Op-ed: 'Unnecessary but transformational'

Glorybound

Major
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Location
Indiana
forbes_logo_small.gif


7321-FCOM-HP-leaderboard-4.jpg


Expired Image Removed
Doug Bandow, Contributor
I write about domestic and international policy.

Op/Ed

|

9/19/2011 @ 3:43PM |1,297 views

America's Civil War: Unnecessary But Transformational
Expired Image Removed
One hundred and fifty years ago the young American nation suffered its greatest failure. "The political system could not contain the passions stoked by the infusion of evangelical Christianity into the political process," argues University of North Carolina historian David Goldfield. Americans collectively jumped into the abyss of bloody, destructive civil war.

Much blood was shed, especially at this time of the year. The single costliest day in American military history was Sept. 17, when the Army of Northern Virginia and Army of the Potomac met in battle near the town of Sharpsburg along Antietam Creek.

By the time night fell around 26,000 men had been killed, wounded, or captured. The fight was a stalemate, though Robert E. Lee later retreated, ending his invasion of Maryland. On no other day in no other war have so many Americans suffered in combat.

A year later, on Sept. 19, began the two-day battle along Chickamauga Creek between the Confederate Army of Tennessee and the Union Army of the Cumberland. In one of the rare clashes where the South held a numerical advantage, the Northerners were driven from the field, though the Confederates failed to effectively follow up their advantage. Around 35,000 men became casualties or captives.


Deaths accumulated in many other battles, big and small. After four years 620,000 people had been killed, enormous wealth had been destroyed, and southern states had been ravaged. America was on its way to becoming a modern nation state closer to the strong, centralized European model, a dubious achievement. The war's one serious benefit — the freeing of 4 million slaves — was inadvertent, beginning as an incidental war measure.

The tale of American disunion is familiar to anyone conversant in U.S. history. However, in his new history America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation (Bloomsbury Press), Goldfield writes more as a novelist than an academic, making the familiar engaging.

There were many fractures in the young republic, but slavery took center stage as the sectional gap grew. The North was determined to turn slavery into a contained regional institution. The South insisted on preserving slavery as a protected national system. Both sides fought over the symbolic and the abstract.

Were these differences worth mass death and destruction?

There would have been no war if either side understood the bloody deluge to come. No one imagined battlefields covered with bloated corpses, hospitals with mounds of amputated limbs and rows of suffering wounded, newspapers filled with casualty lists, and families and communities with forever absent young men.

Was the conflict necessary to end slavery? Writes Goldfield: "there may have been other means to achieve that noble end. In fact, the United States was the only country to require a civil war in order to abolish slavery." In every other nation except Haiti slavery was eliminated peacefully.
Why, then, civil war? Goldfield looks beyond the conventional wisdom. For instance, he points to evangelical Christianity in stoking America's political fires. He explains: "The elevation of political issues into moral causes poisoned the democratic process. Just as evangelicals did not distinguish between the Catholic Church and Catholic immigrants, so they did not separate the sin of slavery from the slaveholder. In a crusade, the enemy is the infidel, and eventually both sides viewed the other as apostates to God and the constitution."

Of course, other factors also radicalized the political debate. But evangelical Christians split along sectional lines, many giving their loyalty to politics before the Gospel.

Goldfield writes: "Americans were also children of the Second Great Awakening. They had grown up believing in an omnipresent God who touched their lives and guided their countries' destiny. He would take sides in the coming battle. In protecting the Revolutionary ideals, northerners would preserve God's plan to extend democracy and Christianity across an unbroken continent and around the world. Southerners welcomed a war to create a nation more perfect in its fealty to God than the one they left."

America was transformed, but not in the way either side expected. Slavery was abolished, but "Redemption," which followed "Reconstruction," forced the Freedmen into something akin to servitude. There was only a brief interruption in ****. It took a genuine social and political revolution nearly a century later to free the descendants of the slaves.

More enduring was America's transformation into a modern centralized state. Pre-war Washington was little more than a post office, argues Goldfield. In contrast, "By the end of the Civil War, the government supported an army of a million men, carried a national debt of $2.5 billion, distributed public lands, printed a national currency, and collected an array of internal taxes. This transformation in national power was not the 'new birth of freedom' Lincoln envisioned at Gettysburg, but it overshadowed the liberation of four million slaves in terms of its long-range impact on all Americans."

Finally, the public role of religion, especially evangelical Christianity, changed. As the war ended "Sentiment was out; reality was in," Goldfield writes. Hundreds of thousands of dead will do that to people.

Looking back some Americans blamed the sentimentalism of evangelicalism for the conflict. "White Americans would not make the same mistake again. They would not allow a cloying, feminine Christianity, tugging at the heartstrings, to lure young men to their graves for a cause not grounded in reason," Goldfield writes. In fact, this transformation was less enduring than the rise of the centralized state—eventually evangelicals reemerged politically, even pushing for costly wars abroad. Nevertheless, the Civil War changed America's religious as well as political and economic landscape.

The Civil War ended 146 years ago, but the "battle of memory" continues. Ever fewer Americans, even in the South, fixate on the conflict's meaning for America, but important disagreements persist. In America Aflame David Goldfield offers a wonderful portrait of a nation scarred yet transformed by a war that in retrospect seems as unnecessary as it was destructive.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban...s-civil-war-unnecessary-but-transformational/
Expired Image Removed
 
Me neither, but it is aninteresting concept.... look at the religious denominations that split... Methodists, Baptists and others split along sectional lines and away from fellow adherents to the denomination
Presbyterians also. The southern and northern churches didn't get reunited until the 1970's and it was a big contentious deal, a lot of it centering who would own church property. Many of the southern churches opted out,becoming part of the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The northern church and it's southern converts remained the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (PCUS).
 
Obviously, Goldfield could just as easily have blamed the war on the South being mostly 'Celtic' and the North mostly 'Anglo-Saxon' as far as having any real relevence to the historical Civil War.
 
I attended a lecture given by Prof Goldfield on his book. In the Q&A that followed, I asked: "Let's say we take the religious zealots out of the equation. Given the disputes over the expansion of slavery into the territories, the anger toward and distrust of the Slave Power (the 1860 version of the 1%), and other sectional conflicts, wouldn't the slave states have still felt a need to secede when Lincoln was elected? And also - isn't it true that the religious extremists were only small portion of the country, and thus, not that powerful in the overall debate?"

It's been a while since the lecture, but I recall a couple of points made by Goldfield. He said that although the religious abolitionists were small in number, they were the loudest and most shrill; and thus captured more attention than their numbers would indicate. Also, the abolitionists, according to Goldfield, had an influence on Republicans that was greater than their numbers (although I don't know if this point is made in his book). {Although Goldfield did not say this, this "influence" might cause the Republicans to use rhetoric that appealed to abolitionists, even as such appeals were seen by many white southerners as pandering to extremists.}

There is some evidence to support this view: if you read the comments of the secessionists in late 1860/early 1861, there are many references to the Republicans as "the abolitionist party" and the "Black Republicans" (ie, pro-black Republicans). It seems many white Southerners were convinced that the Republicans were a pro-abolition party, although that is not how Republicans fashioned themselves. Or more correctly: Republicans were perceived as an abolitionist party, based on the harsh rhetoric of the party's smallish number of true abolitionists.
****

A lot of folks on this board are what some would call "economic determinists" - people who believe that all human action can be traced in some way or another to the pursuit of some economic interest. Thus, the Civil War was about "money" or "power" (which is used to get to get the most money). But in response to the idea of economic determinism, many scholars make the point that intellectual and religious movements do make a difference: ideas do have power, and changes in ideas or clashes of ideas can be a factor in causing war or other social upheavals.

It is true beyond any reasonable doubt that economic interests were a key factor in the Civil War. But it may also be true that religious ideas had some effect - if only to cause perceptions of things that were not true based on objective fact (such as secessionists believing that Republicans were more of a threat to slavery than they were).

- Alan
 
I have a hard time buying this argument. I will happily admit I have little knowledge about historical "evangelical Christianity", but my guess is ,to the extent evangelical Christians at that time became politically strident, it was as a result of the slavery issue (unlike today when perhaps you can point to issues such as abortion.) Was William lloyd Garrison and his readers/followers "evangelicals"? I don't know the answer to that but if so, why was he so involved in the political process? Why did he name his paper, The Liberator?
If you replace the phrase "evangelical Christianity" in the article's second sentence with, "slavery" in my opinion you have a much more historically correct thesis.
I also take exception to his comment that only in this US was a war needed to eliminate slavery. I can't pretend to know every country's history but few countries, if any, at that time had our political model, ie, a democratically elected govt with both a federal and state system, so it's impossible to compare apples to apples. Besides, Russia had serfs who were nothing more then slaves and if I am not mistaken ,that wasn't eliminated until the Russians revolted. Not as bloody as our war perhaps but a revolution nevertheless.
 
A lot of folks on this board are what some would call "economic determinists" - people who believe that all human action can be traced in some way or another to the pursuit of some economic interest. Thus, the Civil War was about "money" or "power" (which is used to get to get the most money). But in response to the idea of economic determinism, many scholars make the point that intellectual and religious forces do make a difference: ideas do have power, and changes in ideas or clashes of ideas can be a factor in causing war or other social upheavals.

It is true beyond any reasonable doubt that economic interests were a key factor in the Civil War. But it may also be true that religious ideas had some effect - if only to cause perceptions of things that were not true based on objective fact (such as secessionists believing that Republicans were more of a threat to slavery than they were).

- Alan

We're a much more secular country today and so it's difficult to calculate the impact religious fervor had on both sides of the slavery question. But even now we see evangelical religion's demands on the right and 'secular' religion on the left forcing issues that are important to them. To simulate 1860 multiply that passion by several orders of magnitude to simulate 1860 and imagine what happens.
 
The main reason the Republican Party was referred to by the secessionists in late 1860/early 1861 as the abolitionist party and black republicans, was because that was what they wanted the public(especially the southern) mind to be fixated on going into the national elections as descriptive of that party and its policies and after the results of that election as justification for their goal of secession.
Lincoln refused after his election to expand upon what his intentions and policies were to be as President, other than what he had already said before and during the campaign because experience had raised his suspicion that he was being deliberately misrepresented and his words misquoted, precisely in order to excite a crisis to serve the ends of secession.
 
I have seen this particular book before and it appears to be very interesting. Historians have been discussing the reasons for the Civil War for well over a century. These discussions will probably continue for the next century also. I don't see historians reaching a consensus on this issue in the near future.
 
Never seen the war blamed on religion before.

I mentioned earlier that I attended a lecture given by Prof Goldfield. He agrees with the basic idea of "no slavery, no war."

But his arguments recall a point made, I think, by Edward Ayers. Ayers asked something to the effect of, even if we all agree that slavery was the cause of the war, that leaves a question unanswered: why was there war in 1861, and not in, say, 1820, or 1850, or 1857? What was it about 1861 that made war happen, versus not happening earlier? And how do we explain the extreme level of divisiveness between the sections in 1860/61?

A point made by Goldfield is that northern extremism, in the form of abolitionist religious zealots (my term, not his), helped to create an environment in which the planter elite believed that the Republican Party was a threat to destroy slavery and establish racial equality. Given that environment, those planters felt they had no choice but to secede from the Union.

- Alan
 
I have seen this particular book before and it appears to be very interesting. Historians have been discussing the reasons for the Civil War for well over a century. These discussions will probably continue for the next century also. I don't see historians reaching a consensus on this issue in the near future.
But did you read it?
 
The reason the war happened in 1860/1861 and not in 1820, 1850 etc., was because, historically, few revolutions happen spontaneously, they usually result from conspiracy(usually over a period of quite some time) and commitment by a dedicated cadre of revolutionaries, ready, willing and able to carry that commitment to fruition.
 
But did you read it?

Unfortunately, I was only able to skim over the book. Since last year, there has been a proliferation of new books about the Civil War because of the sesquicentennial and I simply don't have time to read everyone of them. Historians views on the reason for the Civil War have evolved over the decades. I think this trend will continue in the future.
 
I mentioned earlier that I attended a lecture given by Prof Goldfield. He agrees with the basic idea of "no slavery, no war."

But his arguments recall a point made, I think, by Edward Ayers. Ayers asked something to the effect of, even if we all agree that slavery was the cause of the war, that leaves a question unanswered: why was there war in 1861, and not in, say, 1820, or 1850, or 1857? What was it about 1861 that made war happen, versus not happening earlier? And how do we explain the extreme level of divisiveness between the sections in 1860/61?

A point made by Goldfield is that northern extremism, in the form of abolitionist religious zealots (my term, not his), helped to create an environment in which the planter elite believed that the Republican Party was a threat to destroy slavery and establish racial equality. Given that environment, those planters felt they had no choice but to secede from the Union.

- Alan

That's a good point and well presented.
 
I have seen this particular book before and it appears to be very interesting. Historians have been discussing the reasons for the Civil War for well over a century. These discussions will probably continue for the next century also. I don't see historians reaching a consensus on this issue in the near future.

Actually, most historians have reached a consensus that slavery was at the core of the Civil War. Another poster has posted an article from a historian that pretty much states that.

R
 
To me, it is questionable that in historical terms the War was unnecessary or that it was transformational, in any significant way. That in fact, if there was a transformational issue, it was not really the war, but the nationalization of the issue of the future of slavery in the United States.


P.S. The war did not transform the nation or its gov't. It merely sped up a process that was already in progress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ole
To me, it is questionable that in historical terms the War was unnecessary or that it was transformational, in any significant way. That in fact, if there was a transformational issue, it was not really the war, but the nationalization of the issue of the future of slavery in the United States.


P.S. The war did not transform the nation or its gov't. It merely sped up a process that was already in progress.

I think you can look back at any war and say, in historical terms, it was not truly necessary. One side or the other can always give up its demands, sue for peace, etc.
But, for this country, the CW was THE transformational moment in our history, after the Revolution. Its cliche, but true.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top