----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minettte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:00 PM Subject: RE: Civil War
> I'm going back through older messages (in reverse order) that > required a bit > more thought to answer, now that I have a few minutes. Here's the > first: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 9:35 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: Civil WAr >>> that great. First of all, they could still have the labor of the >>> slaves....just as tenant farmers...as they did later. >> >> To avoid wandering too far from the original point, I think you >> have >> to understand the reasons why the political and economic entities >> of >> the South decided to fight in order to understand why there was >> such >> patriotic fervor (Confederate) in the region and why it persisted >> for >> so long. > > I'm not sure that's true. The patriotic fever for years afterwards > wasn't a > result of the people in the antebellum South considering the > socioeconomic > conditions in 1860, and the rational, ethical decisions available at > the > time. I'd argue that a set of beliefs, which were codified by the > "Lost > Cause" historians would be sufficient. > > I'll give one recent example from Texas. About 6 years ago, there > was a > column by Laura Bush in the Houston Chronicle's editorial page. It > listed > the familiar Lost Cause mythology as historical fact, and stated > that folks > who didn't accept that were just ignorant of history. > > Here column pretty well summed up what I have been hearing from > patriotic > Southerners. It was, of course, mythology, and inconsistent with a > careful > analysis of the writings of the leaders of the South, or a > socioeconomic > historical analysis of the times. But, I think it was a good > reflection of > the patriotic fervor. And of course Northerners have no myths or mythology and the winners do not write history? Or in any way cherrypick through the facts? (To be fair, it would be pretty hard to "absolutely" prove either view based on "scholarly work" on a subject that is so polar for over a century and a half) What you are saying is basically any scholarly work that disagrees with your view is the work of nutcases and only views that reflect "The Standard Northern History Of The Civil War" can be considered as bearing merit. I see that as problematic. That view devolves into "the South was evil and the North good" far too easily and in fact, from here, that seems to be what most people believe. I contend Southerners were looking out for their self-interest economically and doing their best to avoid being politically dominated by the Northern states. If one looks at the history of slavery in the US, it is plain that it was an issue that snowballed out of control of any of the contestants over decades and skewed perceptions of all involved throughout that time. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2005.00166.x "Although President Abraham Lincoln recognized slavery as the cause of the Civil War, historians have offered a multitude of interpretations. Some have emphasized differences between the sections, arguing that North and South were culturally distinct from each other or possessed clashing economic interests that led to war. In addition, scholars have studied those people in each section abolitionists in the North and fire-eaters in the South who pointed out and even exacerbated the differences and tensions between the sections. Other historians have seen the conflict between the sections as fundamentally political. Political issues, especially concerning the territories in the 1850s, accelerated hostilities between the sections. Politicians failed to avert the crisis, and may even have contributed to bringing it on. Fundamentally, however, slavery remains at the root of many of these cultural, economic, and political issues." To be clear, slavery IMO is a moral issue. But I disagree with any thesis that assumes that the moral division was crystal clear and obvious to Southerners of the period. People are able to rationalize just about anything if the stakes are high enough and others will easily cling to a convenient lie when it is in their interest to do so. Compare the pre-civil war period with current events and it is easy to see similarities in that regard. I reject that Southerners were monolithically evil in the same way I would reject that contemporary Americans are evil. So when I say that Southerners believed it was in their best interest to own slaves or to seceed, I am describing their mindset, hardened in the face of opposition, and not a hindsight 20/20 view. xponent Brief Maru rob
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
