The "False Cause?"

[ForeverFree]

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.

I cannot and will not get too much into this, because it gets us directly into modern politics. But up north, the idea that "the sins of racism... of the North are forever forgiven because they freed the slaves" simply has no traction. It strikes me as something a southerner would say.

Suffice it to say, non-southerners are quite aware that racial conflict that exists where they live. I do not see anyone in the non-South saying or perceiving that somehow all is forgiven or "OK" in race relations because of the Civil War and the EP and the 13th Amendment.

RE: "the false belief that the the sins of... slavery of the North are forever forgiven because they freed the slaves." I do think that more should be done to talk about slavery in the North, in the colonial through antebellum era. Doing so is more complicated than people think. Many people are not aware of this, but in 1860, less than 2% of the non-slave state population was of African descent - less than 2%! And also, after the American revolution, there was a real abolitionist movement which ended slavery in the North - this is why they were called free states. And many slaves did escape north to lead lives as free people, albeit, far from equal.

This doesn't mean there is no story to tell. But the story of the North is more the story of the transition from slavery to abolition to a troubled freedom, for a black population that was demographically tiny and basically limited to the east coast. It's a more nuanced story that I am not sure is being told well outside of the academy. Books such as James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom make reference to racism in the North, for example:

...aided by the Negrophobia that characterized much of the northern population... in 1851 Indiana and Iowa and in 1853 Illinois enacted legislation barring the immigration of any black persons, free or slave. Three-fifths of the nations border between free and slave states ran along the southern boundaries of the states. Intended in part to reassure the south by denying sanctuary to fugitive slaves, the exclusion laws also reflected the racist sentiments of many whites, especially Butternuts. Although Ohio had repealed its Negro exclusion law in 1849, many residents of the southern tier of Ohio counties wanted no part of black people and were more likely to aid the slave catcher then the fugitive.​

I think the story of black exclusion in the West (from the Great Lakes to the West Coast) is an important story, but it is not the same as the story of millions of people being held in bondage in the South. Again, I don't know how well this story is being taught in the schools.

- Alan

 

[EricAJacobson]

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.

Jamie and I know one other, so it's always fun (at least for me) to discuss online because we do it often in person. Anyway....

Yes, people go to war because their "country" asks them, or the situation compels them to do so. I believe (based on ample evidence) that one has to split the politics which led to separation from the reason why soldiers fought in the American Civil War. To deny that slavery (and all the tangible connections to it) was not the reason for separation is to deny reality. States rights? Yep - and tied to slavery. Tariffs - yep and tied to slavery. Black Republicanism - yep and tied to slavery. Slavery was the issue. Listen - the Republicans were an anti-slavery party. Period. Lincoln spoke adamantly about not allowing slavery to expand. So secession thus came.

As for why a man from Mississippi fought and a man from New York fought - well, neither was likely directly tied to slavery or abolition, but the politics which led to the breakdown dragged them into the a war. That being said, by 1863 those who were still fighting, and those who would enlist going forward, knew the stakes of the war had changed. The fight to preserve the Union had turned into a fight to preserve the Union AND a fight to eradicate slavery.

I say all this because I think the original post by Jamie has merit. The Lost Cause denied the reasons for secession. A False Cause is what (for the most part) Gary Gallagher wrote about in his book The Union War. In an effort to correct the Lost Cause myth, a counter movement emerged 30-40 years ago. That has had an almost boomerang effect. Now , for many people, it all about slavery as far as the soldiers are concerned. That is dangerous ground to tread.

I think we must be careful to not present things such as this as absolutes. Certain scenes within may have elements which indeed are, but a national crisis such as 1850-1865 is far more complex. As Obi-Wan said, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

 

[KLSDAD]

Lost Cause,

In my own view, it is NOT simplistic to say either side fought for one particular reason, as one side made it perfectly clear by way of the historical record it was fighting for the right to preserve, protect, and expand the institution of slavery, even at the price of rendering the Union they were part of in two.

Hey UB, maybe you don't like the S-word but when you refer to it as "fighting for" you are talking about a much broader subject and cannot answer it that S-wordly.

 

[unionblue]

Hey UB, maybe you don't like the S-word but when you refer to it as "fighting for" you are talking about a much broader subject and cannot answer it that S-wordly.

KLSDAD,

I already have, here and elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Unionblue