Shouting the battle cry of Freedom

[khaosworks]

The better angels
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.

Comments

I deleted my first comment

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Because it was almost but not quite totally not what I meant to say.

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.

[jost.livejournal.com]

While the subject of slavery was an important element of the reasons behind seceesion, I know that you know better than the think the entire reasoning behind the Civil War can be so easily summarized as: The Was was about slavery. You and I both now there were core issues, many still unresolved and a number of them being excercised by California recently that are reasons behind the War. One could make the arguement that slavery itself was a secondary cause, being a component of a State's Right to chose whether or not it would allow slavery. I honestly think that the unresolved issues from the 1850s are starting to come to light today, like with the aforementioned California as well as other instances in other States.

[cellio]

I've never lived south of the Mason-Dixon line, and I was taught while growing up that the civil war was about slavery. But that's not quite right: the civil war (or, if you prefer, the war between the states) was about states' rights (as guaranteed under the constitution at that time), with slavery being the catalyzing factor. In order for the tension to erupt into war there had to be an issue that was sufficiently repugnant to one side and essential to the other, and slavery was that issue.