Dissing History

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I just can't understand why this wasn't beaten to death beginning in 1866 like it is today. Even on this site a day without Causes is like a day without sunshine, it's the go-to ace in the hole. So why the disinterest and/or lack of curiosity for 130 years?

First, we need to establish that the Declarations were lost or forgotten by Northern historians. I suspect it's more accurate to say they were mentioned in alot of books that few people read. But to find out for certain we need to do a historiographic study, finding the books and seeing what they actually say.

Potter's Impending Crisis came out in the 1970s and reading that book makes it very clear slavery was The Cause of the war. I think that was when I first learned of the Declarations.

So assuming they weren't forgotten by experts, why we're they forgotten by the public? Why didn't experts change public perception?

Even today experts are often ignored. Look at a number of science issues that have a massive majority opinion among scientists yet alot of disagreement among the public.

I repeat my comments from a previous thread about the most influential historians. Birth of a Nation and Gone With The Wind influenced far more people's perceptions of the war than any professional historian. Some Hollywood westerns too.

Then look at American attitudes. For a long time the emphasis was on reconciliation. The glory, honor, bravery, and/or tragedy of the war. The causes weren't so important to most people.

Americans love to romanticize everything. The Lost Cause is the perfect American story: virtuous underdog rebels try to leave peacefully due to mistreatment, are forced to fight evil invaders that hopelessly outnumber them. People want to believe it. They don't want the truth to get in the way of a good story.

Think about all the bunk people "know" about famous individuals like Christopher Columbus and George Washington because of shoddy biographies written by popular writers like Washington Irving. Myths often get more mileage than facts.

Let's also consider how much more popular the Civil War is as a topic since the late 1980s. Digitization, computer cataloging, and the Internet help alot, but really it was Glory, Ken Burns, Gettysburg, and James McPherson winning a Pulitzer (in that order) in a short span of time that made the Civil War a more popular topic than it had been since probably 1865.

 

[WJC]

I'm likely as old as you if not older and for the life of me can't remember any discussion of causes prior to about 20 years ago. Could be memory loss.

Did professional historians know how to access documents in library reference sections?

I just can't understand why this wasn't beaten to death beginning in 1866 like it is today. Even on this site a day without Causes is like a day without sunshine, it's the go-to ace in the hole. So why the disinterest and/or lack of curiosity for 130 years?

But it was certainly well known and, as you say, "beaten to death" in 1866. The records are quite clear, particularly as Congress considered Reconstruction legislation.
As to being rediscovered, perhaps it was a matter of where one lived or was educated. I have seen slavery as the cause of the mentioned in my family's circa 1900 school books. And statues and other memorials dedicated to Lincoln as the man who 'freed the slaves' can be found in many communities.
Perhaps it was not so much that slavery as the cause of the Civil Was was forgotten as it was the emergence of so much revisionist history based on the Lost Cause. These narratives, for a long time, pushed the unpleasant truth to the background.

 

[WJC]

The South fought because they were invaded. And many who were opposed to secession or fence-sitters became ardent supporters of Southern independence.

In the end, all the seceding states made it perfectly clear that their decisions to secede were based on a proud committment to preserve and expand slavery. One need only read the various ordinances, speeches and newspaper reports to establish that fact.
One can argue that the last states to secede did so because of the clear threat of open war and their decision to join their fellow slaveholders in that conflict.
But those states who seceded early on clearly did so without concern of any military consequences. Even though they had been seizing federal installations at gunpoint, they seemed never to have considered there would be any repercussions.

 

[Andersonh1]

It wasn't the sole reason for the Civil War.

Correct. I'm glad someone sees it!

 

[1NCCAV]

In my view, ALL Confederates soldiers fought for slavery, whether they wanted to or not and they knew it……

…..They couldn't help it and we can't help acknowledging that fact.

In effect, yes.

An individual's service in the Confederate Army had the practical effect of fighting to keep slavery even if in his own mind he was not "fighting for slavery." And few were. Individual motivations for fighting usually had something to do with a belief in state's rights, or what they perceived as northern aggression, or local loyalty (as my state goes, so go I), etc.

Sometimes an individual's reason for fighting was likely reasoned out and arrived at with great inner turmoil and sometimes it was likely a young man caught up in the emotion of the moment. But it usually was not "for slavery," even though it served that cause for practical purposes.

From 1984 - 1988 I served the Reagan Administration's foreign policy while stationed at Ft Bragg, North Carolina and Vicenza, Italy. I did not think of it as serving an administration's foreign policy but I suppose you could say that was what it was for practical purposes. That was not what I was serving for but that's what my service went toward.

 

[WJC]

Too be honest I have not read every line....but I have enough to read other issues that were written in them. They really get boring reading them after awhile.

Actually, just scan the first paragraphs for the reason they give. In every case, though they may couch it in different terms ("way of life", "State's Rights", ....), It is slavery. They were in no way apologetic: they were proud of it. They honestly believed- or conveniently convinced themselves- that the 'peculiar institution' was the best possible way of life for their 'inferiors'.

 

[unionblue]

In effect, yes.

An individual's service in the Confederate Army had the practical effect of fighting to keep slavery even if in his own mind he was not "fighting for slavery." And few were. Individual motivations for fighting usually had something to do with a belief in state's rights, or what they perceived as northern aggression, or local loyalty (as my state goes, so go I), etc.

Sometimes an individual's reason for fighting was likely reasoned out and arrived at with great inner turmoil and sometimes it was likely a young man caught up in the emotion of the moment. But it usually was not "for slavery," even though it served that cause for practical purposes.

From 1984 - 1988 I served the Reagan Administration's foreign policy while stationed at Ft Bragg, North Carolina and Vicenza, Italy. I did not think of it as serving an administration's foreign policy but I suppose you could say that was what it was for practical purposes. That was not what I was serving for but that's what my service went toward.

1NCCAV,

Exactly.

I served from 1971 to 1991, enlisting at the tail end of the Vietnam War. I enlisted because I felt I owed something to the country that had sheltered and protected me while growing up. I thought that someone had to "man the line" sort of speak, to convince other nations hostile to us that it wasn't worth attacking us because we had just enough in the way of manpower.

Over my years of service, I thought long and hard why I continued to serve, why I made the military my profession and way of life. I got that answer every time I went back to the states on leave. It was worth defending.

But there were times I did not agree with our government's foreign policy or it's actions to enforce that policy. But, as I have said many times before, my C.O. never called the troops into the company dayroom and asked how his soldiers would vote on deploying or fighting a declared enemy of the United States. We were tools in the government box, ready to be opened and employed as such by our government. I could live with that because I felt if our government ever went too far or was wrong, the people would come to realize it and vote another government in to show their displeasure.

We "serve," not debate or vote. We served and we were proud to do so.

Thanks for your thoughtful post on the matter.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[WJC]

As a professional U.S. historian (though the Civil War is admittedly not my specialty) I don't have a problem with the above statement. But . . . I would say that slavery was the most vital cause of the Civil War and, also, that most if not all the other causes relate back to slavery either directly or indirectly. There's no avoiding it.
I would also add that rarely if ever in history (and I mean world history, not merely US history) do important events have single causes. But some causes are more important than others.

Phenomena may have many causes. If one is going to understand them, one must seperate the vital few from the trivial many. When one does this with antebellum regionalism, particularly just before secession, the analysis clearly shows that the root cause is slavery.
Nothing else comes close.

 

[Jimklag]

You won't like my answer, NO.
It wasn't the sole reason for the Civil War.

Yes. It was. The one, the only reason. Take it away, no secession no war. That means yes, it was. There is precisely zero doubt of that.

 

[Jimklag]

Correct. I'm glad someone sees it!

Here is a direct quote frome the very first sentence of the Mississippi declaration of causes.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. . .

 

[Jimklag]

Here is a direct quote frome the very first sentence of the Mississippi declaration of causes.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. . .

SOUTH CAROLINA

The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery."

 

[jgoodguy]

Correct. I'm glad someone sees it!

I've always blamed it on Jeff Davis and his painful eye affliction.

 

[atlantis]

Would there have been a war if fort Sumter was not fired on?

 

[Jimklag]

SOUTH CAROLINA

The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery."

TEXAS

The northern states "demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

 

[Jimklag]

Would there have been a war if fort Sumter was not fired on?

Fort Sumter being fired on was war.

 

[major bill]

As a professional U.S. historian (though the Civil War is admittedly not my specialty) I don't have a problem with the above statement. But . . . I would say that slavery was the most vital cause of the Civil War and, also, that most if not all the other causes relate back to slavery either directly or indirectly. There's no avoiding it.

I would also add that rarely if ever in history (and I mean world history, not merely US history) do important events have single causes. But some causes are more important than others.

I might be straying into a modern discussion but has the United States ever fought a war for a single reason? So all American wars had many causes. So just because slavery was not the only cause for the war, but saying slavery caused the war is not incorrect. For example my father volunteered to fought in World War Two because he was tied of his current job. But saying World War Two was caused by workers being tired of their jobs would be stretching the truth. He volunteered for the Invasion of the Philippines because he was tired of putting fuel in Navy planes in Detroit. I suppose I can say the Invasion of the Philippines was over sailors getting tired of their jobs.

 

[atlantis]

Fort Sumter being fired on was war.

One force firing on another does not always lead to war, while I think it was stupid to fire on Sumter I concede it could have produced direct talks between Montgomery and Washington . It depended on the character of the president in DC and few knew what kind of man Lincoln was prior to the firing on Sumter.

 

[Jimklag]

One force firing on another does not always lead to war, while I think it was stupid to fire on Sumter I concede it could have produced direct talks between Montgomery and Washington . It depended on the character of the president in DC and few knew what kind of man Lincoln was prior to the firing on Sumter.

But it is, comprehensively, an act of war.

 

[unionblue]

Would there have been a war if fort Sumter was not fired on?

One force firing on another does not always lead to war, while I think it was stupid to fire on Sumter I concede it could have produced direct talks between Montgomery and Washington . It depended on the character of the president in DC and few knew what kind of man Lincoln was prior to the firing on Sumter.

Perhaps, maybe, might have been, could have been different, if only, I wish I may, I wish I might, etc., etc.

History is a record of what happened.

Fairy tales fall under all the words and phrases I list at the start of this post.

 

[atlantis]

Fort Sumter being fired on was war.

One force firing on another does not always lead to war, while I think it was stupid to fire on Sumter I concede it could have produced direct talks between Montgomery and Washington . It depended on the character of the president in DC and few knew what kind of man Lincoln was prior to the firing on Sumter.

Perhaps, maybe, might have been, could have been different, if only, I wish I may, I wish I might, etc., etc.

History is a record of what happened.

Fairy tales fall under all the words and phrases I list at the start of this post.

UB, history is whatever the powers that be, say it is.