Well, Tom, in general the dirtiest and most dangerous tasks in the South were left to immigrant labor, primarily Irish until the war. And after, no one had a stake in protecting blacks as slaves, so such work devolved on them often through the chain-gangs.

Liz remarks that ignorance tends to breed acquiescence. But as Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Criticism, 1709:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

Was the gauge generally a different one between the North and the South? Or did the North build up a complete new network for military purposes? That should have been an enormous effort regarding manpower, finance and time for construction (additionally to the "war business" itself)! Who had to do (lacking slave power) the track work for (re)building? Soldiers or civilians?
Liz, referring to J. Taft's terminology, was there already a (serious) awareness of linguistic prejudice in America in those times? Discussions on this matter didn't really start here before the 1980ies (just two month ago there was an intense political debate on "censoring" all classic literature and re-publishing the works in "correct" neutral language. Finally they dropped it.)

The railroads in North and South had different gauges and even differed between different railroads. The Pacific Railroad Acts (1862, 1864) called for what now called standard gauge of 4' 8.5" and this was made universal after the war all on one day (I forget the exact date).

(05-02-2013 07:39 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Liz, referring to J. Taft's terminology, was there already a (serious) awareness of linguistic prejudice in America in those times? Discussions on this matter didn't really start here before the 1980ies (just two month ago there was an intense political debate on "censoring" all classic literature and re-publishing the works in "correct" neutral language. Finally they dropped it.)

Eva: No, there was little to no awareness of the impropriety of racial slurs in the 19th century - nor was there for about 2/3 of the 20th century. It took, first, the atrocities of World War II and then the American Civil Rights movement to bring an end to the use of racial slurs in polite society. (But I suppose we'll always have impolite society!) It's been a battle not only regarding African-Americans, but regarding American Indians, Asian-Americans, Americans of varying ethnicities, women and gay people, too.

But the more enlightened individuals of the 19th and 20th centuries tended to be a bit better about their language, though not perfect. And language that was considered respectful, say, in the 19th century would be considered offensive today. For example, a respectful way of referring to African-Americans in the 19th century and early 20th century was to call them "colored." In fact, the great civil rights organization, the NAACP, founded in the early part of the 20th century, utilitized the term (it's the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). But now, at best, the term "colored" is an anachronism and, at worst, it's offensive. I imagine that the NAACP didn't change its name, though, given its long and illustrious history.

I personally don't favor the censoring of literature to protect modern-day sensibilities. If you do that, you not only lose the flavor of the literature but you also keep people from learning about the less attractive aspects of their country's history.

I agree with you on your last statement (and fortunately, politicians here did so, too.)

Haven't most public schools banned Mark Twains's "Huck Finn" because of "n" word, when in the context of the book, I don't recall anything derogotory intended by the writer.

Slavery certainly was,"A Peculiar Insitution".I have always learned that the "South"was the "Gentile"section of America,then and now!

HerbS, what does that mean?

It means that no one should be a slave to any one.The South was always reguarded as "The Landed Gentry"in history.The best example that I can give is, the Colonial lifestyle and differences between-Sturbridge,Mass and Williamsburg,Va.

(05-02-2013 10:41 AM)HerbS Wrote:  Slavery certainly was,"A Peculiar Insitution".I have always learned that the "South"was the "Gentile"section of America,then and now!

I think you mean "genteel."

"Gentile" means "non-Jewish."

Of course, in general, the South was and is mostly non-Jewish, as is just about every other place in the U.S. But the South has always been more non-Jewish than the North.

I have a very high regard for (as well as many very, very dear) Jewish friends -

There was a large community of Jews in Richmond from the 18th Century on. I'm proud to say that one of our oldest if NOT the oldest cemetery in Richmond is The Franklin Street Burial grounds. It is Jewish and dates to 1791. The Hebrew Cemetery is the second oldest and is across from Shockoe Hill Cemetery and also a large Confederate section. Both of these sites are beautiful. During the war there was a good sized Jewish community - all Confederate and all proud of their Southern heritage. Judah Benjamin, Secretary of War was also Jewish.

(05-02-2013 03:29 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  Of course, in general, the South was and is mostly non-Jewish,

Evidently, you've never been to south Florida . .

I remember years ago being surprised at the fairly large Jewish population of the South during the 19th century. I had skimmed through a book entitled The Jewish Confederates by Robert Rosen that came out about ten years ago. I just googled it and here is some of what it and reviewers say:

''Many folks,'' says Rosen, 53, ''are reluctant to admit that a people known for liberal views, and for annually celebrating their own freedom from slavery in Egypt during the Passover holiday, supported the Confederacy, which defended human bondage. It's not something many Jews want to hear.''

Not only did thousands of Southern Jews fight in the Confederate army, but hundreds were slave owners, including an ancestor of the Regensteins. This is a paradox that many Jews -- long known for ardent support of the civil rights movement -- find hard to swallow.

''To mother, it's horrifying,'' says Regenstein, whose father, Louis Regenstein, was a prominent lawyer who did free legal consulting for predominantly black Clark Atlanta University for years. ''My ancestors have been in this country, in the South, since before the American Revolution. We were part of the culture, the country, so naturally, my ancestors fought for their country, and we're very proud of that.''

Rosen, who is Jewish, reports in his meticulously documented 378-page book that up to 3,000 Jews donned Confederate gray. The proportion was much higher than in the North, where maybe 8,000 out of 200,000 Jews took up arms, says Mark Greenberg, chief historian for the Institute of Southern Jewish Life in Jackson, Miss.

Contrary to popular belief, ''Jews had found themselves very much at home in the South, much more so than elsewhere,'' says the University of Georgia's Emory Thomas, a historian and author of many Civil War books. ''They were accepted members of the community, and therefore they cast their loyalties with this new Confederacy, bought bonds and did everything patriotic Southerners would do.''

Many were so patriotic, he adds, that ''there was a lively discussion in the Richmond papers pointing out that the Jewish population of the city had supplied more Confederate soldiers than the population as a whole, in terms of percentage.''

Few Jews know that Judah Benjamin, a famous Louisiana lawyer, not only served in the U.S. Senate, but also was Jefferson Davis' attorney general, secretary of war and secretary of state.

''As the years have gone on, having Confederate ancestors has become very politically incorrect,'' Rosen adds. ''Academics who write the history, after all, are especially vulnerable to [political correctness] on college campuses, and they especially want to avoid the association with slavery.'' Audiences have been, on occasion, angry.

''Many modern Jews reject the idea that Jews could ever have supported a cause or government which supported slavery,'' Rosen says. ''That's not logical, considering how long Jews have been in the South. But it's how a lot of folks feel.''

Wikipedia has an article on African-American - Jewish relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-Ame..._relations

I don't know on what grounds anyone would think they were inherently morally superior to anyone else, no matter what their life experience or historical background may be.

And I can't see how the Radical Republicans could have expected their demands on the South to take hold, when the North was also openly practicing racism and segregation.

I was surprised to read in the link in the first post, that several hundred thousand mercenary soldiers from Germany and Ireland fought for the Union during the Civil War.