Should Confederate soldiers be honored

[Rivka]

Of course. I cannot imagine why they would not.

 

The War of Northern Agression was not about slavery. It was about states' rights. Confederate heros did not die so they could keep their slaves. Goodness.

 

This is nothing but revisionist history. Of course many, many Southerners did not themselves own slaves, and many Confederate soldiers fought out of loyalty to their state and their companions. But the Confederate cause was solidly based on slavery. The Confederate states' "declarations of causes of secession" make it clear that they seceded because of slavery. Not states' rights as an absolute principle - after all, where was their love of states' rights when they were the party in power and they passed the Fugitive Slave Act? - but their right to own slaves.

 

Their own words make it very clear.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

Here's the very first two sentences of Georgia's declaration of the causes of secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

 

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 

Texas:

(Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

 

And here is a statement by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens in 1861:

 

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

 

Individual Confederate soldiers may indeed have been honorable men, but they were fighting for a treasonous and morally corrupt cause.

[Michelle in MO]

If you are still ambivalent, read up on some of the dissenting histories, which can be a real eye-opener. The American Civil War was not as cut-and-dried as the sanctioned history books would have us believe.

 

 

No rational person excuses slavery. I have to agree with hillfarm here. The Civil War was not nearly as cut-and-dried as history books would lead us to believe.

 

Stephen Douglas was a leading senator from the free State of Illinois in the 1850s, and the author of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1874. Supposedly the intent of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill was to allow for popular sovereignty in the new territories, so that the people of each territory could decide whether or not to permit slavery. He openly took a "neutral" position on the extension of slavery and said, "I don't care whether slavery is voted up or down."

 

In reality, although he was a Northerner, he was known to own land and slaves in Mississippi. The intent of the bill was not nearly as neutral as Douglas would have led his fellow citizens to believe.

 

I don't for one minute believe every Northerner was against slavery and that every Southerner was a Simon Legree.

[Orthodox6]

Please see the letter to President Obama on the HNN website dated May 18, 2009 signed by 45+ scholars imploring him not to put a wreath on the Arlington Confederate Monument. Certainly not all of them are ignorami.

 

Thank you for the link, the content of which I am reading.

 

My point, missed by you, I guess, is that a historian who embraces an extremist vision of either side of The Civil War (I don't use the regional appellation) either demonstrates ignorance of the events, or exhibits willful refusal to acknowledge the complexity of the conflict.

[Mama Lynx]

Thank you for the link, the content of which I am reading.

 

My point, missed by you, I guess, is that a historian who embraces an extremist vision of either side of The Civil War (I don't use the regional appellation) either demonstrates ignorance of the events, or exhibits willful refusal to acknowledge the complexity of the conflict.

 

Yes.

 

And while those 45+ may not be ignorami (I don't know who they are, so I cannot make that judgement), if they made that request because they feel that the Confederates represent slavery, and therefore the President of the United States should not honor them, then they are short sighted and do not fully understand that particular conflict.

 

It is a grave, grave error to perpetuate the idea that the Civil War was about slavery.

 

ETA - LOL.The joke is on me. Now y'all's responses make more sense. I left out the word "solely." It is a grave, grave error to perpetuate the idea that the Civil War was solely about slavery.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Mama Lynx

[Lolly]

Sure. Was slavery despicable? Of course. Were they all fighting to own slaves? Absolutely not. My great-grandfather (do the math on that one - I'm not old) was a civil war soldier. He fought for his farm, for his family, because he was "supposed" to as a man living in the south. My great-grandmother was still receiving pension checks in 1952 for his service in the Confederate Army. I have no idea who was funding them, but they look governmental (I have a copy of one in a book).

 

Lol! My great-grandfather also. I never tell anyone because they won't believe me!

[ereks mom]

 

It is a grave, grave error to perpetuate the idea that the Civil War was about slavery.

 

:iagree:

[spradlin02]

It is a grave, grave error to perpetuate the idea that the Civil War was about slavery.

:iagree: NOT!

[nevergiveup]

Yes.

 

And while those 45+ may not be ignorami (I don't know who they are, so I cannot make that judgement), if they made that request because they feel that the Confederates represent slavery, and therefore the President of the United States should not honor them, then they are short sighted and do not fully understand that particular conflict.

 

Their names and occupations are stated on the letter.

 

It is a grave, grave error to perpetuate the idea that the Civil War was about slavery.

 

Then what would you say was the most compelling reason?

[Spy Car]

Yes.

 

Do I have to "agree" or "believe" in the cause for which an American soldier died in order to honor his courage, his conviction, and his sacrifice? No.

 

 

But we are not talking about "American soldiers", as in soldiers who fought and died for the United States of America, we are talking about anti-American soldiers who fought against (and killed) American soldiers and fought in allegiance to a declared enemy of the United States of America.

 

That is a big difference.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

It is a grave, grave error to perpetuate the idea that the Civil War was about slavery.

 

:lol: Gimme a break!

 

What was it about? Tariff policies???

 

This would be laughably wrong if it wasn't so unfunny.

 

Bill (bewildered)

[Greta]

.

Edited May 20, 2010 by GretaLynne

[Mama Lynx]

But we are not talking about "American soldiers", as in soldiers who fought and died for the United States of America, we are talking about anti-American soldiers who fought against (and killed) American soldiers and fought in allegiance to a declared enemy of the United States of America.

 

That is a big difference.

 

Bill

 

Again, Lincoln saw it very differently.

 

And now I'm curious. How would *you* have handled Reconstruction, Bill? :D

[Mama Lynx]

:lol: Gimme a break!

 

What was it about? Tariff policies???

 

This would be laughably wrong if it wasn't so unfunny.

 

Bill (bewildered)

 

Believe me, I'm laughing too! :lol:

[Spy Car]

Again, Lincoln saw it very differently.

 

And now I'm curious. How would *you* have handled Reconstruction, Bill? :D

 

Much like we handled the reconstruction of Germany following WWII, with an inflow of aid, money, and spirit of magnanimity so we could heal our Union.

 

Bill

[Purpledaizy]

This is nothing but revisionist history. Of course many, many Southerners did not themselves own slaves, and many Confederate soldiers fought out of loyalty to their state and their companions. But the Confederate cause was solidly based on slavery. The Confederate states' "declarations of causes of secession" make it clear that they seceded because of slavery. Not states' rights as an absolute principle - after all, where was their love of states' rights when they were the party in power and they passed the Fugitive Slave Act? - but their right to own slaves.

 

Their own words make it very clear.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

Here's the very first two sentences of Georgia's declaration of the causes of secession:

 

 

Mississippi:

 

 

Texas:

 

 

And here is a statement by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens in 1861:

 

 

 

Individual Confederate soldiers may indeed have been honorable men, but they were fighting for a treasonous and morally corrupt cause.

[/b][/i]

 

This clears up quite a bit for me. Thanks for posting this.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

I ask because I had read about some historians, who study this sort of thing, stating that the states' seccession was an act of treason and therefore Confederate soldiers should not be honored. I am no historian and did not know that this was even being debated.

 

Hahum..

From a Canadian point of view, *all* those who fought the British for American independance were committing an act of treason.

 

Just saying...

[Spy Car]

Believe me, I'm laughing too! :lol:

 

Oh thank goodness, for a moment there I though you were being serious. You kidder :D

 

Not about slavery, you got me! :lol:

 

Bill

[freeindeed]

The United Daughters of the Confederate are having an Iron Cross ceremony for a Confederate soldier buried near here.

 

Do you think Confederate soldiers should be honored?

 

I certainly do.

[Mama Lynx]

Then what would you say was the most compelling reason?

 

Honestly, I don't care enough about them to look up their names and read enough of their writings to determine whether or not I think they are ignorant.

 

This thread has already put forth some cogent answers about the many causes of the Civil War. This is also not the first time it's been hashed out on this message board. Slavery was the flashpoint, and of course it was an important issue. However, states' rights, tariffs, etc. etc. all fed into it.

 

I am not attempting to "brush aside" slavery. OTOH, I tire of the people who try brush aside the other important issues of the war. All I'm saying is that it is not smart of us to boil it down into simplistic terms. And South = slavery = bad against North = anti-slavery = good is very simplistic.

[Mama Lynx]

:lol: Gimme a break!

 

What was it about? Tariff policies???

 

This would be laughably wrong if it wasn't so unfunny.

 

Bill (bewildered)

 

 

 

Actually, I did mean to type "solely" about slavery, but did not proofread fast enough. I'd go back and edit now, but I don't know that it would do any good.

[Greta]

This is nothing but revisionist history.

 

Absolutely. Thank you for your post, Rivka.

[freeindeed]

No. Confederate soldiers should not be honored for their role in attempting to destroy the American Union and fighting (and killing fellow Americans) to perpetuate human slavery. There is nothing honorable here to celebrate.

 

As people, I'm sure there were many fine boys and men among the Confederate soldiers who got caught up in a very bad cause. Should they be remembered? Sure. But not "honored" for their actions. No.

 

Bill

 

Slavery was not the main cause for the South's attempted secession. It was an issue of state's rights. Many southerners did not even own slaves, and many who did treated them kindly. Now, I vehemently disagree with slavery of any kind, mind you, even though I was born in the south and still live in the south and surely had ancestors who owned slaves. I do, however, agree with honoring Confederate soldiers. If we don't honor them, then we shouldn't honor Union soldiers, either. Let's not forgot what Sherman did to Atlanta. Also, as much as I admire President Lincoln, he did help to bring about our current era of "big government." It is my belief that the federal government is way too involved in too many aspects of our lives today.

[Spy Car]

This is nothing but revisionist history.

 

Absolutely. Thank you for your post, Rivka.

 

I'd like to second this.

 

I want to thank you for such an outstanding, well-documented, thoughtful, and honest post. It takes some guts in this arena (unfortunately), so I say: Welcome to the forum!!!

 

Bill

[calandalsmom]

I seriously hope the reference to the "war of northern aggression" was made tongue in cheek but I suspect it was not. Shocking that this garbage may be taught to another generation.

[HRAAB]

For those who don't believe slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War, then do you believe the south would still have seceded (over states' rights, tariffs, economics, etc.) and the Civil War would still have been fought? I'm not very knowledgeable about the Civil War other than what is in history textbooks.

 

I see nothing wrong with private groups or families honoring Confederate soldiers, but I'm not sure I believe we should, as a country on a national level, honor Confederate soldiers.

[LisaKinVA]

I tried quoting the quotes regarding the secessionist documents...unsuccessfully, but reading them provides context to the issue. I'm not disagreeing that slavery was part of the reason the civil war was fought. However, in some of the secessionist documents (flawed as they were), they clearly laid out that the reason slavery was necessary was for economic reasons. Many of the southern states believed that slavery was 100% necessary in order to produce the materials their economies were based upon, and without it, they would be economically destitute.

 

To force an abolition of slavery -- without providing for an economic alternative or transition -- by the minds of the southerners, would be tantamount to taking their farms, their businesses, and their lives without hope of economic recovery. Obviously, they were wrong, but perhaps what we are lacking is the context of the times?

 

(my ancestors were are on all sides of this war: South, North, and pacifist...they were also all cousins)

[LisaKinVA]

For those who don't believe slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War, then do you believe the south would still have seceded (over states' rights, tariffs, economics, etc.) and the Civil War would still have been fought? I'm not very knowledgeable about the Civil War other than what is in history textbooks.

 

I see nothing wrong with private groups or families honoring Confederate soldiers, but I'm not sure I believe we should, as a country on a national level, honor Confederate soldiers.

 

Lincoln stated his purpose for the war was the preservation of the UNION.

 

Abraham Lincoln, "Emancipation or Preservation of the Union?,"

The New York Times

, New York, August 25, 1862

 

Dear Sir:

I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New York "Tribune." If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not, now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forebear, I forebear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

[Spy Car]

Slavery was not the main cause for the South's attempted secession. It was an issue of state's rights.

 

And the right in question was the right of human being to hold other human beings as slaves under the law.

 

It is a distinction without much of a difference. The "States Right" at issue was for citizens of certain States to be slave-holders as a legal right.

 

And for African Negros to have no rights what-so-ever, and to be treated as chattel-property. No right to have protention against any kind of ill-treatment, beating, whipping, forced sexual acts. whatever. No right to life, even. A stave-master could destroy their property with impunity if they so chose. Slave women had no right's to their children. They could be sold off at the whim of the slave owner.

 

I won't go on. But these are the realities we are talking about. People will try to gloss it over, but...

 

Bill

[TXMomof4]

For those who don't believe slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War, then do you believe the south would still have seceded (over states' rights, tariffs, economics, etc.) and the Civil War would still have been fought? I'm not very knowledgeable about the Civil War other than what is in history textbooks.

 

I see nothing wrong with private groups or families honoring Confederate soldiers, but I'm not sure I believe we should, as a country on a national level, honor Confederate soldiers.

 

I think there probably would have been *something* that set it off. I"m not super-educated on all of the lead up to the war, but the battle over state rights went way deeper than slavery. This was a brand-spankin new country still learning how to get along and obviously not doing a great job of it. I think it is hard to imagine how different life was in the North and South because we're such an integrated society now.

 

I think slavery was the proverbial final straw - if that hadn't been the issue, there would have been something else.

[nevergiveup]

Honestly, I don't care enough about them to look up their names and read enough of their writings to determine whether or not I think they are ignorant.

 

.

 

The fact that one of the signers of the letter is James McPherson, History Professor, Princeton University, lends it some credibility, I would think.

 

I didn't care much about this subject either, until I started looking into it and then found it fascinating. My little attempt at gaining a Better Trained Mind.

[Spy Car]

Bill

[GWOB]

On a national level, nope. Whatever you think was the "true" cause of the Civil War, Confederates were rebels, pure and simple. They were rebelling against the Union and our Constitution. Period. It doesn't really matter if they were rebelling to continue the vile, disgusting practice of enslaving an entire race of people (even just for "economic" reasons) or for "State's Rights" or tariffs or the ability to dance naked in the rain. They were rebels, guilty of treason against the United States and our Constitution. So no, they should not be honored on a national level. I seriously doubt the UK honors our own rebel leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, etc.

 

Ask an African American if we should honor Confederate soldiers. Ask a Jew if we should honor a Nazi soldier. Ask an Armenian if we should honor a Turkish soldier. I call out the fact that many opinions stated here are those of White, middle-class Americans. Think about the Civil War from the African-American perspective, you know, that entire race of people that was enslaved under the "State's Rights" banner? That race of people that continued to be enslaved throughout most of last century? I wonder how they feel about Confederate soldiers.

 

And I'm not saying the North was right. They were far from perfect. Yep, war atrocities were committed BY BOTH SIDES. There was still segregation in the North. And I'm not breaking this down into South=slavery=bad and North=abolition=good. I'm breaking it down into Constitution=good and rebellion-over-slavery/"State's Rights"=not-lliking-US-Constitution=bad.

 

BTW, I was born and raised in the South, though I think I just gave up my Southern card by posting this. Oh well.

[Spy Car]

Slavery was not the main cause for the South's attempted secession. It was an issue of state's rights.

 

And the right in question was the right of human being to hold other human beings as slaves under the law.

 

It is a distinction without much of a difference. The "States Right" at issue was for citizens of certain States to be slave-holders as a legal right.

 

And for African Negros to have no rights what-so-ever, and to be treated as chattel-property. No right to have protention against any kind of ill-treatment, beating, whipping, forced sexual acts. whatever. No right to life, even. A slave-master could destroy their property with impunity if they so chose. Slave women had no right to their children. They could be sold off at the whim of the slave owner.

 

I won't go on. But these are the realities we are talking about. People will try to gloss it over, but...

 

Bill

[MSNative]

Was it really necessary to wage a four-year war to abolish slavery in the United States, one that ravaged half of the country and destroyed a generation of American men? Only the United States and Haiti freed their slaves by war.

 

The war did enable Lincoln to "save" the Union, but only in a geographic sense. The country ceased being a Union, as it was originally conceived, of separate and sovereign states. Instead, America became a "nation" with a powerful federal government. It initiated a process of centralization of government that has substantially restricted liberty and freedom in America, as historians Charles Adams and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel have argued – Adams in his book,

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (published in 2000); and Hummel in his book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (1996).

 

 

 

 

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp).

 

 

 

 

The rallying call in the North at the beginning of the war was "preserve the Union," not "free the slaves." Although certainly a contentious political issue and detested by abolitionists, in 1861 slavery nevertheless was not a major public issue. Protestant Americans in the North were more concerned about the growing number of Catholic immigrants than they were about slavery. In his First Inaugural Address, given five weeks before the war began, Lincoln reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.

After 17 months of war things were not going well for the North, especially in its closely watched Eastern Theater. In the five great battles fought there from July 1861 through September 17, 1862, the changing cast of Union generals failed to win a single victory. Then came Antietam on September 17, the bloodiest day in the entire war; the Union army lost more than 12,000 of its 60,000 troops engaged in the battle.

Did saving the Union justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? If it was going to win, the North needed a more compelling reason to continue the war than to preserve the Union.

Five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a "war measure," as Lincoln put it. Foreign correspondents covering the war recognized it as a brilliant propaganda coup. Emancipation would take place only in rebel states not under Union control, their state sovereignty in the matter of slavery arguably forfeited as a result of their having seceded from the Union. The president could not abolish slavery; if not done at the state level, abolition would require a constitutional amendment. Slaveholders and their slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and parts of Virginia and Louisiana occupied by Union troops were exempt from the edict. Slaves in the Confederacy would be "forever free" on January 1, 1863 – one hundred days after the Proclamation was issued – but only if a state remained in "rebellion" after that date. Rebel states that rejoined the Union and sent elected representatives to Congress before January 1, 1863 could keep their slaves.

Regarding slaves in states loyal to the government or occupied by Union troops, Lincoln proposed three constitutional amendments in his December 1862 State of the Union message to Congress. The first was that slaves not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation be freed gradually over a 37-year period, to be completed by January 1, 1900. The second provided compensation to owners for the loss of their slave property. The third was that the government transport freed Blacks, at government expense, out of the country and relocate them in Latin America and Africa. Lincoln wrote that freed blacks need "new homes [to] be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race." For Lincoln, emancipation and deportation were inseparably connected. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells wrote in his diary that Lincoln "thought it essential to provide an asylum for a race which he had emancipated, but which could never be recognized or admitted to be our equals." As historian Leone Bennett Jr. puts it in his book Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (2000), "It was an article of faith to him [Lincoln] that emancipation and deportation went together like firecrackers and July Fourth, and that you couldn’t have one without the other."

Congress refused to consider Lincoln’s proposals, which Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune labeled whales’ tubs of "gradualism, compensation, [and] exportation." None of the Confederate States took the opportunity to rejoin the Union in the 100-day window offered and the war continued for another two years and four months. Eight months later the 13th Amendment was ratified, and slavery ended everywhere in the United States (without gradualism, compensation, or exportation).

Black and White Americans sustained racial and political wounds from the war and the subsequent Reconstruction that proved deep and long lasting. Northern abolitionists wanted southern Black slaves to be freed, but certainly did not want them to move north and live alongside them. Indiana and Illinois, in particular, had laws that barred African-Americans from settling.

 

 

 

 

Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the southern states in the Union? It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter. The principal source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:

 

 

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

 

 

 

 

 

 

In March 1861, the New York Evening Post editorialized on this point:

 

 

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:

 

 

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2010 by MSNative

[MSNative]

The above post (in which I inadvertantly deleted my intro and was too long to edit it in) is a posting of a view of the civil war that I think several posters are mentioning. You may not agree with it all, I don't agree with all of it. However, I think it brings up important details.

 

Oh and the choppy writing is my fault. I exceeded the character limit on posts. My apologies for poor deleting.

[LisaKinVA]

Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:

Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

 

Now there's some context we don't hear every day...

[TXMomof4]

I'm just curious - virtually all civilizations had slaves. Any conquered nation could count on slavery as a result. Look at the Romans - yup, they had slaves of all sorts. However, Rome is held up as a great civilization that did amazing wonders for the world.

 

Please don't take this to mean that I approve of slavery in any shape,form, or fashion. I'm reading Uncle Tom's Cabin right now and have cried myself sick over it. It is horrible, painful, nauseating.

 

However - the reality is that the WORLD had to grow past slavery. The southern states in America was not the only place that this occurred and not even the last place that slavery was commonplace.

[bugs]

I haven't read all the posts. But I could not imagine NOT honoring Robert E. Lee.

[ereks mom]

I don't for one minute believe every Northerner was against slavery and that every Southerner was a Simon Legree.

 

:iagree:

 

The war was not only about slavery and Some union states had slavery too. I try to instill in my children the idea that we are all fallen people and all have our faults. THe foot soldiers on both sides were usually not fighting for a big cause. Many Union soldiers were draftees. Many Southern soldiers had no slaves and weren't fighting for slavery at all.

 

:iagree:

 

 

If you are still ambivalent, read up on some of the dissenting histories, which can be a real eye-opener. The American Civil War was not as cut-and-dried as the sanctioned history books would have us believe.

 

:iagree: I have read some of the "dissenting histories"--fascinating reading. Of course, each side portrayed the other in as bad a light as possible. It is amazing how you can find yourself agreeing with first one side and then the other as the various perspectives are presented.

[Spy Car]

The American Civil War was not as cut-and-dried as the sanctioned history books would have us believe.

 

I just found the American History series I will use with my son, and I read the volume on the run-up to the Civil War, and I thought it was beautifully handled. There was nuance, balance, and a fair-minded presentation of the perspectives from both sides.

 

I don't know if this book series is "sanctioned" or not (other than by me) but it is possible to have an "objective" history that lays out the complexities in a way appropriate for adolescents.

 

Bill

[nevergiveup]

...from Kenneth M. Stampp [historian], The Imperiled Union p 198

Most historians... now see no compelling reason why the divergent economies of the North and South should have led to disunion and civil war; rather, they find stronger practical reasons why the sections, whose economies neatly complemented one another, should have found it advantageous to remain united. Beard oversimplified the controversies relating to federal economic policy, for neither section unanimously supported or opposed measures such as the protective tariff, appropriations for internal improvements, or the creation of a national banking system.... During the 1850s, Federal economic policy gave no substantial cause for southern disaffection, for policy was largely determined by pro-Southern Congresses and administrations. Finally, the characteristic posture of the conservative northeastern business community was far from anti-Southern. Most merchants, bankers, and manufacturers were outspoken in their hostility to antislavery agitation and eager for sectional compromise in order to maintain their profitable business connections with the South. The conclusion seems inescapable that if economic differences, real though they were, had been all that troubled relations between North and South, there would be no substantial basis for the idea of an irrepressible conflict.

[mcconnellboys]

Certainly.

[ereks mom]

I just found the American History series I will use with my son, and I read the volume on the run-up to the Civil War, and I thought it was beautifully handled. There was nuance, balance, and a fair-minded presentation of the perspectives from both sides.

 

I don't know if this book series is "sanctioned" or not (other than by me) but it is possible to have an "objective" history that lays out the complexities in a way appropriate for adolescents.

 

Bill

 

I think there was a lot of discussion on that thread, as well.

[5forMe]

Absolutely!

[Spy Car]

I think there was a lot of discussion on that thread, as well.

 

I'd suggest you check your library for the Drama of American History series and get the volume on the lead-up to the Civil War. You could read it in a couple of hours, and I think you would be every pleasantly surprised (and probably shocked, frankly) at what a reasonable and fair-minded a job historians can do.

 

Rather than painting one side in a good light and the other as evil, the causes of the conflict are well-laid out. The "North", it is pointed out, was mostly indifferent to the plight of the slaves with the exception of abolitionist forces who (while a distinct minority) had influence beyond their numbers. Most Southerners did not own slaves, those who did commonly owned few. And not all Southerners supported slavery prior to hostilities.

 

The addition of States in the west complicated the one-to-one balance between slave and free states, and the South felt threatened that the political balance would shift and they lose in this re-alignment of power.

 

See for yourself, if you have the interest. I think you would be impressed.

 

Bill

[bbsweetpea]

nm... not getting into this

Edited May 20, 2010 by bbsweetpea

[Rivka]

I'd like to second this.

 

I want to thank you for such an outstanding, well-documented, thoughtful, and honest post. It takes some guts in this arena (unfortunately), so I say: Welcome to the forum!!!

 

:blush: Thanks. I didn't mean to make my debut in such a controversial thread, but I really think that primary sources shed a lot of light on the discussion, and many people haven't encountered them before.

 

But anyway, um, hi. My 5-year-old has five more days of nursery school before she is a full-time homeschooler. (We've been playing around with math for a year or so, and reading for about six months.) I don't know if I'm going to wind up calling myself classical, but this certainly is an interesting place.

[Spy Car]

:blush: Thanks. I didn't mean to make my debut in such a controversial thread, but I really think that primary sources shed a lot of light on the discussion, and many people haven't encountered them before.

 

But anyway, um, hi. My 5-year-old has five more days of nursery school before she is a full-time homeschooler. (We've been playing around with math for a year or so, and reading for about six months.) I don't know if I'm going to wind up calling myself classical, but this certainly is an interesting place.

 

We could talk about food :D

 

And why a girl named Rivka is recommending prosciutto :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[mrssnow]

Wow, this is an interesting thread. One thing I found most interesting is that the original poster posted no personal opinion just a fact and a question yet in the first 2 pages many answered in a hostile manner as if the poster had suggested it was wrong. I don't know if the op later posted against honoring Confederate soldiers or not since the thread is now 10 pgs (too long for me to read every single post) but apparently it is a hot button issue who would have thought.

[ScoutTN]

Hmmm. Lots I've not thought through here.

 

This would be a great topic for a rhetoric level (high school) class to debate!