I couldn't resist. This is too compelling. This was taken from the blog "Letters of Note" which can be found using a cursory Google search. It is the copy of a letter sent to...well, I'll just cut and paste the entire article.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
CoC: The Civil War and Slavery
NOTE: This is the second article in my weekly series. To see the first, click the conversing on controversy tag. This article is a reprint of a research paper that I wrote last year. I can't find my final draft so this is my second one.
This topic is, ahem, very controversial in my neck of the woods so I want to emphasize that I don't mean to offend anyone and that I personally am not a fanatic about either side. However, after studying the time, I'd like to set the record straight based on how I see it. Some statements that may seem a little strong are meant to spark debate. Just as in a debate people take extreme positions, I'm trying to remain consistent here with a basic thesis. In reality, my views are not so black-and-white about the subject.
The Civil War must qualify as one of the most divisive topics in American history. Historians do not quibble over what happened in most cases, but rather the motivation. On this point, scholars divide sharply. No modern consensus exists upon the cause of the war. Many in the South still call it the War of Northern Aggression and justify the South both morally and legally. Due to the books written by Southern apologists, U.S. textbooks now fudge the subject and no longer say that slavery caused the war. These scholars now portray Lincoln as a calculating, racist politician who trampled on the rights of the states. More confusion exists about the war now than existed in its own time. By looking at the historical facts however, it becomes possible to clear things up and set the record straight. After careful historical review, it becomes clear that the North, led by Lincoln, walked the narrow line between idealist goals like abolition of slavery and practical concerns like preservation of the Union, while the South supported neither.
This topic is, ahem, very controversial in my neck of the woods so I want to emphasize that I don't mean to offend anyone and that I personally am not a fanatic about either side. However, after studying the time, I'd like to set the record straight based on how I see it. Some statements that may seem a little strong are meant to spark debate. Just as in a debate people take extreme positions, I'm trying to remain consistent here with a basic thesis. In reality, my views are not so black-and-white about the subject.
The Civil War must qualify as one of the most divisive topics in American history. Historians do not quibble over what happened in most cases, but rather the motivation. On this point, scholars divide sharply. No modern consensus exists upon the cause of the war. Many in the South still call it the War of Northern Aggression and justify the South both morally and legally. Due to the books written by Southern apologists, U.S. textbooks now fudge the subject and no longer say that slavery caused the war. These scholars now portray Lincoln as a calculating, racist politician who trampled on the rights of the states. More confusion exists about the war now than existed in its own time. By looking at the historical facts however, it becomes possible to clear things up and set the record straight. After careful historical review, it becomes clear that the North, led by Lincoln, walked the narrow line between idealist goals like abolition of slavery and practical concerns like preservation of the Union, while the South supported neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
