The Civil War and Reconstruction - 1865-1890 - with Eric Foner Part 3 Video Reconstruction150

Of course it was. People who advocate for the southern rebellion believe that America should have just allowed the rebels to leave. That no one in the north fought for any higher principle than to keep the economic engine of the south as part of America. And if anyone actually fought for America or to free the slaves they were a very small minority.

They believe that keeping this great country from dissolving into a bunch of squabbling, warring, nation-states (because no democracy or republic could long exist if a minority can just break away because they don’t like the results of an election, and have no mistake if the south would have just been allowed to go that is the precedent that would be set) and freeing over 4.2 million enslaved people was not worth the loss of 700,000 lives.

I, on the other hand, believe the exact opposite.

Whig view of History.

It is often said if the South had won the Civil War, Germany would of won WWII. Guess Lincoln was looking to the future?

Some believe the actual History has relevance. People argue Narrative and the History escapes out the back door!
 
They [anti-secessionists] believe that keeping this great country from dissolving into a bunch of squabbling, warring, nation-states (because no democracy or republic could long exist if a minority can just break away because they don’t like the results of an election, and have no mistake if the south would have just been allowed to go that is the precedent that would be set) and freeing over 4.2 million enslaved people was not worth the loss of 700,000 lives.

I, on the other hand, believe the exact opposite.

1. On the other hand, the break-up of the Soviet Republic did not result in the 13 constituents devolving into a "bunch of squabbling, warring, nation-states."

2. The North did not go to war to end slavery. During the secession crisis in January and February of 1861 before the shooting started, at least ten "free" states adopted joint legislative resolutions stating their objections to Southern secession. Not one mentioned any desire to end slavery.
 
Last edited:
1. On the other hand, the break-up of the Soviet Republic did not result in the 13 constituents devolving into a "bunch of squabbling, warring, nation-states."

2. The North did not go to war to end slavery. During the secession crisis in January and February of 1861 before the shooting started, at least ten "free" states adopted joint legislative resolutions stating their objections to Southern secession. Not one mentioned any desire to end slavery.
1)Yes, we are all aware of the peace and prosperity that the former Soviet bloc countries have enjoyed since the fall of the Soviet Union. We only have to look at Bosnia-Herzegovina and currently the Ukraine to see this peace. I’m sure that a break up of America in the 1800s would have been just as peaceful.

2)Your right that ten states did formally protest the rebels claim that they had a right to secede. And, if memory serves me right, not one state claimed that they opposed secession because of monetary reason. They claimed, and rightfully so, that there was no constitutional right to unilaterally secede. They also pledged men and materials to suppress the rebellion. Why did they do this? Because they believed that America was worth fighting for.

You also missed the point of my statement. I said that some people fought to free the slaves. Not that this was the government’s goal at the beginning. There were many abolitionist that answered the call, mostly from Massachusetts, for volunteers.

I see no reason why anyone would consider it a “mystery” why America didn’t just let the southern state’s go. Andrew Jackson laid out the reason why America could not just let a state go thirty years earlier;

“The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation.
 
As I progress through the Civil War class lectures that Professor Eric Foner has posted at YouTube I continue to find errors and a persistent, dismissal of Confederate viewpoints. In today’s example Dr. Foner summarizes developments involving the Olustee battlefield. He summarizes a January 16, 2014 article in The New York Times as follows:

The New York Times in the last few days has had four articles directly related to the Civil War. One . . . was a controversy over erecting a monument to Union soldiers . . . at “Ogletree,” Florida, which was the site of a Civil War battle. There’s a state park there that now only has monuments to Confederate soldiers . . . and the state wants to put up a monument to the Union soldiers and a lot of people don’t want that in “Ogletree.”​

There are numerous errors in Foner's summary including some that contradict the very newspaper article he cited.

First, the name of the battle and state park is Olustee, not “Ogletree.” Given Dr. Foner’s special interest in black Union soldiers it's odd that he did not get the name correct since blacks composed a significant part of the Union army at Olustee. Among them was the 54th Massachusetts regiment, which became famous after the motion picture, Glory.

on-salute-at-memorial_595_fpan-logo-white-outlined.jpg


Second, in 1991 a memorial to Union soldiers was erected in a nearby cemetery. The photo above shows federal re-enactors honoring the monument in 2011. It is, to be sure, not located on the grounds that contain the Confederate monument.

Third, the principal objection to the a new monument has been to plans that it be placed on grounds donated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy for the Confederate Monument that was erected over a century ago. Plenty of other land is available within the battlefield park for a new Union monument. In fact, the Rebel monument is in back of the visitor’s center, which leaves the front side available for a new monument to Union troops.
 
Last edited:
As I progress through the Civil War class lectures that Professor Eric Foner has posted at YouTube I continue to find errors and a persistent, dismissal of Confederate viewpoints. In today’s example Dr. Foner summarizes developments involving the Olustee battlefield. He summarizes a January 16, 2014 article in The New York Times as follows:

The New York Times in the last few days has had four articles directly related to the Civil War. One . . . was a controversy over erecting a monument to Union soldiers . . . at “Ogletree,” Florida, which was the site of a Civil War battle. There’s a state park there that now only has monuments to Confederate soldiers . . . and the state wants to put up a monument to the Union soldiers and a lot of people don’t want that in “Ogletree.”​

There are numerous errors in Foner's summary including some that contradict the very newspaper article he cited.

First, the name of the battle and state park is Olustee, not “Ogletree.” Given Dr. Foner’s special interest in black Union soldiers it's odd that he did not get the name correct since blacks composed a significant part of the Union army at Olustee. Among them was the 54th Massachusetts regiment, which became famous after the motion picture, Glory.

View attachment 355489

Second, in 1991 a memorial to Union soldiers was erected in a nearby cemetery. The photo above shows federal re-enactors honoring the monument in 2011. It is, to be sure, not located on the grounds that contain the Confederate monument.

Third, the principal objection to the a new monument has been to plans that it be placed on grounds donated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy for the Confederate Monument that was erected over a century ago. Plenty of other land is available within the battlefield park for a new Union monument. In fact, the Rebel monument is in back of the visitor’s center, which leaves the front side available for a new monument to Union troops.

It was the way in which the proposed Union monument was decried by the SCV at the time, as though these Americans who died for the Union were somehow STILL to be considered foreign invaders and worse.

"Hertitage, not Hate" is often used as a cover for "Our History, Not Reality."
 
As I progress through the Civil War class lectures that Professor Eric Foner has posted at YouTube I continue to find errors and a persistent, dismissal of Confederate viewpoints. In today’s example Dr. Foner summarizes developments involving the Olustee battlefield. He summarizes a January 16, 2014 article in The New York Times as follows:

The New York Times in the last few days has had four articles directly related to the Civil War. One . . . was a controversy over erecting a monument to Union soldiers . . . at “Ogletree,” Florida, which was the site of a Civil War battle. There’s a state park there that now only has monuments to Confederate soldiers . . . and the state wants to put up a monument to the Union soldiers and a lot of people don’t want that in “Ogletree.”​

There are numerous errors in Foner's summary including some that contradict the very newspaper article he cited.

First, the name of the battle and state park is Olustee, not “Ogletree.” Given Dr. Foner’s special interest in black Union soldiers it's odd that he did not get the name correct since blacks composed a significant part of the Union army at Olustee.

Glad you pointed that out since now I question whether this whole Reconstruction thing happened at all. I think they staged it on a Hollywood sound stage. Grateful we have you, in evening wear, to point that out.

I am sure Eric Foner is the only professor to have mixed up a name during a 15 week course at a university.
 
Glad you pointed that out since now I question whether this whole Reconstruction thing happened at all. I think they staged it on a Hollywood sound stage. Grateful we have you, in evening wear, to point that out.

I am sure Eric Foner is the only professor to have mixed up a name during a 15 week course at a university.

Patrick!

Tsk, tsk!
 
1)Yes, we are all aware of the peace and prosperity that the former Soviet bloc countries have enjoyed since the fall of the Soviet Union. We only have to look at Bosnia-Herzegovina and currently the Ukraine to see this peace. I’m sure that a break up of America in the 1800s would have been just as peaceful.

There were some 13 republics in the USSR which broke up about 30 years ago. You are citing exceptions.

2)Your right that ten states did formally protest the rebels claim that they had a right to secede. And, if memory serves me right, not one state claimed that they opposed secession because of monetary reason. They claimed, and rightfully so, that there was no constitutional right to unilaterally secede. They also pledged men and materials to suppress the rebellion. Why did they do this? Because they believed that America was worth fighting for.

They commonly mentioned their desire to retain the "prosperity" and "security" provided by the federal union, but none mentioned an intent to abolish slavery.

You also missed the point of my statement. I said that some people fought to free the slaves. Not that this was the government’s goal at the beginning. There were many abolitionist that answered the call, mostly from Massachusetts, for volunteers.

Few went to war for that reason when the war started in 1861. Lincoln admitted that the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure adopted for is ability as an assist in ending the war.

I see no reason why anyone would consider it a “mystery” why America didn’t just let the southern state’s go.

As noted, Gary Gallagher states that his students, and even adult lecture audiences, often are incredulous at his claim that men would march off to war for the abstract notion of "Union" that few had thought much about before.

Andrew Jackson laid out the reason why America could not just let a state go thirty years earlier.


“The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which ale the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation.

As chief executive of the Federal Union, Jackson had a biased perspective. Whatever his opinion, it is merely an opinion of a man who is not legally the final arbiter. We have discussed this before. You are repeating old material. Here's a recent panel discussion about the legal status of secession at the University of Virginia that you may have not considered.

Other than that, take the last word, because I'm done.
 
Last edited:
There were some 13 republics in the USSR which broke up about 30 years ago. You are citing exceptions.



They commonly mentioned their desire to retain the "prosperity" and "security" provided by the federal union, but none mentioned an intent to abolish slavery.



Few went to war for that reason when the war started in 1861. Lincoln admitted that the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure adopted for is ability as an assist in ending the war.



As noted, Gary Gallagher states that his students, and even adult lecture audiences, often are incredulous at his claim that men would march off to war for the abstract notion of "Union" that few had thought much about before.



As chief executive of the Federal Union, Jackson had a biased perspective. Whatever his opinion, it is merely an opinion of a man who is not legally the final arbiter. We have discussed this before. You are repeating old material. Here's a recent panel discussion about the legal status of secession at the University of Virginia that you may have not considered.

Other than that, take the last word, because I'm done.

So, it was the North's fault!
 
Back
Top