- This topic has 8 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
The subject of this post is from a story just in the Washington Post:What Was the Civil War Really About?
The Civil War began 148 years ago this month with the assault on Fort Sumter and ended when rebel forces surrendered in 1865, but the battle over how to teach the conflict to new generations of Americans has never stopped.
Apparently with Obama's election the way that the Civil War is taught is being revisited because of the new relevancy of racial issues. What's your take on it? Is the difference in perspectives (North/South) alright, or is one overarching perspective better for history and our nation? Should one unified perspective be agreed upon by historians?
If you are looking for revisionism it sounds cliche, but in a word, slavery. This truly was the central issue of the Civil War. All the talk of states rights centered around slavery and it was fear of federally mandated emancipation that led to secession. There may be secondary causes but slavery and its fate was the spark and an issue that had smoldered for decades prior to secession.As to revising textbooks, that is not surprising. The slant placed on history will be interesting. Whoever controls the schools controls the minds of the people. This is one of the reasons I object to federal involvement in education so strenuously. Education should be left to local school boards and the feds need to get out of it completely. I fervently believe that the Department of Education and its policies and mandates are an infringement of constitutional liberties along with most of the cabinet level executive departments.
i agree with buddy ruff before me but other people like me say states rights….but i think my feelings are of George Picketts in Gettysburg (i know that this was from the script) “Colonel, think on it, now. Now you suppose that we all join a club, a gentlemen's club. And then, well, after a time, several of the members began to, uh… began to intrude themselves into our private lives, our home lives. Began tellin' us what we could do, what we couldn't do. Well, then, wouldn't any one of us have the right to resign? I mean, just resign. Well, that's what we did. That's what I did, and now these people are tellin' us that we don't have that right to resign.” that is what my ancestors did so yeah
It had a lot to do with economics. The harsh tariffs were forcing then South to do business with the Northern industrialists when they could buy English goods cheaper if not for the tariffs. England responded with tariffs which made Southern cotton expensive. The rail rates for Southern goods shipped North were higher than for Northern goods shipped South.(This remained in effect until FDR's administration was embarrassed into repealing it in 1945). Slavery was an issue but by no means the main issue.I reccommend "The South Under Seige 1830-2000" by Frank Conner
What interest did northern factory owners have in oppressing the southern farmers and plantation owners? I have heard the economic argument many times, but it is a bucket that does not hold water. Rail transportation led to lower costs overall and there was no appreciable difference between rates charged to southern and northern customers.[1] This a fiction spread by southern revisionists. Some southern states also were industrializing prior to the war such as Georgia (Textiles) and Alabama (Steel).The main bone of contention was indeed slavery. The free states of the north did not want to see slave states expand while the slave states pushed for the expansion of slavery west. This was the greatest political issue of mid-nineteenth century America. Where revisionists get a toe hold is that Lincoln was not anti-slavery, he was pro-union. This is a subtle but critical distinction and it allowed southern apologists to frame their revisionist arguments in terms of states? rights when in reality the only states right the southern policy makers wanted to preserve was slavery. Abolition was popular in the north but Lincoln did not get elected on an abolitionist platform. Ironically, it was southern secession that forced Lincoln to make slavery his central issue rather than preservation of the union. He brought slavery to the fore as a political football and not out any great personal conviction.Here is a link to a good piece about how Lincoln felt about slavery. It is biased but the author?s facts are straight. The Lincoln Cult?s Latest Cover-UpBottom line is that slavery was the key issue of the civil war. It was bound up with states? rights, but mainly about how states rights applied to federal regulation or suppression of slavery and the slave trade.For what it is worth, I think the South was right in their defense of states? rights, I just think they chose the wrong issue to get upset about. A more morally repugnant issue than slavery to go to war about is harder to come up with. The end result of the union?s victory was the bloated federal government we have today where the federal government is happy to trample over the states. I sometimes wish the south had won and the principal of federal power had been decisively refuted.1. McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. pp. 12-13
Bottom line is that slavery was the key issue of the civil war...I think the South was right in their defense of states? rights, I just think they chose the wrong issue to get upset about. A more morally repugnant issue than slavery to go to war about is harder to come up with.
I agree. Without slavery there never would have been a civil war.The Civil War was perhaps the most defining moment the constitution has ever seen. As a professor of mine remarked, there's more than one way the constitution gets interpreted. The constitutional interpretation handed down by the Civil War is that states don't have rights--a decision that some people have yet to "read."
There were many regional differences between North and South… slavery was a common thread among them but consider the geographic differences among the colonies. even without slavery the economies would have been differnt and hence the outlook on tarrifs and such. It isn't all about slavery but salvery is that common thread. MHO.Wally
I had a professor who insisted that the reason was the business of slavery, rather than slavery itself. As Wally touched on the economies between North and South differed, which suggests that tensions between the two right there.I guess we could rephrase the issue and ask - would the North and South have gone to war over the issue of slavery if all else were equal in terms of their economies (i.e. if slavery were not a factor in the South's economic well-being)?
It is quite possible. Consider the Nullification Crisis… slavery didn't really count here. High tarrifs that protected northern business interests invited retaliation from Europe (high tariffs on ag products) that hurts southern interests.
Sectionalism, slavery, states rights, and mutual distrust all contributed to the war. Yet, it was Southerners who had arguably done the most to create the United States (Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Randolph etc….). When things began to not suit the Southerners (i.e. the system evolved away from their ideals), they bolted out of fear and irrational suppositions. The South committed “suicide” because of the unknown that might not have ever happened.
I think yes, slavery was a major issue, but I think it was the straw that broke the camel's back. There had been agitation for some time, something had to finally give.
I had a professor who insisted that the reason was the business of slavery, rather than slavery itself. As Wally touched on the economies between North and South differed, which suggests that tensions between the two right there.I guess we could rephrase the issue and ask - would the North and South have gone to war over the issue of slavery if all else were equal in terms of their economies (i.e. if slavery were not a factor in the South's economic well-being)?
well yes... the root to the problem lies in the founding of the collonies. VA was founded by men who were loyal to the king and the money MONEY...BUT after a few years later when the puritans came across the pond they were the decendents of Cromwells lot and it is well acounted for if you were not one of them you were looked down upon.87% of the Confederat soldiers did not own slavesbut like i and many others have said this was FOR THE RIGHT TO LEAVE IF WE FEEL LIKE IT OR NOT
Yeah, I think that the cultural unity of Southerners was probably great to begin with, and when the Union started flexing more federal muscle that unity became even greater. What's interesting is that it went beyond class divisions; the 13% of Southerners who owned slaves were probably well-off financially, whereas the remaining 87% probably included a large majority in the middle- and lower-classes. Can you imagine the lower classes fighting a war today for the property rights of a handful of wealthy citizens? I can't.
I could if it would keep a group that was even lower than they in their place… driving force for poo southern whites; they were free and the slaves weren't. In some ways the slaves were better off than the poor whites, just not free.
I could if it would keep a group that was even lower than they in their place... driving force for poo southern whites; they were free and the slaves weren't. In some ways the slaves were better off than the poor whites, just not free.
Excellent point, I had not thought of southern motivation in that way before but it is an extremely logical point and should be obvious.
