A MARK CURRAN POST....
UNDERCONSTRUCTION
COME BACK LATER
SORRY
CONFESSION -- I USED TO THINK BRUCE CATTON WAS A HISTORIAN.
Still, the material here is unfortunately solid and accurate.
Me looking around China. |
If Bruce Catton had known what we know now -- like Southern War Ultimatums, like Southern leaders boasting they were killing to spread slavery (ala David Rice Atchison) , like Robert E Lee's torture of slave girls, and the cowardice of Jeff Davis, he might have written a better, and more intelligent, truthful set of books.
But Catton had some basic gaps in his factual knowledge.
_____________________________________
CATTON INEXPLICABLY MISSED THE BASICS
Bruce Catton seemed to have no clue, or at least never mentioned it, the man who passed Kansas Act then rushed to Kansas, to terrorize, torture and kill.
That Senator's name was David Rice Atchison.
Further, Catton castigated Charles Sumner. Sumner was an enemy of David Rice Atchison.
Charles Sumner was the US Senator who stood up for two days -- two days -- and spoke all about Atchison and his paid killers, and detailed their tortures and killings in Kansas. That was the "Crimes Against Kansas" speech -- whereupon Sumner was beaten almost to death.
Let me repeat this - Catton castigated Sumner for that speech. And he never -- Catton never -- repeated the details or information in Sumners speech in any clear way. Certainly he never made clear Atchison was the Senator who passed Kansas Act. Never said or wrote a word against Atchison.
He did however, write dismissively about the man who exposed Atchison in US Senate in that speech (though the entire nation knew it by then of course)
That could be the issue -- the ego problem -- Catton had. And why he was a lousy "historian" overall. Perhaps Catton was fine a the details of give battles.
Worse, if possible, that Catton missed the basics of Kansas Act and even Dred Scott -- James McPherson idiotically and substantially adopted and used Cattons' goofy "narrative" of the Civil War for his books.
It might be hard to believe that Catton could be stupid about Kansas Act and how US Senator Atchison used hired killers to invade Kansas after he passed Kansas Act.
Yet that seems to be the case. Yet nothing -- nothing -- comes close to being as basic in US as that leading up to Civil War, That US Senator not only hired killers -- and used them to invade Kansas in 1856 -- he bragged about it.
It's not like it was a secret. It was the biggest event of the 1850s.
Bruce Catton, however, nearly despised the other US Senator -- Worse, and almost comically, Catton seems to have gotten his overall narrative from Jefferson Davis. Davis, or example, hated Charles Sumner, so apparently did Catton.
Charles Sumner, of course, gave that two day speech about Atchison -- the man who passed Kansas Act. And Sumner listed killing after killing, torture after torture, all done by Atchison's men.
Sumner revealed what was already then well known, it was not news to anyone. So Catton should have known already. Atchison and Douglas passed Kansas Act, then Atchison rushed to Missouri to meet waiting men -- already armed with arms and cannon from US Armory, courtesy of Jeff Davis.
Atchison's men spent about two years terrorizing in Kansas -- and then it got much much worse. After Summer's beating those killings and tortures got worse.
Catton seems oblivious to both stages - the two years of terrorizing and torture leading up to Sumner speech, and the year after that.
It grew much worse because the hired men from Texas -- hired by Atchison -- got to Kansas. Seriously, Catton seems oblivious to all of that. Even more goofy --if possible-- Catton protege, James McPherson literally uses Canton's "narrative" as his own.
Sumner went into the killings in great detail -- and after Sumner's speech, those killings got much worse. Not better.
Cotton did not take Sumner's side of that issue. Catton took Jeff Davis deceptive narrative. Not Lincoln's narrative.
Not Sumner. He took Jeff Davis narrative, which was profoundly deceptive and false.
Let that sink in. McPherson to an astonishing extent literally uses and thinks in terms of Catton's narrative.
___________________________________________________
THE LIMIT OF NARRATION
___________________________________
Catton made a difference -- in two generations of people who would become "historians". In fact, the leading historian of our day (arguably James McPherson) literally uses -- and cites -- James McPherson for his own narrative.
Let me repeat that. James McPherson essentially used Catton's narrative, so much so, McPherson actually boasts about it.
In fact, Catton did not know Southern leaders boasted of killing to spread slavery WEST -- 1856 on.
Nor did he know, or at least never mentioned, that Jefferson Davis sent over 2000 killers to Kansas, paid them, and the leader of those men openly boasted he was killing to spread slavery, and killing, even, to stop folks in Kansas from even speaking against slavery.
In short, Catton had no clue, in a practical way, that Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery and boasting of it, till they lost.
He knew a lot about belt buckles.
He knew-- or claimed to know -- which road this Army came to battle on, and what time that battle started. (But even there, he was proven mistaken, he was not even correct on that).
To Catton, it seemed he found glory in telling us which road someone used.
He never mentioned Southern War Ultimatums, and boasted of killing to spread slavery. They did not just boast - they did it. They boasted of killing to spread slavery as they killed to spread slavery.
_____________________________________________________________________
Guess who never mentioned Southern War Ultimatums, in any clear way? James McPherson. He did write those words, in one of his books, but never saw fit to take them seriously, or even show what they were.
BACK IN THE DAY
HIGH PRIESTS
This was back when "historians" were kind of the "high priest" of history. It took those high priest to decipher original documents and "complicated stuff". And here, a newspaper man, a fine writer, would just make it clear.
Sounded great to me, even as a teenager.
Surely, surely Catton had all the facts.
Right?
Wrong.
Surely Catton did not miss basic things. He knew the belt buckles, he knew which road this Army came on, at what time of day .
That means -- right --that he knew everything basic AND these details?
Turns out, sadly, that's not true. In fact, it seems "historians" who yap about such details as which road x used, and what they ate for breakfast are likely stupid about basics, unless they can show otherwise.
______________________________________
SILLY HOBBY, NEWSPAPERS AT THE TIME.
But then later, much later, my hobby was Southern newspapers from 1848-1865.
The internet -- online -- made it possible to now easily find what newspapers (and books) from the South said in 1846, and 1840, and 1861.
Bruce Catton would have had to travel to Mobile Alabama, a four day drive for him, and hope the newspaper about Jeff Davis speech regarding South desertions were in, not destroyed.
He would not even know for sure what he was looking for. It would not matter if he wondered what Davis said about desertions, if he did not know the speech was in Mobile in September of 1864.
But I could find such newspapers in a few seconds, while eating a cupcake. No problem. I did not need to travel four days. Try -- sit on your ass for 20 seconds and you can find things Catton could not likely find, unless he was lucky as hell, in months.
Till Catton's dying day, he apparently never knew of that speech.
Even though a guy named William T Sherman heard of the speech via St. Louis newspapers at the time. Davis did now know his speech would hit the telegraph, and get all over, or he would not have made it.
But Davis made the speech, Sherman therefore knew 2/3 of the rebel soldiers already deserted, and the rest his history.
To his dying day, Catton would repeat the South myth that Southern soldiers fought on for their flag. When you find out the full story, very few Confederate soldiers were there by 1865, most had deserted, and many of those that did not desert just refused to fight by April.
I could find that in a few minutes. And did.
Catton never mentioned, for example, that Atchison was even in Kansas after passing the Kansas Act, and there was killing to spread slavery and boasted of it.
Very basic. In fact, nothing -- nothing -- is more basic.
But if Catton knew that, he never bothered to let his readers know it.
Keep that in mind.
He could not get the basic information from his sources -- if his sources were largely Southern apologists. They were not about to tell him. They actively distorted basic information (especially Davis) after the South lost.
What Southern leaders bragged out the ass about (like bragging of killing to spread slavery against states rights, and bragging of killing for GOD) Catton simply did not know.
________________________________
TEN SECONDS
Now you can get things like Atchison speeches, his reports to Davis, his boasting of killing to spread slavery, in ten seconds. Time yourself, after you click this link
Catton went to his death being stupid- yes stupid -- about the basic history of Southern leaders insane, violence, creepy and unrelenting killing to spread slavery.
\
Lincoln sure knew about it -- read his letters to Speed.
Catton could have read Lincoln's letter to Speed easily enough, and had the brains to check. But if Catton read Lincoln's letter, he apparently didn't think the details therein were worth considering, much less to consider Lincoln a valid source for further information.
But Catton seemed to accept sociopath Jeff Davis as a truthful man -- he was most certainly not. Davis's speeches and book (and anything based on it, or like it) is a study in denial and disinformation. Specifically Davis would claim the South "just wanted to be left alone".
Left alone? He repeatedly sent killers to various places, issued War Ultimatums, and justified Atchison and other killers-- and even paid them.
That's not "just wanted to be left alone."
______________________________________
WORSE
THAN USELESS.
It's clear when you read much of Catton on the causes of the Civil War, that he got his information from Southern apologists.
Unless this changes, he may screw up a few more generations.Question: Did Bruce Catton's bullshit screw up two generations of "historians"?
______________________________________
BULLSHIT NOT ALWAYS WRONG OR RIGHT.
There is little sunlight between Jeff Davis narration of the Civil War -- as he presented it after the war -- and Bruce Catton's narrative.
For example, Davis would never, after the war, boast about killing to spread slavery, boast about sending paid killers to Kansas to spread slavery.
Likewise, Bruce Catton never saw fit to mention such things.
Another example, Davis would never, after the war, repeat his official boasting of killing to spread slavery in the North. Yes, official boasting.
Likewise, Bruce Catton never saw fit to mention that.
___________________________________________
ITS HARD TO KNOW
It's hard to know if Bruce Catton ever bothered to learn what Southern leaders did and boasted of doing to spread slavery for GOD. They boasted of killing to spread slavery for GOD.
DAVIS to CATTON to McPherson.
McPherson seems to channel Catton, who channeled Jeff Davis nonsense about tariffs, and the "state's rights" issue.
Never mind that Jefferson Davis sent over 2000 killers to Kansas to stop states rights and explained why he did so. Kansas citizens had no right to reject slavery, and state's had no right to reject slavery, because of Dred Scott.
Not once, not ever, did Catton or McPherson ever see fit to mention in any clear way that Southern leaders did a complete flip flop on states rights when KS rejected slavery, and Southern leaders sent killers to KS to kill and terrorize citizens there to STOP states rights there.
Kind of a BFD. Would be nice to have the "leading historians" know this "trivial" thing.
But Catton spent, literally, more time and effort telling about Confederate belt buckles than about Southern War Ultimatums. In fact, Catton never mentioned those.
McPherson never explained those in any clear way.
________________________________________
First, you need to understand -- Bullshit is not necessarily wrong, or right. It can be either, or a mix. And bullshit is nearly ubiquitous, it's human nature. Bullshit is what you say or write, and in this case teach, that flows from your own ego, to sorta say "Look at me, how much I know".
We do it, you do it, I do it. But when it comes to history, Catton's bullshit has a price. He is grossely inaccurate on basic points. I will show those points.
If Bruce was just some guy at a bar, yapping about Lincoln and Civil War, who cares? He was a well read yapper, he wrote pretty well, and he sold a lot of books.
A newspaper man by trade, Bruce got into Civil War history later in life, and more than anyone I can think of, as a "popular" historian, he laid the basic narrative of the Civil War that we see use today..... mostly because Bruce's narrative is literally the same narrative James McPherson uses.
McPherson actually gave Catton "credit"
for the narrative.
I would have used the term "blame".
The overall narrative is that faulty. It's fundamentally wrong.
I mean LITERALLY the same narrative. McPherson actually has the term "narrative by Bruce Catton" on the cover of his "Coffee table" book which he generously credited Catton as co-author. It was obvious from reading both men that McPherson's narrative came from Catton, but the surprising admission of it is kind of refreshing.
Too bad the narrative is bullshit. And McPherson should be ashamed he bought into it, and did not correct it.
"I was 60 years old before I knew how stupid Bruce Catton was. If I had died at 55, I would have still thought he was some kind of historian."______________________________________
This map would confuse Catton.
And it would confuse most high school history teachers.
There is a connection between what Catton did not grasp (or pretended not to) and what is taught in US schools.
To oversimplify, Catton teaches not "Lincoln's " narrative of the issues, but he teaches Jefferson Davis's bullshit.
There is only one way Catton could this so wrong - and that would be to read much by and about Jefferson Davis, and accept that as fact.
For example, Jefferson Davis, though he sent killers to Kansas to prevent and then reverse that state's right to reject slavery, time and again claimed he was for state's rights. Utter nonsense -- and if Catton knew what Davis did, instead of Davis's million words or so which he used to fool people, Catton would know Davis killed to stop state's rights.
It was no secret. Southern leaders for a time claimed they cared about states rights -- and Stephen A Douglas insisted he and Jefferson Davis were for state's rights. But while both men were claiming to one thing, Davis was sending killers to Kansas led by his official representative, David Rice Atchison, former US Senator.
You can not teach, or even blen, Lincoln's correct and factually based narrative that Southern leaders were pushing slavery by means "foul and more foul" - including killing and torture -- with the intention of spreading slavery to all of the US.
That might sound preposterous today, in fact, there is not a text book in the US that teaches that Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery, nor that they were boasting of such killings, nor that they would spread slavery not only to the entire West (against state's rights) but that they would spread slavery even into the North.
Not one.
But you only need to read Jefferson Davis's own official "Address to People of the Free States to know that -- and that is just one of the documents showing Southern leaders proud and bold declarations of killing to spread slavery. It was only after the Civil War that Southern leader's slinked away from their boasts, and stopped their killings.
Had Lincoln lived, and had he written his own book about the Civil War, he could not do any more than he did already in his thousands of speeches. Lincoln explained nearly endlessly what the South was up to. And endlessly Lincoln went into detail about the means and goals of the South. Unfortunately in life, Lincoln did not, in public speeches use sharp pointed language about the South's killing sprees.
Others were documenting the South's killing sprees, to spread slavery, like Jeff Davis own Address to the people of Free States, and the Southern War Ultimatums, and speeches by men like Davis Rice Atchison.
In private letters, and occasionally in speeches, Lincoln was more blunt -- but overall, LIncoln tried to rise above baiting the South into even more violence.
Lincoln repeatedly said Southern leaders had "machined" a way to spread slavery North and South, East and West. Lincoln also wrote that the South had always killed, tortured, and terrorized to spread slavery, and this was going on again, in Kansas.
But that is not taught. Quite the reverse. We teach some convoluted bullshit about the "struggle" between state's rights, Northern industry, and southern "agriculture".
Serioiusly, such bullshit is creepy and wrong.
Lincoln was right, Southern leaders were killing and torturing to spread slavery, and they did boast they would spread slavery North and South, and they did concoct "machinery" that would make it impossible (unless it was defeated) to keep slavery out of everywhere.
If you told the average high school teacher that Lincoln even said the South created "machinery" that would for slavery through all of the US, they would look at you as if you were drunk.
But then have them read the "House Divided" Speech, and have them learn Lincoln's other speeches about Kansas Act.
Then have them read Jeff Davis justifcation for sending killers to Kansas in 1856, and the speeches by the US Senator Davis sent to Kansas, bragging that he was killing and torturing to spread slavery, and that he worked for Jeff Davis.
Then have them learn the US Senator who boasted he was killing and torturing to spread slavery, was the US Senator that passed the Kansas Act.
Then have them read Charles Sumner two day speech, wherein he describes in detail the killings and tortured down by Senator Atchison's men in Kansas.
Then have them understand, Charles Sumner was beaten for this speech -- where he spoke of what I just told you above -- how Atchison got Kansas Act, then went to Kansas immediately and started his killing sprees.
Then have them read that Jefferson Davis himself made it quite clear -- Kansas Act and Dred Scott decision changed everything, and that the COURT ORDERED blacks be seen not as human being (not person) but property. Kansas, though they had voted against slavery by 90%, though they were already a free state, MUST obey Southern War Ultimatums. To resist the spread of slavery into Kansas- - remember, Kansas was a free state by this time -- was "the intolerable grievance"
WHat portion of this did Bruce Catton ever mention? Zero.
What portion of this did James McPherson every mention? Almost zero.
__________________________________________________
The white border shows where Slave Power spread slavery -- by 1848, by violence. They had doubled the area of slavery again, and again, each time by means "foul and more foul" said Sumner.
Slave territory was already 2x larger in size, that no-slavery territory.
And it was about to get 5x larger, if Lincoln didn't get off his ass.
Lincoln got off his ass.
______________________________________
Who passed Kansas Act?
Again and again, the way Catton (and his followers) write, things just fall out of the sky. Kansas act "emerges" and "causes tremendous problems".
Kansas act did not just fall, and it did not do anything. People did.
Did you know that the US Senator that got Kansas Act passed (see below) bragged he was going to spread slavery to the area outlined in red? You probably think that's sophistry. We show you the speech below.
If you wrote, and better yet thought, in terms of who did what -- when telling the history of Kansas Act, Catton could have, should have, but quite avoided telling you, David Rice Atchison got Kansas Act passed.
We know he did, because he not only boasted of it himself, Charles Sumner was there on the floor of the Senate, when he did it, and Sumner spoke of this in the speech he was beaten almost to death for.
So the accusor (though Sumner was not the only one to notice Atchison got it passed) and the accused (Atchison) both said the same thing. Kind of a big deal.
Catton never says one word about that. Not one word about Atchison bragging he got it passed, not one word about Sumner explaining Atchison got it passed.
Not. One. Word.
Atchison speech, wherein he boasts of killing to spread slavery, is a marvel of trash talk to his Texas men, who he just met. But that speech is the best history lesson you never learned, but should have.
And "historians" should have told you, even if Atchison's speech had been lost. What Atchison did was documents six ways to Sunday, at the time. It was not a mystery.
You should read it that speech, so we put it below.
Catton would not be at all confused if he bothered to read Southern War Ultimatums or speeches, from 1846 until 1863.
Bragging about killing to spread slavery? He never heard of such a thing? War Ultimatums to free states, that they must become slave states?
Bruce Catton would say "Oh, yeah, forgot to mention, so sorry".
____________________________________________________
|
We show you 24 basic facts that Bruce Catton never even mentioned. Sins of omission.
by Mark Curran. Warning: blunt, and likely wrong. Under construction... like Lincoln was in search of a general, I'm in search of an editor....or even proof reader.
Catton a marvelous writer? Maybe.
Interesting and engaging? Maybe.
Full of bullshit, with an apparent contempt for facts?
Yeah. That's him. Bruce Catton .
__________
Catton
I was 60 years old before I realize how stupid Bruce Catton was. I thought he was brilliant. Hell I thought every historian I read was brilliant --didn't they know all kinds of stuff?
I didn't realize the damage Catton bullshit did, till I was 63.
____________________________________
ON BULLSHIT
Catton's paramount aim - what he wanted- was to put out bullshit that made him sound smart. That's not bad, we all do it. Historians more than anyone. Bullshit is part of life, like farting.
Just - - don't do too much of it, if you are a historian.
atton farted a lot.
WHAT IS HISTORY
Catton did not seem to know, or care, who killed who, and why, from 1848-1861. If he knew, he never said a word about it. Real history is this -- who killed who, and why.
All else is bullshit.
Yes, add all the bullshit you want -- after you know who killed who, and why. Pontificate all you want, till your editor screams foul, till your ego is satisfied, till your ass is so wide on that chair, it sticks out the side.
But get who killed who right. It matters.
Catton was big on bullshit. He was puny on who killed who, and why.
_______________________________________________
Of all the stupid things in Bruce Catton's book, none could be dumber and more telling, that his support of Davis meme that slavery was "for the positive good".
You can only say something that stupid, if you don't know of the tortures, even at places like Lee's Arlington slave plantation (yes Lee had slaves tortured -- learn about his slave ledgers).
Catton claimed, and his narrative reflected it, that Southern leaders as men of principle and honor. Why? Because they could give amazing speeches, and certain letters by them speak about God, honor, and their own altruism. It must be true.
In other words, Southern leaders could lay down some great sounding bullshit, Davis most of all. It's no coincidence, then, that the Davis pathologically vile and false narrative, was essentially Catton's narrative. I could be wrong, but so many of Cattons phrases, and "connecting the dots" are straight out of Jeff Davis written pages, and spoken speeches.
More -- if Davis did NOT say it, for example, if Davis did not say he sent Texas killers to Kansas in 1856, under leadership of Davis Rice Atchison, Catton seemed to literally have no clue of that fact. None.
If Catton knew of the ACTIONS by Davis, and Lee -- what they did, who they killed, who they tortured, who they bought, who they sold -- he never mentioned it. ________________________________________ We all only know what we are told. I doubt Catton knew what Lee laughed about at a slave auction, nor would he know the names of girls Lee bought from bounty hunters. Yes, Lee bought girls from bounty hunters -- his slave ledgers show that and much more. Did Catton know? To get your narrative right, you have to know the basic facts. Catton was not big on facts. He was big on bullshit. ________________________________________
"Yet slavery obviously lay at the bottom of all the trouble. The Southern states would never have seceded if they had not considered Lincoln’s election an intolerable threat to the “peculiar institution” on which Southern society rested. They were fighting for their independence, but they would not be doing it if it had not been for slavery; if the Federal Government was not fighting to abolish slavery, the war nevertheless was about slavery." Did you know what he missed? Probably not. I missed it, till I wrote a screenplay about "Slave Dogs" and picked up the hobby of reading Southern newspapers, Southern books, Southern documents, Southern letters, from 1848-1861. I found out what Southern leaders did and bragged about, in their OWN books, newspapers, documents, speeches and letters. No one ever told me about Southern War Ultimatums. No one ever told me Lee had slave girls tortured. No one ever told me Jeff Davis sent a US Senator to Kansas, where he started killing, and bragging of it, to spread slavery. I kept going -- WTF.WTF.WTF. I was more able, IMHO, to also check more modern texts -- biographies about men Catton deeply admired - Lee and Davis. But most of my information, came from original documents. I now almost distrust anything written after 1865, and try to verify any such material. Then I went to re-read these "historians". Anything about Davis sending US Senator to Kansas. Not a word. Anything about that Senator bragging about killing to spread slavery? He actually claims Sumner is "impertinent" - never a word about who Atchison was killing, torturing, and boasting of, in Kansas, and goes on and on about some bullshit that Sumner had insulted someone's wife. Yes, that bullshit is now standard fare. Hour, upon HOUR, upon HOUR Sumner details the crimes, the names. Not one word. But paragraph after paragraph about some supposed insult to a wife. What did he say about Atchison being the Senator that actually passed Kansas Act? Chirp. Chirp. (That means, nothing). What did Catton say about Sumner showing hundreds of cases of violence -- not just to spread slavery, but to terrorize or kill folks for speaking against slavery. Chirp. Chirp. So -- right now, this minute, you can go to any library, read Foner, McPherson, or dozen others, and they too, like Catton, say nothing about the specifics, nothing about Atchison passing Kansas Act nothing about then Atchison quickly leaves DC, as he did, and goes to Kansas, officially working for Jeff Davis, and boasting about killing to spread slavery. Stunning. But there is more. YOu might be able find a word from Catton -- but no major information, on Jeff Davis "logic" of spreading slavery into Kansas. Jeff Davis -- and others -- own boasting and writing about this logic. Blacks are not only not human beings, but the United States Supreme Court ordered -- ORDERED -- that no matter if KS voted 95% against slavery, KS must protect slavery. WTF?
And LIncoln was a "Nigger lover" who was a " traitor" for saying blacks were equal to whites?
WTF? And Southern demands that Northern officials actually arrest newspaper editors in the North, and send them South to be punished, for writing things IN THE NORTH against slavery? HOLY SHIT. WTF. Why didn't I know a damn thing about this, from any history book I ever saw. The reason I never heard of most of that -- I blame, perhaps wrongly, and the stupidity of Bruce Catton. Maybe it's not his fault, but I can spell his name better than McPherson. ________________________________________ |
HOW BAD?
So how bad is Catton's book? At least on what caused the Civil War, it's atrocious. It's like a book on the solar system, without mentioning the Sun.
Yes, it's that bad. It's worse.
You are more stupid if you read his book than if you read nothing.
If you just took a wild ass guess, you would probably come closer that Bruce Catton did, in "Two Roads To Sumter"
That's how bad it is.
Slavery, for example, never laid. At the bottom or top. People do things. People kill.People enslave. People sell slaves. People terrorize.
People write emancipation proclamations, issue war ultimatums, invade Kansas, and people boast about it. Or did. Of the things people DID -- who did what - Catton never did get around to telling you about. Did he know?
I doubt it.
All the trouble, Catton wrote then. You could no more find out what "all the trouble" meant, from Catton's book, that you could find.
Tortures. Rapes. Children sold. Men burned to death. Lee's father had a slave girl hung, and Lee himself screamed at slave girls as he had them whipped. Lee even owned white looking slave girls.
Slavery didn't own white looking, brown looking or green looking slave girls. Robert E Lee did. Jefferson Davis told his wife to get herself killed, then ran away in her dress, leaving his children in danger.
As if slavery was not "trouble" enough, Southern leaders, Jeff Davis and Davis Rice Atchison most of all, were killing, or paying others to kill, to spread slavery.
That's all glossed over, in Cattons clever "all the trouble". Heaven forbid you find out Lee's bought people from the North -- free folks, apparently female, that his hunters caught, while searching for escaped slaves.
Trouble is, I was 60 years old before I realized Catton was a dumb ass. By that I mean he was dumb about who killed who, and why, 1848-1861. Yes, he was. Never mind the details like the shade of skin of Lee's most expensive slave girl (yes, they had prices) Catton didn't bother to get the big picture, like Southern War Ultimatums, and killers sent to Kansas in 1856, by the Secretary of War, Jeff Davis.
What makes this unforgivable, if you pretend to be a historian -- who killed who, and why, is real history. Everything else is bullshit.
Yes, bullshit is fine. But get the "who killed who - and why" part right, first, then add all the bullshit the public or your editor wants.
Catton did a lot of bullshit --and did a horrible job on who killed who and why.
_____________
If your name is David Blight, I'm glad you are here.
If your name is Steven Spielberg, I have a screenplay called "Slave Dogs" I'd consider selling you. Have your people contact mine.
If you are someone else, I welcome your corrections or comments. I'd like to know where I am wrong, on the factual matters below.
Now that is out of the way ------
________________________________________
Slavery lay at the bottom? Word bullshit. God it's everywhere. Slavery did not lay, top or bottom. PEOPLE do things. People torture, kill, attack, write war ultimatums. People sell children, send others and pay others to kill. People stand up, and sit down. People buy women at slave auctions, and other people sell them. People chase slaves, they even train dogs to rip apart slaves who run ( I researched that one). This may sound like semantics, and it is, but it's also how Catton thought and wrote. Some person wrote the Southern War Ultimatums, and some person wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Some person promised to keep killing until slavery was spread to the Pacific. Some person bragged he worked for Jeff Davis, and that he would kill and arrest anyone who spoke against slavery. Slavery didn't lay. People woke up in the morning, put on their shoes, and the did things. It was that way before the Civil War. And it's that way now. Historians should stop that shit, really. Yes, bullshit is fine -- if you first get who killed who, and why right. And if you think bullshit isn't the staple of "historians" you don't know much about human nature, or bullshit. If you count how many simple, direct, factual sentences are in Catton's book on what caused the Civil War -- such as, who did what, to who, and why, you won't find many. Look for any sentence, such as "Davis justified Atchison's killings in Kansas by the Dred Scott decision". OH hell no. But that's what happened, Davis really did justify Atchison's killings in Kansas on Dred Scott decision. Who did what, who killed who, and why, is real history. Im not going to read Catton's book again, but I don't recall any such sentences, the first time. When you realize who killed who, and why, is real history, don't be surprised if you aren't swayed by bullshit. Instead, Catton did what many "historians" do -- he used limited resources, he didn't care who killed who, he cared who said what, in some speech. What they did away from the speech -- he was lousy at. Even more damaging, Catton simply believed guys like Jefferson Davis and Stephen A Douglas, he did not even question what they said. The most damaging -- Catton passed along a narrative that was as dumb as he was -- and it got repeated. A narrative is only as valid as the facts and truth behind it. Even if Catton meant well, he didn't get the facts. We show you what he missed. Clue -- he missed the basics. But he got the belt buckles right, I assum. |
BRUCE CATTON
Historians are only as valid as their information. Catton, too. His information is almost as bad as his narrative.
____________OBER DICTA
PUT HERE FOR LATER
Rather stark and clear demands: Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery. MUST.
Yet Kansas citizens had rejected slavery -- overwhelmingly -- had officially ecome a free state by the time Southern leaders created this war ultimatum, and Richmond papers proudly called it "THE TRUE ISSUE".
WTF? There isn't a single high school student in the US that knows Kansas became a free state, by overwhelming vote, and THEN Southern leaders proclaimed as a war ultimatum, that Kansas must accept and respect slavery.
It's not shown, and never has been shown, in any US text book.
Yet it was a headline in Richmond papers.
No one was surprised at the headline, either. New York papers reprinted the five ultitmatums. Not one single comment like "What are you talking about".
Why no surprise -- at all? Because this is exactly what Southern leaders had been demaning, by action and other speeches for years now.
WTF? What ever happened to that whole "states rights" meme?
That whole "state's right" meme only existed if a state would agree to slavery. Not if it rejected slavery, as events proved.
Nor were these idle threats. Say what you may about Southern leaders, they did not bluff. They did not bluff their slaves, they did not bluff anyone. If they said they would kill -- they did. If they said they would spread slavery -- they did. The people in Kansas learned that painful lesson from 1854 on.
Slave women, slave men, slave children, had known it forever.
____________________________________
SPOT THE ERROR
Here is what Bruce Catton wrote..... see if you spot the error.
"Yet slavery obviously lay at the bottom of all the trouble. The Southern states would never have seceded if they had not considered Lincoln’s election an intolerable threat to the “peculiar institution” on which Southern society rested. They were fighting for their independence, but they would not be doing it if it had not been for slavery; if the Federal Government was not fighting to abolish slavery, the war nevertheless was about slavery." Did you know what he missed? Probably not. Slavery laid at the bottom? Slavery did something? I'm not being flippant, Catton seemed so enmeshed in bullshit, he did not think, or write, in terms of who did what, to who, and why. People do things. They have names. Like this -- Jefferson Davis demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas as a WAR ULTIMATUM. Senator David Atchison went to Kansas, and once there, started killing and boasting of it, to spread slavery. He did not go as a private citizen, or even a US Senator. He went, officially, as General of Law and Order in Kansas, named as such, and paid as such, by Jefferson Davis. Did "Slavery" go to Kansas, as Jeff Davis's official "General of Law And Order"? No that was David Rice Atchison, the same guy who got Kansas act passed, or claimed he did. Did slavery lead 1000 Texas men in the second invasion of Lawrence? Or was that a human, too? Who do you think rode that white horse Atchison boasted of, in leading that attack? Did slavery boast to those men about killing? Who knew slavery was such a powerful speaker? Did slavery brag the Texas men would be well paid and could keep the loot they stole? Did slavery write reports to Jeff Davis, boasting of his killing so far? Did slavery write boasts that Davis right hand man would keep torturing, keep hanging, keep drowning every damn abolitionist in the territory? Or was that a guy named David Rice Atchison, or his assistant, Stringfellow? Did slavery get Kansas Act passed? Did slavery write the Dred Scott decision? There is another huge error. Did you find? There was no danger to the "peculiar institution". For some fucking reason, every bullshitter I've ever read, reverts to that "peculiar institution" when they are soft peddling the horrors. There was no danger to slavery, where it was. And Catton knew that as well as Davis. The issue was -- as their own War Ultimatums said, the SPREAD of slavery. Lincoln was bending over backward, to assure the violent South that he was no threat to them for where slavery was. Lincoln knew -- as did Southern leaders -- that slavery had to spread. According to the governor of Florida --no one had ever claimed Lincoln was trying to end slavery where it was. Not that LIncoln wanted slavery to continue - any more than your cancer surgeon wants you to have cancer. LIncoln saw, and said repeatedly, that stopping the spread of slavery would eventually kill it off, like a cancer. And Southern leaders agreed. Stopping the SPREAD of slavery was the issue. The Southern War ultimatums were explicitly about the spread of sslavery Just stopping the SPREAD of slavery would exterminate the white race. The SPREAD of slavery was the issue. Catton -- not unwittingly -- tries so hard to give Davis an excuse for his acts of terror and violence. Catton never -- ever -- wrote a single sentence making it clear who was killing who, nor WHY. The spread of slavery, not the continuation of it, was the issue, because Southern leaders were already killing to spread slavery. And already using means "foul and more foul" to spread slavery. Lincoln said it often enough, his note to Stephens is a prime example. But hundreds of other documents, speeches, actions, made if abundantly clear, and Catton knew it, that the issue was the violent spread of slavery. The South had been the bullies and tyrants for 60 years, to their slaves, and to the nation. Southern leaders bullies? HELL YES. They whipped their slaves, they sold humans, they were raised in a violent culture, regardless of some of them dressing up for church. As Lincoln wrote to speed, every aspect of slavery is violence, violence upon violence, to spread, to start, to maintain. ANd now - Southern leaders were demanding the spread of slavery not just to places no one in the North cared about -- but to the entire West. And worse -- as Catton well knows -- the "machinery" Southern leaders used to spread slavery into Kansas, they would necessarily use to spread it all over. Kansas Act, and Dred Scott, made it all or nothing. Lincoln was not the only one that knew, Kansas Act/ Dred Scott machinery meant all or nothing. The guy who got Kansas Act passed -- bragged out the ass about it. He did not mention it, he bragged out the ass, that is what they were doing. Did Catton know that about Atchison? About Kansas Act? About Dred Scott decision? Hell yes. He just didn't tell you about it, as the machinery designed and built largely by a man he admired -- Jefferson Davis. Lincoln said no more spread of slavery, and those guys just went ape shit, is kind of what happened. _____________________________________ Lay all the bullshit on you want. Lay bullshit till your editor cries for mercy, till your momma thinks you are the best writer on earth. Till your book sales get mentioned in NYT. But get who killed who correct first. ________________________________ GARBAGE IN -- GARBAGE OUT
Yes, slavery laid is figure of speech, of course he did not think slavery laid. But Catton never escapes that mind set.
It seems likely -- because Catton's prose is full of it -- that Catton spent most of his time reading speeches by Jeff Davis, and Stephen A Douglas. Much of what Catton poses as a narrative, could come straight out of their public speeches. There were no apparent images in Catton's brain of slave auctions, whipping posts, women being raped, the children sold. In Catton's brain were images of Jeff Davis claim he was for state's rights, or that he was a humble "planter". Planter? If Davis ever planted anythign in his entire life, I'd be surprised. He was a slave owner and politician. Douglas for popular sovereighty? Well, he said so in his speeches, must be so.
Real history is this -- who killed who and why. Especially true of who killed who and why, leading up the Civil War. Catton never got to that point. He swam in a pool of bullshit, and reported it as reality.
____________________________________________
He seemed to think in terms of -- does this sound wonderful? Does this seem lofty enough that it seems I know a lot of facts (no, he did not know a lot of facts).
Every writer does that, and if you don't know that, I can't help you. This is intrisic in writing. We do care deeply what people think. But did Catton care more about what happened? Or about how he could write the bullshit? In "Two Roads to Sumter" he did not even have the facts right. But he was heavy on bullshit. When you know the basic facts -- you don't need to write page after page of bullshit. Oh sure, bullshit will be there, but who killed who was such an amazing feature of that era -- you would have an abundance of facts to relate. By necessity, you could not write that much bullshit. Catton wrote page, after page, of bullshit.
But get the basics right FIRST. Then bullshit the night away. Catton never had the basics. And worse, he was not above lying a bit here an there, which he did.
Yes, Bruce Catton sometimes lied. |