Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wild_Rose Dickens probably did believe the war was about money. The fact that he detested slavery doesn't mean he had to believe the war was over slavery, particularly in view of the fact that Lincoln insisted that it wasn't. |
People "believe" all sorts of things, for many reasons. I am fairly certain Dickens believed what he was saying; I am also fairly certain he was wrong in his belief that the war was about money.
Dickens believed that Americans were what might be described as uncouth, prone to violence, and not to be trusted. He said so often throughout the 1840s and 1850s. There was a substantially heated debate about it through the years: you'll notice that he himself refers to it in the introductions to various editions of
American Notes.
In addition, Mr. Dickens was a strong supporter of International Copyrights, a major literary/business issue of the day. US publishers were opposed to it. Essentially, this meant they wanted to publish his work without paying for it, and he darned well wanted to be paid for his work. This isn't surprising, because he was the biggest selling author in the world, and so losing the most money to these pirated editions.
Among other things, we should suspect that this colored Mr. Dickens' impressions of Americans: he had dealings them about money, and he felt they were ripping him off. In particular, he would have felt this way about Northerners, because the publishing industry was essentially a Northern one, probably New York-Philadelphia-Boston at a guess. For his feelings about slaveholders, I refer you to the chapter in his work I provided the URL for earlier.
I've never seen the entire text of the anonymous December 1861 article that everyone attributes to Dickens. I would guess it either was him, or a view he endorsed, since he edited the magazine and it is similar to a private letter he did write. All I ever see is the sentence or two out of it everyone attributes to Dickens. Knowing the above about Dickens and seeing the quote, my reaction would be: "Here is a man who has angry financial dealings with Americans, and he attributes money-grubbing to everything they do as a result."
I say that because I can see no support for what he says. I know far more about the war than he did in a documentary sense -- no praise for me, we just live in a world where the information is easily available, and he didn't. If there is support in the article for what he says, I'd be interested in seeing it because I'd like to see the entire argument, and
because I would like to know if he was accurate in his conclusion.
BTW, I don't think, nor have I ever said, that the North went to war over slavery. Only a few extremists -- and I do mean very, very few -- in the Northern states would have done that in 1861. The North went to war because the secessionists of the South determined to dissolve the Union and assault the United States.
I do think the South did go to war over slavery -- or rather, that they seceded over slavery, and then went to war over secession. There is no other issue that rises to the level of justifying secession -- or, when you examine it, you will notice that slavery is at the bottom of the divide on an issue people claim is something else.
My own belief is that if the South had acted as responsible citizens, using the legislative and legal options easily available to them, there would have been no war in 1861, and that quite possibly (30-50%) they would have been allowed to leave peacefully after negotiating terms.
Regards,
Tim
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
, lowers his value as an accurate reporter on the American Civil War. He may have said the war was about money simply because Americans refused to give him what he considered his just dues, thus forever coloring his views of money-grubbing Americans.
Linear Mode
