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

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Truth to tell, I don't think they would have had a tough fight selling slavery as an issue - racism was rife throughout North and South, although of course less so in the North. There were many Southern soldiers who expressed and bought into fears that the abolition of slavery would mean the mixing of races and the black man dominating the white man. What would have been a hard sell would be for those more canny Southerners who would see past the rhetoric and realize that it wasn't so much about the inferiority of races but the profits of the slaveowners at stake. And your average non-slave-owning Southerner, while no less racist, would balk at the idea of fighting to line another man's pockets and not his own.

[jost.livejournal.com]

I can certainly see your points there. Perhaps the land and slave owners realized that the only thing keeping them "safe" was the subjegation of the slaves. If they were allowed to go free then their former owners would surely suffer an ill fate as the slave-to-slave-owner ratio was not in favor of the establishment. Very good point.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

That was what they feared. The reality of course we'll never know. Although there were instances of freed slaves going back to kill their former slave owners, there aren't that many reports of that happening. I like the story of a former slave who, after enlisting in the Union Army, recognized his former master being led away as a prisoner of war, and said, "Hello massa... bottom rail on top now."