Shouting the battle cry of Freedom
Sep. 25th, 2002 02:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The better angels
Why Americans are still fighting over who was right and who was wrong in the Civil War
Why Americans are still fighting over who was right and who was wrong in the Civil War
Who won the Civil War? You'd have a hard time finding out at Gettysburg. Sure, there are plenty of artifacts in the dilapidated vistor center: cases full of gray and blue uniforms, fading regimental flags, and rows of shining rifles. Step outside, and you'll learn about the flanking movements and angles of fire, the storied charges and tactical gambits that decided the momentous three day battle. The 1,320 monuments, markers, and memorials that dot the fields of Gettysburg National Military Park pay special attention to troop movements and casualty lists, emphasizing the valor and courage of those who fought. Only a few mention the preservation of the Union; none celebrate the end of slavery.
For almost 2 million visitors each year, the Pennsylvania battlefield confirms everything they know from documentaries, Hollywood, and popular fiction: that the war was America's epic, a heroic conflict both sides fought for freedom. The same tale is told at battlefields across the country. And it's wrong.
In trying to honor the soldiers who died, Civil War battlefields have historically avoided referring to what the two armies were actually fighting about. As a result, say scholars and park service officials alike, the message of most Civil War parks is subtly pro-Confederate, alienating many people who should find the parks compelling. What's missing, they say, is a moral element, what Abraham Lincoln referred to as "the better angels of our nature." The Civil War was a fight over slavery. The South was for it, the North against it. Not talking about slavery, they say, erases right and wrong from history–not only in the parks but in the national memory itself.
I deleted my first comment
Date: 2002-09-24 11:20 am (UTC)Thank you for this article. I used to get into such arguments in high school when I'd point out that neglected behind all the 'romance' of war was the reality of people fighting to be able to own other people.
The soldiers were brave, and many of them sacrificed all they had, for which I admire and honor them. But, I guess, I also admire and honor my and many other people's ancestors, who had to be brave and struggle to survive being bought and sold, and yes, the US tries hard to forget that that was part of the story.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 11:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 12:07 pm (UTC)If you look at the wording of the resolutions that led to the secession of the 11 Southern states, like Georgia, Virginia, South Carolina, among others, while it is clear that they were asserting the rights of the states to choose, the main right they were asserting was the right to perpetuate the institution of slavery. To that end, Bleeding Kansas happened, for example. Lincoln was hated by the South precisely because he was seen as an abolitionist, and his election in 1860 precipitated Seccession.
While it is also true that only 6 percent of Southerners actually owned slaves, and most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, this statistic is misleading because that 6 percent consituted most of the Southern agricultural economy, and also its political path. 92 percent of the Southern population were slaves - one cannot reasonably argue that slavery was not important to the Southern economy, which thrived due to free labor, nor can one reasonably argue that the economy as it stood would have been imperiled considerably if slavery were to be abolished.
The assertion of the Civil War as a primary assertion of State's Rights is a post-war justification, as is the arguments about legality of secession under the 10th Amendment and so on. The Lost Cause argument was appealing because it both soothed Southern pride as well as fed into the guilt that the North felt over the excesses of Reconstruction and agreeing with such arguments hastened the healing process between North and South.
I understand the difficulty many Southerners may have in realizing or admitting that their ancestors fought for a cause that from today's perspective is rephrensible, or even obscene. The role of history, though, is not to adjudge the rightness or wrongness of the reasons. One might argue that it was a product of their times, and of their thinking, and they were simply obsolete and did not realize it, or unenlightened.
Ultimately, however, that's not quite the point - the point is that by relegating the issue of slavery to a secondary position which it does not deserve, one is effectively distorting the truth of what happened. And the issue of slavery has been swept aside for way too long.
And truth should be truth, to the end of reckoning.
Re: Slavery
Date: 2002-09-24 12:47 pm (UTC)Are you sure that the population of the south was 92% slave?
That figure sounds exaggerated.
Re: Slavery
Date: 2002-09-24 01:45 pm (UTC)I even got the slave owning percentages wrong. For a much better statistical overview, look at http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html
no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 12:49 pm (UTC)I too find it to be of particular interest that the landowners and politicos for the most part wanted to keep slavery around but they knew they would have a hard time sellign that to the armies to fight for. It wouldn't shock me to learn that the politicians used the banner of States Rights to generate morale for the armies of the South. Even Robert E. Lee admitted that his loyalty was to the State of Virginia and that was why he sided with the South. Of coruse, it wouldn't be the first time that politicians used a patriotic carrot on a stick to avert the population's attention from the true cause(s) of the war.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 01:49 pm (UTC)Robert E. Lee
Date: 2002-09-24 06:28 pm (UTC)In my high school, they tried to drill it into you that the war was about more than just slavery. It was clear to me, though, that slavery was key both in the causes of the war and the motivations of men on both sides during the course of the war.
"I would like God on our side, but I need Missouri." Abraham Lincoln.
Re: Robert E. Lee
Date: 2002-09-24 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 12:19 pm (UTC)One of my favorite observations is that of Joseph Ellis, who said that America is not so much built on a proposition but an argument about that proposition. I think that the argument is a vital one, and one that has kept one side from becoming a tyranny, and the other side from turning a union into chaos. Point being, that the Civil War was an expression of an ongoing argument, but the specific issues that drove that argument in the 1860s were that of economic dominance, among others, and the core of the economy of the South was centered around slavery. That cannot be avoided.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-24 10:07 pm (UTC)