Tuesday, December 28, 2010
The Civil War Facts Might Change - Beware!!!
The prolific French writer, historian, and philosopher Voltaire said, “History is a pack of tricks we play upon the dead”. This statement could not be more profound, but I like to call it His-Story.
If you are not aware, we are about to enter into five years of untruths, unreal assessments, and in some cases out and out lies, as 2011 will mark the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. This was a critical point in time because a divided nation faced a crisis. It started in the early morning hours of April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries fired upon federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day after 34 hours of shelling; the bloodiest war in the nation’s history had begun.
There is no question this major event in the country’s history is significant. However, we should be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart. There will be a lot of misinformation that will surely come, as both sides of the debate relive this chapter of American history. So be prepared for the revisionists to create many illusions pertaining to the facts as they relate to the realities of Civil War history.
It’s already begun with a surge of activity, especially among conservatives, to adjust the story to reflect contemporary political positions. One prominent recent effort occurred in Texas last May. The state school board revised social studies standards to increase study of Confederate leaders and reduce emphasis on the Founding Fathers’ commitment to separation of church and state. Some wanted to stop referring to the slave trade and substitute a euphemistic phrase, the "Atlantic triangular trade." Thankfully, after opposition, that idea was dropped.
More recently, the Virginia Department of Education conceded its error in allowing a misleading textbook to be used in classrooms. But, they will allow the history book to continue to be used and the offending passage will remain. Even after admitting that the inaccurate passage was "outside of accepted Civil War scholarship." The disputed passage was a gross falsehood that says two battalions of African American soldiers fought for the Confederacy under famed Gen. Stonewall Jackson. The department would go on to say that it anticipates teachers "will have no difficulty working around one objectionable sentence".
Also in Virginia, the new Governor signed a proclamation honoring the Civil War and made no mention of slavery, which again after considerable controversy he revised the proclamation. Let me add that Richmond, Virginia was the home of the Confederate capital. These are just a few examples detected within the last six months. Sure the First Amendment protects the Confederate sympathizers' right to write this nonsense but it is up to us to do our due diligence to understand, although we were never taught the truth, that it is untrue.
Before I go any further, let’s be clear, the war was NOT fought to free the slaves. That narrative came much later when the north was not winning and needed a reason to allow colored solders to fight. Abraham Lincoln, Honest Abe, although not a proponent of slavery, had no desire to end slavery at the onset of the war. He was for the free-labor ideology of equal opportunity and upward mobility. The issue of slavery, as he stated, “was the morality and future of the slaves and of slavery”. He believed if the nation remained divided on the issue of slavery, the nation would not last. If you recall he borrowed a statement made by Jesus to support this position; “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Actually, Honest Abe was considering the option of sending the slaves back to Africa or somewhere outside of America to solve the problem. IN FACT, as an experiment, he sent thousands to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. This experiment was not successful because many became ill and died causing him to reevaluate the decision. He also had another plan, which was to acquire land in South America to host this unwanted population to include other locations as well.
On the other side, the south, secessionist, saw it this way. Their leader Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major slaveholder, justified secession in 1861 as an act of self-defense against the incoming Lincoln administration. Abraham Lincoln's policy of excluding slavery from the territories, Davis said, would make "property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless . . . thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars."
The Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens said, "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." These guys were very straightforward in their belief that the proper status of the Negro in America’s form of civilization, if free, would be the immediate cause of the rupture.
Views such as this continue today, from various quarters, because there remains enormous denial over the fact that the central cause of the war was our national disagreement about race, slavery, or more specific states' rights. The historian Douglas Egerton says, "The South split the Democratic Party and later the country not in the name of states' rights but because it sought federal government guarantees that slavery would prevail… routinely shifted their ideological ground in the name of protecting unfree labor." I believe it was all about states’ rights similar to today’s conservative perspective.
Let’s understand slavery was about one thing – economics. The institution and the economics derived from it built America and that wealth made America a powerful force in the world as a result. Therefore, those who try to rewrite or obscure the reality of this evil do so wishing the greatest crime ever inflected upon a people never ended or that it would return. I suggest that you listen carefully to those who use the code word “States Rights” and hear what they are not saying.
The Confederacy broken up the United States and launched a war that killed 620,000 Americans in a vain attempt to keep 4 million people in slavery does not confer honor upon their lost cause. It’s been 150 years of folks, like back then and now, trying to change the narrative to justify why the war was fought. Some say slavery. Some say tariffs. Others say the Constitution. I found this quote where one captured Confederate soldier, as he was being marched off to prison, was asked, "Why are you fighting?" He is said to have grunted, "Because you're here."
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well said, sir. I have long battled the notion that the Civil War was fought primarily over the abstract struggle between state and federal power. Certainly, it can wear that moniker but only after its understood that this loggerhead was a result of the slavery issue.
And since you mentioned that slavery was about economics then it must be said the war was as well. Labor intensive cash crops and slave labor made southern plantation owners some of the richest people in the country prior to 1860. Spend one day touring the seasonal residences of plantation owners in Charleston, S.C. and that fact becomes immediately apparent. Threaten that excessive "livelihood" and of coarse there is going to be a backlash. The sad part is that this moneyed, slave holding elite were able to convince yeoman farmers, tradesmen, laborers, etc. who were not slave holders to fight and die for them.
Twenty five years ago I was a Civil War reenactor and with the onset of the sesquicentennial anniversary, I will be coming out of retirement to see the elephant once more. I fully expect to have to debate the "War of Northern Aggression" camp that seems to have gathered momentum since the last time I wore my Union uniform.
I agree whole heartedly with your comment and the article.
I find it even more telling that your second paragraph is very much telling of the current state of politics and the various grassroots groups that have grown out of it (ie. The Tea Party).
It seems to me that your following statement... " The sad part is that this moneyed, slave holding elite were able to convince yeoman farmers, tradesmen, laborers, etc. who were not slave holders to fight and die for them."... still applies and the mega-wealthy elite have once again worked their magic and conviced the farmers, tradesmen, laborers, etc who are not anywhere near the elites have been convinced to do the dirty work for them and fight against their own best interests.
Post a Comment