
For Decades, Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of Northern Aggression - howard941
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/thanksgiving-pumpkin-pie-culture-war
======
alexpw
"Modern Thanksgiving was first officially called for in all states in 1863 by
a presidential proclamation of Abraham Lincoln. [...]Lincoln proclaimed a
national Thanksgiving on the final Thursday in November, explicitly in
celebration of the bounties that had continued to fall on the Union and for
the military successes in the war." \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving)

It's easy to see why the "Southern States Saw Thanksgiving as an Act of
Nothern Aggression" from Lincoln's action. He extended the meaning of the
celebration to include victory of the North over the South, and asked the
South to observe it, according to wikipedia.

~~~
cma
In the actual words he seems to say notwithstanding the loss of life from war:

>Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been
made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing
in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect
continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

Freedom only decreased if you saw black slaves as non-human. They were a
majority of the population in many southern states.

"Southern states saw" in the headline is probably ignoring the black
population, but I'm not sure. It was only many years later that there were
large migrations, after the reconstruction promises passed them over,
"vagrancy" was heavily outlawed, and they effectively lost the vote.

~~~
omegaworks
>It was only many years later that there were large migrations, after the
reconstruction promises passed them over, "vagrancy" was heavily outlawed, and
they effectively lost the vote.

That's a really careful glossing over of the coordinated white supremacist
terror campaigns that drove newly emancipated black Americans from their homes
in the South. Olivia Hooker, the last eyewitness to the only bombs dropped on
continental America, passed just last Wednesday at the age of 103.

Her story is an incredible reminder of the sheer capacity for hate that
remains unaccounted for in America still today:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/olivia-hooker-
tul...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/olivia-hooker-tulsa-race-
riot.html)

------
seanmcdirmid
The Fourth of July wasn’t strongly celebrated until the 90s (after Gulf War I)
in the small southern town I was living in during the 80s/90s. Something about
still being bitter about the Civil War (which we were taught was not about
slavery, but states rights, ugh).

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The Fourth of July wasn’t strongly celebrated until the 90s (after Gulf War
> I) in the small southern town I was living in during the 80s /90s_

Vacationed in Charleston a few months ago. Dropped into the Old Slave Mart
Museum [1]. I learned something, there, that for the first time made the Civil
War make sense (from the Southern perspective).

Imagine a Southern plantation owner's balance sheet. What do you think would
be the most valuable asset? I used to think it would be land, buildings and
equipment. But it wasn't. It was enslaved people. Something like 90% of the
wealth of Southern land owners was in their human capital.

Most of those enslaved people weren't owned outright–they were leveraged. Most
bills of sale I saw said 1/3 cash down with the rest to be paid in
installments. Much of the down payment, it turns out, was also borrowed.
(Enslaved people being mobile, fungible assets meant creditors valued them as
collateral.)

So, in summary, you had the wealthiest people in these states being leveraged
to the point of ruin on their enslaved populations. That meant their banking
system depended on the continuing value of the South's enslaved people. (New
York, too, though to a lesser degree, but I digress.) So the calculus wasn't
"we keep slaves and stay very rich, or give them up and become less rich." It
was "slaves or bust." This is why the Gettysburg address hit like a
thermobaric blast front--it amounted to a rebooting of the South's elite
ranks.

[1] [http://www.oldslavemartmuseum.com](http://www.oldslavemartmuseum.com)

~~~
lsc
Sure, that explains why the elites fought; what I still don't get was why the
average white southern enlisted man fought.

I mean, sure, it's clear why the elites wanted the war. But for the average
white southern laborer, slavery did nothing but push down wages; It's hard to
ask for a raise if the boss can just buy someone to do what you do.

The explanations I've heard were nonsensical (that the average white southern
man fought because it was in the interests of the elite southern man) or
assume the southerner was just... evil (the average white southern man fought
so that there would at least be something below him.)

I find both of those explanations really unsatisfactory, because they assume
that non-elite white southerners are either stupid or evil to the point where
they will start an extremely brutal war who's explicit aims are to preserve
the wealth of the elite at the cost of everyone else. This seems... unlikely.

~~~
stevenwoo
Historically in the US, it has been those in power pitting group against group
like poor whites against slaves in this case (or one ethnic group versus
another in other struggles with labor in the North during the same time period
and afterwards), for the purpose of keeping those at the bottom occupied with
an easily identified other, versus those with a lot more power and harder to
reach. There were likely some familial ties from the average southern white
laborer with some who owned slaves or were in the system as overseers. I also
don't see how evil is unlikely, the daily brutality of slavery required a
large standing militia to suppress the constant threat of active rebellion of
the slaves against the owners, and it's likely the average white adult male
would have been a part of said militia. It seems to me that living with that
one has to make the moral choice to accept it - for the alternative there was
only one John Brown and family and maybe one Free State of Jones situation,
for almost everyone else, they either did not see it as evil we see it today
and commonplace (so not perhaps evil in their own eyes) or not willing to make
the ultimate commitment against it. On the other hand, the United States being
probably the last country to outlaw slavery does not speak too well of our
country. The poor did not start the war, only serve as foot soldiers and there
was a draft on both sides - the elite class served as officers, this notion
that the war was initiated by the average person seems counterfactual, most of
the time it's elites who want to start war and waging a propaganda campaign to
get the populace behind starting a war.

Even today there's no popular campaign today to go to war against Iran or
North Korea, but it sure is popular in some conservative think tanks and with
our current NSA, John Bolton, it's been his obsession for the last 20 years it
feels like.

~~~
lsc
>Historically in the US, it has been those in power pitting group against
group like poor whites against slaves in this case (or one ethnic group versus
another in other struggles with labor in the North during the same time period
and afterwards), for the purpose of keeping those at the bottom occupied with
an easily identified other, versus those with a lot more power and harder to
reach.

Yeah, I keep hearing this, and I just... saying things happen because people
are too dumb to see their own self interest is... it's just really
unsatisfying. It fits the data, but it also tastes like the other times in my
life where I've been wrong because I'm arrogant.

It's also unsatisfying because it's not particularly predictive; it doesn't
tell me which elites the masses will follow and why.

~~~
stevenwoo
I can imagine a situation where people feel they have little choice but
support the status quo, that does not make them too dumb to see their self
interest. There are quite a few reports from the Civil War on both sides of
men rising up against conscription as the war dragged on or in the North of
whites taking it out on blacks as it was _their_ fault.

There's also the trope of the bonding that takes place within smaller military
units that makes them committed not to the cause but to each other.

In addition the other side of people too dumb to see their self interest, I am
not saying these people are dumb but we see that today if we turn on the news
to see for one example - farmers rationalizing themselves being hurt by
retaliatory tariffs on American farm stuffs - they seem cognizant of the
problem, aware of the higher order consequences for themselves, and willing to
accept them to try what seems to be on some terms a way to attempt for fair
trade with China, and still support the President. It may be rationalizing but
it's not done out of ignorance or stupidity.

What you are asking for in the end sound like some equivalent to Psychohistory
in Asimov's Foundation, which would be a neat idea.

------
wavefunction
This is an interesting subject. The 4th of July is not celebrated in Utah as
it is in other states: instead that same energy and celebration goes into
Utah's "Pioneer Days." This divergence from the rest of the nation provides
some insight into the history of Utah and the people who settled it, and their
relationship to the greater United States. Personally, I don't think it
reflects positively but that's just my opinion on another interesting
divergence in national tradition.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
More: The Mormons were intending to leave the United States and start their
own country. When they came to Utah (1847), much of it was still Mexican
territory. They celebrate the day that commemorates them trying to leave the
US as hard as they celebrate the 4th of July.

Note well: This does _not_ make Utah Mormons less patriotic... just a bit
historically schizophrenic.

~~~
emilsedgh
As an Iranian Jewish-born atheist who grew up in Iran and now lives in the
U.S, I celebrate Hannuklah, Nowrooz (Iranian new year), Rosh Hashanah,
Thanksgiving, Christmas, and any other fun holiday you would throw at us.

I think we live in a world that nobody gives a fuck about reasons and true
meanings behind things. Fuck history I wanna party!

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, for what it's worth, I think the west needs more Muslims. I mean, why do
we have weekends? It's basically Saturday because of the Jews, and Sunday
because of the Christians. Well, the Muslims' holy day is Friday. Three day
weekend _every_ week? Yeah, sign me up.

This is not an endorsement of Islam as a theology. But culturally, I'm down.

~~~
Latteland
Let's make Monday atheist day, then we'll be set.

------
aylmao
tldr; Thanksgiving was traditionally celebrated in the north, with "northern"
food, and after it was made a national holiday by Lincoln the confederate
states refused to acknowledge it.

I'm curious about Native Americans though. A lot of their culture and
resistance has been lost today, but back around the birth of the holiday I can
imagine them finding it offensive and being vocal about it, if not due to
politics and tradition, due to the hypocrisy of it.

~~~
geggam
Native Americans are still one of the most ignored groups, I think they quit
being vocal due to the fact it's a lost cause.

~~~
stevenwoo
Um, not yet. The Cherokee are claiming half of Oklahoma
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/.../576238...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/.../576238/)
The Sioux have refused to accept what has turned into about a billion dollar
fee offered by the US federal government in exchange for the Black Hills of
South Dakota and since the Sioux have not accepted it, the tribe claim that
they still own it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_Land_Claim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hills_Land_Claim)

~~~
geggam
Considering the trillions of dollars in land stolen from them I wouldnt call
this any sort of compensation

------
mistrial9
very surprising but .. an educated and ancestral U.S. Southener just said in
response, "I have never heard of this"

------
tropo
Another obscure Thanksgiving fact:

Thanksgiving is commonly known as a celebration of a good harvest, but the
reason why the harvest was good is seldom remembered.

Plymouth Colony was originally communal. Marx was far from the first to think
that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
might be a good idea. Such thinking dates back to Plato at least, and in 1620
the colony actually tried it. Nobody wanted to do the work, though everybody
had needs. After 2.5 years, with half the colony dead, Plymouth governor
William Bradford decided to prioritize survival over the ideals of socialism.
The resulting harvest was plentiful, giving reason to celebrate Thanksgiving.

[https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-economy-
histo...](https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-economy-history-oped-
cx_jb_1127bowyer.html)

It's a lesson people are starting to forget. We'll probably try again, and
maybe somehow things won't turn out the same as every previous time.

~~~
dang
Please don't take this or any HN thread into ideological flamewar.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

