and going to war was foolish. of course this was when they started to lose but still, i think that the civil war helped bring to the eyes of the south that if the north and south work together rather then fight each other then they could become such a strong country and practically be unstoppable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Civil War seemed to have been necessary to achieve true unification of the states of America. Before the war, southerner's were isolated, apart from the rest of America. After the war though, their worldview changed because they were able to have real interactions with the rest of the country. The South also adopted some of the North's manners during war, which helped with American nationalism that developed after the war.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With the confederates essentially being their own nation apart from the union, the civil war immediately resulted in a nationalistic movement on both sides, but more on the south. The south needed to join together, share ideas within their community, etc. So, when the author claims that the south benefited socially from the war, I agree. The south seemed to have been transformed from this period in history. Not only did they benefit socially, but militarily due to the union being very strong in that area. This article suggests that even with defeat, positive outcomes arose in the south, and of course in the entire nation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe that though the war was horrible, it helped bring unity to our nation. I like how mike and nicki put it, the north and south had to travel to the opposing sides and only then did they realize who they were fighting. And found that if we worked as a nation rather then separately how much we could accomplish. The last line pretty much sums it up by saying, "the section's new found cohesion, greater democracy, it's new techniques of management, were all in best American tradition and paved the way for the emergence of modern america for a true unification of the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Like Abdoulaye said, I think that the Civil War was necessary from a historical standpoint to unite to South and North. The South began to realise that they needed the North economically, and that they would be part of a strong nation if they stayed together.
    In a way, the Civil War seemed to change the South's culture somewhat towards more Northern ways.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree that the south was able to find prosperity from the ashes of their remains from the Civil War. Socially the south became much more organized. This was partially due to the fact that the war forced the south to become organized. Vandiver said that the war cause the once localized south to form a broader commonality. Thus giving the south a sense of nationalism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Two man would never get to know each other until they had a fight" as a old Chinese proverb says so,the theory works the same even in America across the Pacific Ocean i guess. As the author said, the prewar south was disunited, disorganized,localistic and
    politically amorphous, but dramatic changes were made through a four year total war. People who were supposed to spend their entire life in the southern rural area with radius of couple miles were send to front lines to clash with civilized culture, progressed thoughts, mature political theory from the north and more significantly the sparks of minds were made,those people from the south had never imagined human-being could reach such a level of liberal and self-direct, the destiny could have been changed dramatically like a fictional novel as much as they want, and since the seeds of exception of emancipation of themselves are planted, even they were defeated, veterans went back to home with something beyond measure, something called american dream. Also, new techniques of management were learned through the experience of wartime management of the entire Confederate. Finally, something rather the sadness of defeat were brought to the south, those things were unification, the beginning of bureaucracy, and abundance amount of vitality which prepare southerns to become a part of the united states.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When the South separated it allowed them to have a huge nationalistic movement that benefited their whole population as well as their business sector. The North also experienced a movement like theirs, but not as big. Many Southerners still see the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression and commemorate it in different ways. Many people have confederate flags on their vehicles and hang the flag in their yard, albeit below the American flag. The nationalistic movement of the South during the war has shaped the South into that place it is today.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think that the South was incredibly nationalistic, in the sense that the Southerners completely accepted their region for the way it was, and the Southerners were willing to fight to maintain their lifestyle. The North was nationalistic in a different sense. The Northerners wanted to change the Union for the better, and were progressive. Discerning who is more nationalistic is perspective. Through a series of events, the civil war shaped contemporary America. Had the practice of slavery continued and unchecked, one would wonder what other ways Southerners would try to exploit the easy-going nature of the government's response to their misdoings.

    ReplyDelete