The "False Cause?"

[Al Murray]

If so, it would actually make some sense that grade schoolers be sheltered from all the negativity until they're mature enough to put it into perspective.

I agree - but do they really have to be told how great Columbus was? His crimes are infamous and he was even jailed in his own time for them. So much for the "have to view him in his time" excuse. And do they have to be told a story about the "first Thanksgiving" that is silly and misleading, when the real story is so much more interesting?

There are no sides; there's just history.

That says it all!!!

 

[cash]

I like it union blue, but it makes the point that even Frederick Douglass stated that the north fought for freedom. So what was the north fighting for? We know what the history books say. What did a northerner fight for?

Was it a false cause in the end?

Point is..

Was there or is there a 'false cause' that kids are being taught today? Sounds like the average kid would think the war was fought to end slavery.

Sounds to me as though you had your mind made up before you asked the question.

 

[cash]

I think there's actually a book about how we don't understand just how powerful the cause of "union" could be for these northerners; that it didn't matter what they thought about slavery, they thought (they knew) they were genuinely fighting for their civilization. Same things for southerners but in reverse.

This was their country- and by god- they were not going to see it perish from this earth.

Yes, there is. It's by Gary Gallagher and is called The Union War. It's an outstanding book, as Professor Gallagher's books are wont to be.

 

[cash]

And chances are non of them were slaveholders

About 40% were.

 

[ForeverFree]

With all the talk about the "Lost Cause" and the an idea that the southern people didn't support the south's agenda - per say - Is it possible that the winners wrote a history that would make themselves look more saintly?

What I mean is, that if the south wrote using a "Lost Cause" mentality to make their soldiers look more chivalrous, ragged, whatever...

Is it possible that the "False Cause" was later introduced to suggest that "all" Northerners fought to end slavery... thus putting them on a pedestal in moral standing if nothing else?

Just a question.

Does the average person think that the Union Cause was to end slavery?

The Union does get credit for having an emancipation policy, and for the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery for good. But is the common belief, today, that the Union entered the war for the purpose of ending bondage? I am not sure that is the case.

- Alan

To answer the question in the first post: it is not clear to me that there is this pervasive belief that "all" northerners fought to end slavery, that is, that Northerners began the war with the goal of ending slavery. I can say for sure that this has never been my belief.

I think many people do feel that northerners were responsible for ending slavery. And there is much truth to that feeling, although surely black and white southerners and border staters deserve credit as well.

As I look back to my schooling many many many years ago, what I remember is that the Union began the war as a response to the attack at Ft Sumter. So, the cause of the war as I interpreted it from my teachers was that the Union went to arms after the Confederate secessionists fired the first shot. And as I have grown up, I don't recall any cultural references which said that abolitionism or even anti-slavery motivated northerners during the war. So, if there has been a "False Cause" "myth" out there, it passed right by me.

It is interesting to note that during the war, many northerners did see the emancipation proclamation as turning the war into a war to end slavery. This was not seen as the Union Cause, per se; it was more that, northerners understood that the fight would lead to the end of slavery. And many northerners didn't like that idea. But they came to accept it, and I think it is fair for them (northerners) to say that their service and sacrifice, whether they approved/liked it or not, did lead to the demise of slavery. But very few white northerners would say they signed-up for the reason of ending bondage.

- Alan

 

[ForeverFree]

I like it union blue, but it makes the point that even Frederick Douglass stated that the north fought for freedom. So what was the north fighting for? We know what the history books say. What did a northerner fight for?

Was it a false cause in the end?

Point is..

Was there or is there a 'false cause' that kids are being taught today? Sounds like the average kid would think the war was fought to end slavery.

RE: What did a northerner fight for?

Basically, northerners fought because their country asked or told them to do so. Which was true for Viet Nam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc. Soldiers fought out of duty to their country. Duty was sometimes, some would say, "coerced" via conscription.

If you asked northerners what the war was "about," many would say it was about preserving the Union against traitors whom they felt annulled an election they didn't like, and became a military, economic, and geo-political threat to the United States. This was not a universal feeling, but I think it represents how the majority of northerners viewed the war after the attack on Fort Sumter.

RE: Was there or is there a 'false cause' that kids are being taught today? Sounds like the average kid would think the war was fought to end slavery.

My experience is that the average "kid" today is apathetic and ignorant about the war. I think many kids have the idea that the war started because of slavery, and that the slavery was ended because of the war. I think many kids think the war started because the Confederates fired the first shot in SC. I don't see many kids who have an understanding of the complex geo-political forces that were the cause of the war.

Bottom line, I don't know if kids are being taught a false cause or not. I think it is a dubious claim. I do know that most kids and adults I meet have very limited knowledge of or interest in the Civil War, or much of American history. Note that, I don't feel this is the fault of history teachers or the education system, per se. There is but so much you can teach to children under the age of 18 about a subject which has been discussed in literally millions of pages of text. I wish every student could take an AP American History class before they graduate. But that's not going to happen.

- Alan

 

[gunny]

That seems like it would be a big improvement over the "Died for States Rights" that's inscribed in monuments around these parts. Such a statement from a child might be an incomplete truth, but MY teachers lied to me when they said "slavery had nothing to with it."

In my city we got marble folks on marble pedestals whose purpose in the war, as documented by their duly elected representatives at Texas' secession convention, was "maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." Seems odd to me for folks to be expected to accept this without complaint, and yet be critical that the folks who actually did end slavery get credit for it. Or to rely on kids in the street as the only documentation you can provide.

The commonality that the two sides had in relation to the war was the slavery issue. The priority for the south being states rights so that they could maintain slavery. If that right (in their mind) could be upheld by the Constitution and the Federal government they could have it their way.

The priority for the north was to maintain the Union. Later, to make the movement more righteous, ending slavery gave it a moral worth. Certainly, some in the north just said, awe let 'em go if they wanna go. But when liberties became an issue and human rights, it grabbed a whole new portion of the population.

I'm not saying the North's cause was False. I'm asking how people view it today. I shouldn't even ask it here, there are too many people with a strong interest in the War and its causes. But, I would venture to say that if you ask the average person what the north fought for, they would say to end slavery before they said to preserve the union. Or a variation of that question and answer might be, what was the Civil War fought over? I think most would respond - slavery. If they knew who won the war, they would assume that since there isn't slavery anymore, that the north fought to oppose it while the south fought to preserve it.

It doesn't matter that the answer is too simplistic. We all know that preserving the Union and the abolition of slavery was the right thing to do, but I would venture to say most people aren't clear to this day that the original reason for the U.S. government going to war was to preserve the Union.

Its like those TV shows where they ask the public general 3rd grade knowledge, and 80% of the people get it wrong.

 

[gunny]

My experience is that the average "kid" today is apathetic and ignorant about the war. I think many kids have the idea that the war started because of slavery, and that the slavery was ended because of the war. I think many kids think the war started because the Confederates fired the first shot in SC. I don't see many kids who have an understanding of the complex geo-political forces that were the cause of the war.

Bottom line, I don't know if kids are being taught a false cause or not. I think it is a dubious claim.

This is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not claiming it personally, but I think the perception could be that if kids think that - they either are not being taught anything or popular culture in one way or another has led them to believe that the north was good and the south was bad.

 

[Old_Glory]

What I mean is, that if the south wrote using a "Lost Cause" mentality to make their soldiers look more chivalrous, ragged, whatever...

Is it possible that the "False Cause" was later introduced to suggest that "all" Northerners fought to end slavery... thus putting them on a pedestal in moral standing if nothing else?

Just a question.

The question is not whether it exists, but why it exists. The answer can be found in the "Treasury of Virtue". Others have already posted about this. It is the false belief that the sins of racism and slavery of the North are forever forgiven because they freed the slaves. All blame must be shifted South for the mistreatment of the black race yesterday, today, and forever. It is nothing more than self righteous manure. The heart of the argument is that the Union North fought to free the slaves (which is nonsense) and the South fought for slavery (which is also nonsense). Slavery was merely a subset issue in both instances. It was present, but there were much weightier matters taking place.

These ideas are promoted by elite academia which makes things much more complicated. Modern, elite academia is obsessed with racism, and the Civil War falls prey to it just like anything else. People like James McPherson are the worst offenders of promoting this narrative. It's why so many people believe in it. He is a decorated historian after all. Historians never have a hidden agenda, right?

McPherson is notorious for dropping these ideas into his book prefaces, shamelessly, with sketchy evidence that is rarely balanced with a real contrasting viewpoint. His first page preface for Battle Cry of Freedom could be a bible for the Treasury of Virtue. But hey, he won a New York Pulitzer for it. He knew what he was doing. He gave em' what they wanted.

As long as popular historians and elite academia parade the glorious, moral, Republican and Liberty Parties in their works, people will eat it up like sheep. It's too boring for most people to try and figure it out for themselves.

 

[gunny]

Sounds to me as though you had your mind made up before you asked the question.

I have my ideas, but the question is to get other perceptions on the idea. If the war was fought to end slavery - there could be no greater cause. Bondage s**ks. I'm just not sure that younger people, excepting those that truly want to learn have a grasp regarding the reason's both sides fought.

Like Forever Free said (I believe), People go to war because their country ask them to. So, southern boys went because their governments called on them, and northern boys did likewise.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

"Cracker", I believe, had no class distinctions...

 

[gunny]

The question is not whether it exists, but why it exists. The answer can be found in the "Treasury of Virtue". Others have already posted about this. It is the false belief that the sins of racism and slavery of the North are forever forgiven because they freed the slaves. All blame must be shifted South for the mistreatment of the black race yesterday, today, and forever. It is nothing more than self righteous manure. The heart of the argument is that the Union North fought to free the slaves (which is nonsense) and the South fought for slavery (which is also nonsense). Slavery was merely a subset issue in both instances. It was present, but there were much weightier matters taking place.

These ideas are promoted by elite academia which makes things much more complicated. Modern, elite academia is obsessed with racism, and the Civil War falls prey to it just like anything else. People like James McPherson are the worst offenders of promoting this narrative. It's why so many people believe in it. He is a decorated historian after all. Historians never have a hidden agenda, right?

McPherson is notorious for dropping these ideas into his book prefaces, shamelessly, with sketchy evidence that is rarely balanced with a real contrasting viewpoint. His first page preface for Battle Cry of Freedom could be a bible for the Treasury of Virtue. But hey, he won a New York Pulitzer for it. He knew what he was doing. He gave em' what they wanted.

As long as popular historians and elite academia parade the glorious, moral, Republican and Liberty Parties in their works, people will eat it up like sheep. It's too boring for most people to try and figure it out for themselves.

This is the guts at what I am getting at.
I had not heard of the Treasury of Virtue until this thread. I normally delve only into the battles, but this was an interesting or at least thought-provoking issue to me.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Boys or young men are seemingly always "ready to fight," just because of their energy and youthful thoughts of "glory"..

 

[ForeverFree]

I have my ideas, but the question is to get other perceptions on the idea. If the war was fought to end slavery - there could be no greater cause. Bondage s**ks. I'm just not sure that younger people, excepting those that truly want to learn have a grasp regarding the reason's both sides fought.

Like Forever Free said (I believe), People go to war because their country ask them to. So, southern boys went because their governments called on them, and northern boys did likewise.

I think that people go to war to fight for their country, but that doesn't mean they have no conception of what the war was "about." As former CSA Col John Mosby (commander, the 43rd Battalion, 1st Virginia Cavalry, known as Mosby's Rangers or Mosby's Raiders) said,

Now while I think as badly of slavery as Horace Greeley did I am not ashamed that my family were slaveholders. It was our inheritance. Neither am I ashamed that my ancestors were pirates and cattle thieves. People must be judged by the standard of their own age.

If it was right to own slaves as property, it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of Slavery... I am not as honored for having fought on the side of slavery-a soldier fights for his country-right or wrong-he is not responsible for the political merits of the course he fights. The South was my country.​

Mosby is saying, yes, my section went to war on account of slavery. But really, the cause was irrelevant. I fought for my country regardless of the politics involved or whether it was "right or wrong." I fought because my country asked me, and needed me, to fight. But yeah - the war was about slavery, there's no doubt about that.

- Alan

 

[OpnCoronet]

With all the talk about the "Lost Cause" and the an idea that the southern people didn't support the south's agenda - per say - Is it possible that the winners wrote a history that would make themselves look more saintly?
What I mean is, that if the south wrote using a "Lost Cause" mentality to make their soldiers look more chivalrous, ragged, whatever...
Is it possible that the "False Cause" was later introduced to suggest that "all" Northerners fought to end slavery... thus putting them on a pedestal in moral standing if nothing else?
Just a question.

I think, as a matter of historical fact, that "all" northern soldiers' who fought for the Union, by that fact alone, fought to end slavery.
After 1862, no supporter of the Union cause, was unaware that a part of that cause was emancipation.

 

[gunny]

Mosby is saying, yes, my section went to war on account of slavery. But really, the cause was irrelevant. I fought for my country regardless of the politics involved or whether it was "right or wrong." I fought because my country asked me, and needed me, to fight. But yeah - the war was about slavery, there's no doubt about that.

This is certain. The south knew what they were fighting for. Even if on the outside the issue was "states rights" that "granted" the states the right to have slavery, the issue was still slavery.

 

[Sid J.]

The commonality that the two sides had in relation to the war was the slavery issue. The priority for the south being states rights so that they could maintain slavery. If that right (in their mind) could be upheld by the Constitution and the Federal government they could have it their way.

The priority for the north was to maintain the Union. Later, to make the movement more righteous, ending slavery gave it a moral worth. Certainly, some in the north just said, awe let 'em go if they wanna go. But when liberties became an issue and human rights, it grabbed a whole new portion of the population.

I'm not saying the North's cause was False. I'm asking how people view it today. I shouldn't even ask it here, there are too many people with a strong interest in the War and its causes. But, I would venture to say that if you ask the average person what the north fought for, they would say to end slavery before they said to preserve the union. Or a variation of that question and answer might be, what was the Civil War fought over? I think most would respond - slavery. If they knew who won the war, they would assume that since there isn't slavery anymore, that the north fought to oppose it while the south fought to preserve it.

It doesn't matter that the answer is too simplistic. We all know that preserving the Union and the abolition of slavery was the right thing to do, but I would venture to say most people aren't clear to this day that the original reason for the U.S. government going to war was to preserve the Union.

Its like those TV shows where they ask the public general 3rd grade knowledge, and 80% of the people get it wrong.

With Mildred Rutherford, Jubal Early, the marble monuments that to this day shove a fiction on the passing public, a "Birth of a Nation" and a "Gone with the Wind", it just seems like the Lost Cause looms as huge influence over millions of Americans, including adults, over many decades. The struggle in this thread to present the cultural canons of the so called "false cause", plus the fact that we both seem to agree that it's not actually false, highlight the inequity of the comparisons.

That the Lost Cause is on it's way to becoming a lost cause is not a bad thing. I sometimes view these discussions (treasury of virtue) as an attempt to validate it, though I think that not the case here.

 

[gunny]

The other side made it very plain it was fighting to preserve that Union. Period. Slavery was brought into the mix by the one side while Union was the chief cause by the other. It's simply too plain not to see, in my own opinion.

Unionblue,

I agree whole-heartedly. It's just the common conception of the reasons - specifically the north's reason for fighting in the general public's eye that is of interest to me.

 

[hrobalabama]

About 40% were.

From whence comes the 40%?...hypothesis?...what facts are you quoting?

 

[cash]

From whence comes the 40%?...hypothesis?...what facts are you quoting?

Joseph Glatthaar's book on the Army of Northern Virginia. Slave owners were overrepresented in that army.