Friday, March 29, AD 2024 1:55am

Myths of the Civil War

 

An excellent post at the blog Letters From Cato on Myths of the Civil War:

Jesse Kelly tweeted this out the other day:*

1. Slavery is a repulsive thing and a stain on the history of our country. 2. Did you know in the beginning Lincoln would have stopped the war and let the South keep their slaves? See? Complicated.

*This was either before or after he was suspended, which is another matter in and of itself.

This is a fairly standard talking point about the civil war. The longer form of it goes something like this: “The civil war wasn’t really about slavery, and as proof, look at Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was perfectly willing to go back to the status quo ante had the confederates laid down their arms early on in the war. So see – the civil war wasn’t really about slavery because Lincoln himself was willing to allow slavery to continue.”

This is one of several arguments about the war that I come across with some regularity, so I’ve decided to post about it and a few of the other common myths I’ve heard repeated.

Before I begin, let me note that I use “myth” with some reservation, because many of these arguments have a grain of truth. Therefore they are not complete myths or fabrications. Rather, they are arguments that either distort the context or leave off important bits of information. For simplicity’s sake, though, that’s the title I’ve gone with.

Myth #1: Lincoln’s aim was to preserve the union, not to end slavery.

I’ll start with the above-stated one first. As I said, there is a grain of truth to it. Lincoln’s primary aim truly was to restore the union, and he was willing at first to retain slavery if it meant an early end to the war. What’s more, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but he was not an abolitionist, meaning he desired the eventual eradication of slavery, but did not advocate immediate measures for its end. (Of course this is a point against another myth, which I’ll get to later.)

That being said, there are several reasons this argument is misleading. First of all, it leaves the impression that Lincoln wasn’t concerned about slavery at all, or that his passion for emancipation was lacking. While he may not have favored immediate abolition, he nonetheless spent almost the entirety of his public career forcefully and unequivocally condemning slavery, expressing a desire for its eventual abolition.

Also, one has to consider his House Divided speech. Only in the context of a united country could we arrive at a nation that was totally free. If the slave states removed themselves from the union, then abolition no longer is a possibility. So whole Lincoln was primarily interested in maintaining the union at all costs, it was to preserve a union which would eventually pave the way for the total eradication of slavery.

What’s more, as the war progressed, it became a war for emancipation. The Emancipation Proclamation is often dismissed as a cynical prop for perpetuating the war, but the proclamation changed the moral arc of the war. That most of Lincoln’s cabinet urged Lincoln not to issue the proclamation would seem to be a point of proof in how passionately Lincoln felt about this measure.

 

Go here to read the rest.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cato
Admin
Friday, November 30, AD 2018 1:02pm

Muchas gracias.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, November 30, AD 2018 6:07pm

#2 – In fact, according to a recent history book I read, there was what the author called, “The Other Thirteenth Amendment,” which was meant to resolve the secession crisis by “enshrining” (my term, right or wrong) slavery in the states where it was and not allow it to be spread. Hot heads on both sides of the issue killed it.

And, here commenceth the diatribe. The pencil-necked geeks that run Twitter, the public school monopoly, the academy, etc. know as much about real history, real men’s motivations, etc. as they do about fornication.

For decades they only taught Marxist catch-phrases, irrelevant political tirades, liberal gibberish, and propaganda that America is all and only evil, not real culture or History. No wonder we have the youth we have: illiterate, miseducated, misinformed, and socialist. They won’t or can’t read, or cannot deductively reason and understand documents like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Word of God, the things that our nation is structured upon and founded upon; and in that way, then, the elite can do what they want with the useful idiots.

Stop me!

Mary De Voe
Friday, November 30, AD 2018 8:45pm

Abraham Lincoln’s statement must be taken as a whole thought, not to be taken out of context, the end of which is: “and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” I have no comment on individuals who would deprive a man of his virtue.

Erwin
Erwin
Saturday, December 1, AD 2018 6:12pm

The anonymous author of these “Civil War Myth Busters” is very careful to avoid any mention of the Early American conviction that THESE (emphasis added) United States constituted a Union of Sovereign Countries and he denigrates the idea of Secession which was accepted as a valid possibility even in Northern States during the pre-Civil War years. To a railroad lawyer like Abraham Lincoln and his employers the idea of Secession was anathema, whatever their individual attitudes towards Slavery might have been.

The author also belittles economic drivers, such as Tariffs and Industrialization, in the run-up to the Civil War which is incomplete history at its worst telling. Sadly, the Modern American Mindset considers Race and Slavery the great drivers of American History, and this anonymous Myth Buster is part of that problem.

Erwin
Erwin
Saturday, December 1, AD 2018 8:11pm

The right of Secession was indeed hotly contested prior to the Civil War even by slave owning Presidents, and here is a link to a modern discussion of the subject that is very interesting.

Cato
Admin
Monday, December 3, AD 2018 7:24am

Erwin:

I’m willing to hear any evidence you may have to offer that tariffs were a major driver of political contention in the run-up to the Civil War.

-Paul

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, December 3, AD 2018 8:32am

Many issues contributed to the hysteria/illogic/irrationality on both sides which resulted in secession and civil war.

I agree with Erwin re: tariffs – more likely intersectional cultural, economic and political divergences. Here is a list of antebellum US tariffs: of 1789; of 1816; of 1824; of 1832; of 1841; of 1842; of 1857.

In the1860 election, the Republicans were for everything a non-southerner could want; including northern manufacturers by retaining the protective tariffs. “The leaders of the South regarded secession as a golden opportunity to cast aside their generations of ‘vassalage’ to the North.” See page 408 and 415, The American Pageant, A History of the Republic, Thomas A. Bailey, D.C. Heath & Co., Boston, 1961. An AP HS text book from the 1960’s.

Most of the antebellum 1800’s were decades of increasing intersectional divergence. The south developed “King Cotton,” an agrarian/plantation, cash-rich [huge income inequality] economy based on expanding world-wide (mainly Great Britain) demand for cotton and “free” labor – slavery. While the north, e.g., New England, grew with industrial development [huge income inequality]. The west developed agriculture and raw materials. Federal tariffs made northern products price-competitive with mainly-British imports.

For decades, the Federal government used tariffs to foster the growth of northern industries. Most tariffs were paid in the south and its international trade – cotton. Ergo, the south’s cash-rich economy indirectly financed the economic/industrial growth/development/strength of the north (and abolitionist plutocrats) which ultimately resulted in its military defeat in the Civil War.

My family were NYC Democrats until JFK. Their stance on the CW was that it was part of a larger plot to bring up north freed men to cut wages or take their jobs. Contributing factors to NYC “copperheadism” were the finance and shipping interests which were closely tied to the south and its cotton trade.

In conclusion, the horror of slavery was a main cause of the CW. In addition to rank racism, the evil of slavery was an integral part of an economic system.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top