Video Discussion 14: The Disappearance of Union from Civil War Memory

Looking forward to the video and discussion--I'll watch the video over the weekend. Gotta mow the lawn now; we're supposed to get some badly needed rain over the weekend.
 
I wonder if this will sway anyone here who didn't already agree with the points in this lecture?
 
I thought it was Woodrew Wilson who wanted to fight to make the world safe for democracy. I'm not aware of any speech by Lincoln where he said he was fighting to save democracy. I believe, though Gallagher says he's speaking on the loss of the concept of Union in our modern understanding of the ACW, I think he's wrong to conflate the terms union and democracy. There was no democracy, in the modern sense, anywhere in the world in 1860. It's as if Gallagher himself understands how imperfect the notion of "Union" is to modern ears, yet that is exactly what Lincoln was fighting for.
 
I thought it was Woodrew Wilson who wanted to fight to make the world safe for democracy. I'm not aware of any speech by Lincoln where he said he was fighting to save democracy. I believe, though Gallagher says he's speaking on the loss of the concept of Union in our modern understanding of the ACW, I think he's wrong to conflate the terms union and democracy. There was no democracy, in the modern sense, anywhere in the world in 1860. It's as if Gallagher himself understands how imperfect the notion of "Union" is to modern ears, yet that is exactly what Lincoln was fighting for.

I don't quite get what you mean by "democracy in the modern sense." As he said, you can't take history out of context. Democracy to the 19th century American was different to them. Lincoln speaks numerous times about saving the union early in the war. Slavery was an outside issue to him and to most of the northerners who fought in the war. Read "What They Fought For" by James McPherson. This sentiment is written in the soldiers own words. Gallagher is speaking to the modern day thought that the war was about slavery, when clearly, at the beginning, it was not. Northern soldiers as a whole had little concept of slavery as it wasn't an everyday issue in their lives. Midwestern farm boys didn't see slavery very much. As a matter of fact the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 forbade it. Gallagher is right that the northern soldier would not have risked his life to free slaves. Slavery was an accepted way of life from the beginning of the Union to the beginning of the war. The issue, as he framed it wasn't slavery, but the expansion of it, hence the antebellum struggle to put off the war with the Compromises of 1820 and 1850. He is right to champion Daniel Webster. His March 7th speech is a classic defense of the Union. Even Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder, confronted John Calhoun with Union supremacy during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-3. For the most part those who enlisted and the vast majority did, did so to protect the Union.
 
Thanks for posting. This was really good. Refreshing to be focused on and reminded of what it was likely like in the 19th century as opposed to viewing through todays lense.

I had not seen this lecture. I tuned in thinking I'd give it 10 minutes (once he started speaking).....an hour just flew by!!

Thanks for posting
 
Watched it and took notes. Great lecture. Ready for Monday's chat.
 
I don't quite get what you mean by "democracy in the modern sense." As he said, you can't take history out of context. Democracy to the 19th century American was different to them. Lincoln speaks numerous times about saving the union early in the war. Slavery was an outside issue to him and to most of the northerners who fought in the war. Read "What They Fought For" by James McPherson. This sentiment is written in the soldiers own words. Gallagher is speaking to the modern day thought that the war was about slavery, when clearly, at the beginning, it was not. Northern soldiers as a whole had little concept of slavery as it wasn't an everyday issue in their lives. Midwestern farm boys didn't see slavery very much. As a matter of fact the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 forbade it. Gallagher is right that the northern soldier would not have risked his life to free slaves. Slavery was an accepted way of life from the beginning of the Union to the beginning of the war. The issue, as he framed it wasn't slavery, but the expansion of it, hence the antebellum struggle to put off the war with the Compromises of 1820 and 1850. He is right to champion Daniel Webster. His March 7th speech is a classic defense of the Union. Even Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder, confronted John Calhoun with Union supremacy during the Nullification Crisis of 1832-3. For the most part those who enlisted and the vast majority did, did so to protect the Union.
Modern sense or not, it was Gallagher who conflated the terms, ending up making a political stump speech about the merits of democracy, rather than how moderns have forgotten the Civil War understanding of the term Union. My only points is twofold: 1) nobody was using the word "democracy" in 1860 as a part of our national political dialogue; the words they used were "republic" and "constitution." 2) That our system of government is a democracy is something you don't hear until long after the Civil War. So if Gallagher is against looking back to the 1860s and trying to impose modern standards on them, he's doing the same thing himself. Northerners would say they were defending "the Republic," while Southerners often did say both during and long after the war that they were defending "the Constitution." I'm not saying they were correct in this, it's just what they believed. It would be interesting to look into what Lincoln meant by "the people," since he uses the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people," in the Gettysburg Address. I'm saying I think Gallagher takes that to mean "democracy," but I'm not sure Lincoln would have used the term.
 
Modern sense or not, it was Gallagher who conflated the terms, ending up making a political stump speech about the merits of democracy, rather than how moderns have forgotten the Civil War understanding of the term Union. My only points is twofold: 1) nobody was using the word "democracy" in 1860 as a part of our national political dialogue; the words they used were "republic" and "constitution." 2) That our system of government is a democracy is something you don't hear until long after the Civil War. So if Gallagher is against looking back to the 1860s and trying to impose modern standards on them, he's doing the same thing himself. Northerners would say they were defending "the Republic," while Southerners often did say both during and long after the war that they were defending "the Constitution." I'm not saying they were correct in this, it's just what they believed. It would be interesting to look into what Lincoln meant by "the people," since he uses the phrase "government of the people, by the people and for the people," in the Gettysburg Address. I'm saying I think Gallagher takes that to mean "democracy," but I'm not sure Lincoln would have used the term.

That's primarily what I took away as well, particularly at the end of his lecture.
 
A quick look at newspapers from 1860-65 showed that "Democracy" was indeed a part of our national dialogue. It was used with a capital D more to refer to the people, as in "the Democracy of this nation has voted to..." (see the following editorial from an 1860 Tennessee newspaper).
The article also states the opinion that while there is a Northern Democracy and a Southern Democracy, there is no such thing as a National Democracy, even though the editor does use the words "wonderful institution" to describe it, albeit with an ironic tone.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...racy&y=13&x=8&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
 
Last edited:
Back
Top