April 9

[Gray Fox]

The Civil War sesquicentennial logically ends today. I heard that the centennial was a celebration of the Union victory over the Confederacy, but that this time around it was more about the actual letters and contributions of countless individuals who fought and suffered on both sides. Perhaps the end of slavery should be celebrated every day. However, our understanding that State's rights don't trump Human rights should be tempered by the fact that immigrant children working for sustenance wages in Northern factories of that time were in many ways worse off than some southern slaves. An alternative to the war was a suggestion to buy all of the slaves in the south and ship them back to Africa. It was felt that the former slave owners would not want freed slaves in their communities and that perhaps the freedmen would not want to remain in the land that had enslaved them. The culture of the last 150 years would surely have been gutted without the notable contributions of our nation's African-American citizens. Perhaps war was the only solution. I had ancestors on both sides of the conflict. Some deserve my forgiveness, while others deserve my thanks and all have my respect.

[khbynum]

It is measure of our worth, as a people and a nation, that we put the most horrific war of the 19th century behind us and built something better. Others who have suffered through such wars are not so fortunate and their hatreds still run deep. I have argued in other threads that the war should never have been fought and the South allowed to go its own way, but I am not so naive as to think that would have made for a better world. Let us honor the brave men, black and white and yes, a few women, of both sides who fought for what they believed. Out of that fiery furnace was forged a nation that I truly think is the last, best hope of humanity. We still have a long way to go and must never stop the process of self-examination, so that a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people" will be a reality.

[tripax]

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment already posted. I wanted to ask a question, though. In terms of national holidays related to the civil war, we already have Thanksgiving and Juneteenth. I'd add the date of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was January 1. April 9 is perhaps the next best candidate. Right now it sits next to V-E day as a holiday celebrated by few, and that is fine with me. Does anyone have a strong opinion on these things though? I'd love to hear what other people think.

[Gray Fox]

I believe that in retrospect, people at the time wanted the nation to heal and grow together. Families were torn apart with the nation. No one was going to have a picnic to celebrate their uncle killing their cousin. A "We freed the slaves you wouldn't day" isn't exactly a national unity theme, either. Is all this ancient history? Jimmy Carter was the first southern Democrat to be elected President since the CW, over a hundred years earlier. In the seventies, two of my uncles got into an argument with men whose ancestors had fought on the other side in the CW. They were both shot and Uncle Ben died. We have a day that marks the end of that war, but we cannot yet celebrate an end to ignorance and hatred.

[Straight Arrow]

It has always bothered me that the vast sacrifices of the Civil War are largely ignored by many modern historians. It is in Vogue now to ignore and belittle the many achievement of “old, white, dead guys.” Couple this tendency with excessive attention paid to important but fringe areas of history involving people largely ignored until now, and you get a story line that has a generation of American students missing the main thrust of the war’s importance. Students are misled by classroom material that lifts minor players into leading roles and minimizes and belittles almost all the main actors. In addition, the vast majority of school text books are written by committees that serve up a diet of bland, current political correctness. The result? Garbage in garbage out.

Slavery was wrong and every student knows that before stepping into the classroom. When learning about the Civil War, many students just shrug and assume it was only right to end slavery. They often criticized the generation and culture that paid the price to end this evil for not doing so earlier. Self-righteous in their beliefs, many Americans look down their noses at the costly sacrifices their forefathers laid on the alter as too little and too late.

This is wrong. The price paid to end the evil of slavery was incredible. In Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address, Lincoln suggests that the death and destruction wrought by the war was divine retribution to the U.S. for possessing slavery. “Until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

It is tragic to see the price paid by the Civil war generation has been forgotten all too soon or twisted by knaves into traps for fools...

[Byrd]

What a day to remember a war that should never have been fought in the first place. Lee was right, slavery would have died a natural cause. With all the money burnt during the war, they probably could have bought them out five times over.

Instead the evil had to be cleansed by the a righteous flame, the nation was to be purified. It was a crusade by the morally high-horsed puritan abolitionist elites of New England that has its spiritual roots in Puritanism, as far as I can connect the dots.

Do read the "Selling of Joseph", considered the first abolitionist piece. In 1701 puritan former Judge and lawyer, Samuel Sewall, argues why slavery wrong. Very compelling. Not bad in itself. Now puritan culture being what it was, church, state and justice the argument against slavery had to have been a religious one. Especially in Massachusetts.

Looking at quite a number of Northern Generals, sources of financing- and volunteers, New Englands importance comes to mind rather strongly. Abolitionism was mostly an elite sentiment, on both sides of Mason-Dixon. And without a doubt, the northern elites were the New English ones.

The "States Rights" issue, was already a major issue during Washington's presidency (and the following ones of course). Back then it was the wealthy founding colonies of New England against the agricultural southern ones. The conflict hadn't, in its core, changed in a hundred years until it culminated into the folly that is now known as the American Civil War. Slavery and the Powerstruggle between the founding colonies were the root cause.

People should re-read the Federalist Papers and have a closer look at Jefferson and Madison, the later Washington presidency and the debates in Congress.

It's all out there. Reading this narrative of "the high moral war that forged the nation into something greater" stuff makes me wanna curl up and cry. This is the real world, not a fairy tale. Typical American exceptionalist thinking. Last best hope of humanity. Hah! Have the United States paid reperations to the descendents of the former slaves yet to compensate them for their labor and inhumane suffering? Have the United States abolished the death penalty yet? Have they duely compensated the descendents of the ~ 7 - 10 Million Native Americans whose land they stole and whom they murdered?

Your people are as morally faulty as the rest of us. It's time to learn your history and understand.

[Ubercat]

The abolitionists didn't oppose slavery because of their Christian beliefs, but in spite of it. Crediting it to the god of the bible was, if anything, wishful thinking. There is nothing in the bible against slavery, but plenty of verses that the slave owning class used to justify the institution. Both Jesus and Paul had golden opportunities to speak up on the issue. All Jesus gave us was the platitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (nothing against slavery there), and Paul simply told slaves to obey their masters.

[Durk]

Hegel tells us, History is the story of progress - this was true of the abolitionists to, they learned to take the Bible beyond those mere words of complacency which justified oppression and human suffering to true humanity. That is, a living Bible. In our modern age, we forget that the original Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag was, "one nation indivisible," not its current nonsensical corruption of language. It was radical abolitionist sentiment against slavery, but also fever for the Union which drove these people. Nevertheless, John Brown's Body was moldering in the grave. The Battle Hymn which emerged from this early construction was fully vindicated in Biblical texts, His truth indeed marched on.

So, Byrd and Ubercat, do not judge that which Thou dost not understand. So sayeth this know-it-all.

[tripax]

It has always bothered me that the vast sacrifices of the Civil War are largely ignored by many modern historians. It is in Vogue now to ignore and belittle the many achievement of “old, white, dead guys.” Couple this tendency with excessive attention paid to important but fringe areas of history involving people largely ignored until now, and you get a story line that has a generation of American students missing the main thrust of the war’s importance. Students are misled by classroom material that lifts minor players into leading roles and minimizes and belittles almost all the main actors. In addition, the vast majority of school text books are written by committees that serve up a diet of bland, current political correctness. The result? Garbage in garbage out.

...

It is tragic to see the price paid by the Civil war generation has been forgotten all too soon or twisted by knaves into traps for fools...

Can you clarify? My understanding is that historians today are quite interested in the Civil War, if for no other reason than because of the amount of information about people of all walks of life that was produced. You then complain that the achievements of "old, white, dead guys" are belittled. I assume this is in reference to the movement towards the studies of microhistory and the histories of labor, of working classes, of minorities, etc. I am not sure how valid this complaint is; even at its nadir, more historians studied main actors such as Lincoln, Davis, Grant, Lee, Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Stevens, Calhoun, Brown, Floyd, Buchanan, etc. than studied other issues such as labor, women's rights, rail expansion, farm technology, riots, slave revolts, etc. And I'd say that both thrusts of scholarship have been great for our understanding of history and of civic responsibility.

That said, for me, even as I love learning about the main actors of the past, it is easier to understand and appreciate the price paid by our forefathers by learning about the lives of minor players. I'm not saying that one type of history or another should be more valued, I'm just asking if you can explain what you mean.

[Ubercat]

Hegel tells us, History is the story of progress - this was true of the abolitionists to, they learned to take the Bible beyond those mere words of complacency which justified oppression and human suffering to true humanity.

Those mere words are what is in the bible. If the book is "God breathed", or simply heavily God influenced, it still speaks for itself. That whatever level of divine inspiration was involved in its creation chose to take a pro-slavery position speaks volumes about its moral content.

That is, a living Bible ...

I'm sure that Mein Kampf could be turned into a "living" book if someone wanted to simply ignore all the racist bits in favor of the merely nationalistic. It wouldn't change the underlying text, though.

... It was radical abolitionist sentiment against slavery, but also fever for the Union which drove these people. Nevertheless, John Brown's Body was moldering in the grave. The Battle Hymn which emerged from this early construction was fully vindicated in Biblical texts, His truth indeed marched on.

The abolitionists opposed slavery out of a combination of having morally outgrown their religious roots and not having a personal economic stake in the institution. Could you point out some of the Biblical texts which vindicated abolitionism, whether referenced in that song or not?

So, Byrd and Ubercat, do not judge that which Thou dost not understand. So sayeth this know-it-all.

I'm sure that there is plenty that I don't understand, but I've been a believer in the past and do know a thing or two about the bible and Christians, including how personal biases often affect religious views.

Anyhow, please don't hate me for pointing out the emperors nakedness. I don't hate you, and would love to play you a PBEM game of CW2 or AJE some time!

[Straight Arrow]

Have the United States paid reperations to the descendents of the former slaves yet to compensate them for their labor and inhumane suffering? Have they duely compensated the descendents of the ~ 7 - 10 Million Native Americans whose land they stole and whom they murdered?

This is what I was talking about!!!

Read Lincoln's words again.

More blood was spilled in the War Between the States then was ever drawn by the lash. Ever dollar made off a slave's sweat was burned in the holocaust that destroyed slavery. Why is this not remembered?

As for Americans killing off 7 to ten million, I seen numbers thrown around claiming up to 70 million in both North and South America. But don't blame Americans for this; blame small pox and other European diseases.

As for the moral high ground, Native Americans had a long history of killing and displacing others. Take the Aztecs; they lived in and cast an appealing shadow of fear over Mexico. Or if your prefer, take the plains people, the Dakotas or Comanche’s; it wasn't much fun being their neighbors. Ask the Mandan, Crows and Pueblos about it.

The point is, people are people. Any nation group does not look very pretty in the harsh light of history.

America owes the descendants of black slaves nothing but respect, honor and a level playing field.

The Civil war did two wonderful things; it saved the Union and freed the slaves.

[Straight Arrow]

Tripax,

You are quite right, historians today are cranking out more Civil War books then almost any other historical subject; excellent examples of scholarship abound.

And again you are absolutely right about the value of examining people in all walks of life through microhistory. The big picture is not complete or as valuable without minor player's stories.

Please excuse me. My words were poorly chosen, and I missed the target I shot at. Clarify? I was howling at the moon and complaining about what passes as history in much of America’s public school system. Don't believe me, look for yourself and pick any high school text book. You'll see what I mean. Everything is watered and dumbed down. Small people and small events dominate the space, and past generations are often scorned after being judged by current values.

Once more, you are absolutely right. Saying that one type of history or another should be more valued than another is wrong.

[Durk]

The abolitionists opposed slavery out of a combination of having morally outgrown their religious roots and not having a personal economic stake in the institution. Could you point out some of the Biblical texts which vindicated abolitionism, whether referenced in that song or not?

One of the most elegant arguments from Biblical authority against slavery was put by Angelina Emily Grimké. As with many female abolitionists, she was most influenced by the women of the Old Testament who held the position of prophetess. She used these two examples:

Shiphrah and Puah, Hebrew midwives, who delivered the children of the Israelites during the Egyptian sojourn disobeyed Pharaoh’s command and did not kill the Israelite male newborns. Shiphrah is said by tradition to have mocked Pharaoh for not understanding he should kill the Israelite females, as a woman could only have one husband but men were permitted any number of wives.

Miriam disobey the law of Pharaoh and hide Moses in the bulrushes. She made certain he was raised in the Hebraic tradition and would know his People. She led the song of victory when Pharaoh's army was drown.

Her argument was simple – when the law is against God's command, the enslavement of others, then one must break the law.

Grimké was especially offended that any woman could hold another woman in bondage. As I am sure many forum members know, the Israelite enslavement and consequent struggle for freedom was the model for the abolitionists

[Byrd]

The abolitionists didn't oppose slavery because of their Christian beliefs, but in spite of it. Crediting it to the god of the bible was, if anything, wishful thinking. There is nothing in the bible against slavery, but plenty of verses that the slave owning class used to justify the institution. Both Jesus and Paul had golden opportunities to speak up on the issue. All Jesus gave us was the platitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (nothing against slavery there), and Paul simply told slaves to obey their masters.

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/212sew.html

Plenty of bible verses cited by Sewall himself. I'm not a Christian myself, so I'm not exactly familiar with the scriptual methaphors he draws upon. I still find it highly intruiging.

As for Americans killing off 7 to ten million, I seen numbers thrown around claiming up to 70 million in both North and South America.

Well, I was talking the numbers of natives extinguished on the American ride of excellency on the great trail of Manifest Destiny only.

As for the moral high ground, Native Americans had a long history of killing and displacing others. Take the Aztecs; they lived in and cast an appealing shadow of fear over Mexico. Or if your prefer, take the plains people, the Dakotas or Comanche’s; it wasn't much fun being their neighbors. Ask the Mandan, Crows and Pueblos about it.

And that is supposed to justify what?

The point is, people are people. Any nation group does not look very pretty in the harsh light of history.

Exactly.

America owes the descendants of black slaves nothing but respect, honor and a level playing field.

And probably a couple of Billions, but who needs that when you can have no respect and certainly no level playing field.

The Civil war did two wonderful things; it saved the Union and freed the slaves.

They could have freed the slaves and saved the Union without having the war. But that doesn't seem to appeal to your Guns, Germs and Steel mentality.

[Ubercat]

Certainly the god of the bible detested (on the surface) the enslavement of his chosen people. He had no qualms about the enslavement of anyone else, however, judging by all the rules pertaining to proper slavery in the OT. A slave owner who merely objects to members of his own family being enslaved cannot be said to object to slavery itself. I hope that everyone can clearly see the distinction.

[Straight Arrow]

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/212sew.html
They could have freed the slaves and saved the Union without having the war. But that doesn't seem to appeal to your Guns, Germs and Steel mentality.

Byrd,

You know history. You are observably well read and undoubtedly know there was a proposal for the government to purchase and free all slaves before the war. This came to nothing; the South could not conceive of living differently. They fought for their way of life: less national government intervention and a culture based on human bondage.

Slave states did not leave the Union until they were outnumbered by free states and political power started slipping out of their hands.

As for a level playing field, yeah we're still working on it, and there is still a long way to go. But for starters, may I remind you the President of the USA is black?

[tripax]

@Straight Arrow: I agree. As for high school textbooks, I haven't read one since high school but I'd say that there are too many people representing too many interests and it is unlikely that something good is being written. By the way, a friend of mine who usually writes very good and very funny irreverent histories has written a high school/middle school level book about the civil war I'd recommend called Guts & Glory.

Regarding the rest of this thread, smart people have long debated a lot of these issues, including how the civil war should be taught in high school, but especially: whether the civil war worth it given slavery's pending demise (I think it was, but am not sure), whether Christianity condones slavery (I think Christianity supports egalitarianism, I interpret "give unto Cesar" to mean people should usually follow the law, and the golden rule to mean people should try to make laws better, I don't know what Christians in 1850s and 1860s America thought), why the South rebelled and southerners fought (I believe there is room for both Straussian and non-Straussian views, but don't have strong evidence for a primary reason), whether the civil war was inevitable (no idea), etc. I think it is great to see and learn about the debate here. However, I'm probably out of my depth, and I'm happy to mostly keep quiet.

[Straight Arrow]

@tripax: thanks for the link; I will track down the book and read it. Guts & Glory might be just what I need for my youngest son.

As for the rest of your insights, the Civil war's worth, Christianity, Southern reasons, the war's inevitability and the fact I often find myself jumping into water too deep for me, I have to hold up my frog mask and croak,

"We are the chorus; we agree, we agree."

[khbynum]

I know how you feel, Straight Arrow. I've let myself get involved in p*ssing contests on this forum before and told myself I would never do it again, especially when the discussion descends to denigrating other people's countries and religions (a sure way to guarantee they won't listen to anything else you say). I'm on record that the Civil War was not inevitable, should not have been fought and was not worth the lives it cost vs. the good it accomplished. Blacks in my country didn't begin to get their rights as citizens until the 1960s, thanks to a Democratic president. Expiation of our sins, as Lincoln came to believe? Well, I'm not a religious man. Would slavery have died out anyway? Agricultural slavery probably would have as it became less profitable compared to agricultural mechanization, but I don't think domestic slavery (what is today called the "service economy") would have. Why did Southerners fight? Simple: "Because y'all are down here."

I always like to learn new things, so tripax, please explain Straussian vs. non-Straussian to me. I have no knowledge of philosophy.

[tripax]

@khbynum: To start with, I've only read a small amount of Aristotle and less of Leo Strauss (Strauss is called an Aristotelian, whatever that may mean), but I think that my explanation might be more useful because I know so little and am thus forced to present different views of Strauss. When someone who knows very little, like me, revers to a Straussian reading of a text, they probably mean that the text has an overt meaning for the masses and a secret meaning that can be understood by those who either because of their cleverness or their knowledge of code words. A rough example of this would be when "inner-city" or "urban" is used in a speech in place of "African-American" or "black" - this might be a bad example as the code words are well understood. I'm not a southerner, but some say that modern use of the words "states rights" is sometimes a code for "institutionalized segregation." So when I hear a speech which includes a defense of states rights, I might think the speech is quite reasonable but depending on the other code-words, the person giving the speech, the location of the speech, etc, a pro-segregationist might take a Straussian view on the speech and believe the speaker supports segregation. I guess the wikipedia page on dog-whistle politics covers this.

In the early 1800s, popular sovereignty was a code word for extending slavery into Missouri and Texas - again this was well understood and doesn't need a Straussian reading to be understood, but it was what I was thinking. When I think of a Straussian view of the south, I guess meant that one may read them literally or as having second meanings to their words. I also meant that wealthy Southerners may have believed they represented Plato's ideal of philosopher kings, an idea which Strauss probably would have found repugnant.

Rereading my words, I could/should have written that I also don't know what Lincoln wanted and again that both a Straussian or non-Straussian view is plausable, that is that we might read Lincoln at face value or believe he meant more than he said, and I think there is place for both. I guess Straussians talk about Lincoln much more than about Lee, Davis, or the Confederacy.

An example from Lincoln is to read his speeches in light of supreme court decisions he agreed or disagreed with. Looking at the wikipedia page on the Gettysburg Address, it notes the similarities between that speech and a decision by Chief Justice Marshall in support of federal power over the states. A lawyer reading the Address might notice this similarity and see reaffirmation of Lincoln's support for federal powers. Similarly, one can read speeches by Lincoln before January 1, 1863 (that is, before the Emancipation Proclamation) and find lots of reasons to believe that Lincoln always secretly intended to free the slaves. One Straussian view might suppose that abolitionists recognized these hints and supported Lincoln all the more because of them. Others might argue against this and say Lincoln initially did not oppose slavery; don't ask me to defend one side or another.

Thinking about Strauss and Lincoln, I had forgotten the neo-conservative approbation of Strauss. This one I'm very unsure of, but some say that Strauss advocated a sort of Nietzsche-ian view of rulers, that when necessary rulers should overstep the bounds on their authority to the betterment of the nation. On the left (where I usually sit), there was a belief/criticism that neo-conservative politicians in America follow a similar tack and point to Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus as a precedent for the expansion of executive power in the 2000s under Bush. I certainly don't know what Strauss would have thought of Bush, nor what Lincoln would think of Bush (nor what Bush thinks of Strauss or Lincoln). For what it is worth, I don't hear Obama being called a Straussian or neo-Conservative in light of the expansion of executive power during his term, and I don't really know what is the difference.

In fact, debates about Lincoln and Strauss is rather popular among some academics. I'd recommend against getting too into Straussian versus anti-Straussian debates, but the Straussian approach to Lincoln seems to be represented by a guy named Henry Jaffa. Before I end, I want to make it clear that Strauss is read and interpreted very differently by different people, and I beyond not knowing whether a Straussian on non-Straussian view is the best way to read history, I don't exactly know what a Straussian view of many historical texts and events might be exactly. I do know that many people who talk authoritatively about Strauss get him quite wrong. I guess the same is true about people who talk authoritatively about Lincoln or the Civil War.

In summary: Straussian readings of texts refers to reading between the lines and having different messages for different audiences in one text. Strauss is also sometimes read as justifying increased executive power. I don't think a Straussian approach to history is always right nor always wrong.

[khbynum]

Thank you, Sir. This forum has the most erudite membership of any I've frequented. I try to say just what I mean. Lincoln was a politician, and a consummate one. I'll leave it at that.