The American Civil War

[Mechaman]

Is it possible for there to be an HONEST debate about it?

EDIT: modified the title to make it clearer to Mister Wiseguy which "Civil War" I'm talking about here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

True, the contradictions embodied in Oliver Cromwell don't often get dealt with honestly.

[WillK]

Is it possible for there to be an HONEST debate about it?

EDIT: modified the title to make it clearer to Mister Wiseguy which "Civil War" I'm talking about here.

Doubtful.  The level of ignorance and emotion often shown impedes that from happening

[Rooney]

There can and have been "honest" debates about then topic of the War of Secession. I guess it all comes down to what you consider "honest." This is a very raw nerve for a lot of people so stroking it will lead only to anger for a lot of people.

One must also remember what may be a "dishonest" statement in any disucssion of America from 1860-1865. Is it dishonest to argue the war had nothing to do with slavery? Is it dishonest to argue that slavery was the ONLY reason for disunion? Is it dishonest to argue that if Stonewall Jackson had been at Gettysburg the Confederacy would have been able to take Culp's Hill on July 1, 1863? Is it dishonest to argue that General Hooker was incompetent and General McClellan was a coward? Is it dishonest to argue that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was the sole reason that Little Round Top did not turn grey on July 2, 1863? I have heard these arguments argued from both sides with dates, quotes, data and passion. I would consider several of these contentions to be dishonest. However, since they are argued with facts, logic and reason they are honest opinions.

One has to remember that it is logic and facts that decide when an argument about the war is honest and not if they LIKE what the other person is saying. Chris Matthews is not any good at this when the Civil War is mentioned. He once had a man from the Sons of Confederate Veterans on his show "Hardball" along with race hustler Eugene Robinson. The man from the Sons of Confederate Veterans put forward a reasoned argument over why secession was not about slavery. I can not say that I aggree with what he said but he quoted sources, showed passion, was well spoken and respectful. Matthews laughed at him and Robinson sighed a sigh only a Pulitzer Prize winner can. Robinson than proceded to insult the Southerner and Matthews thanked Robinson for, "Being right." That was quite rude and not what a real lover of history would have done.


You can have some fine conversations about the War of Secession if you simply remember that:

1) Everyone has a bias. There are NO unbiased views of the war (and that includes Foote, Ambrose, McPhearson, Catton and Sears even though all are excellent writers).
2) You need to avoid the name-calling that passes as history all too often in the modern day.

How a good a discussion about the war is up to you. To have a good discussion we must heed the better angels of our nature.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What does an honest discussion entail?

[Free Palestine]

What does an honest discussion entail?

Presumably, none of the bullsh-t like "the South were traitors, hurrdurr" or arguing that succession is wrong solely by assertion that the Union won the ACW -- "the issue of succession was answered in 1865," or whatever.

[dead0man]

It really depends on what you want to debate and whether any of the asshats you don't want find the subject matter worthy of them taking a sh**t on the thread.  It won't hurt much to find out...what you got?

[Mechaman]

I was thinking more of what WillK said.  The level of emotion over reason involved in the issue that prevents people from thinking objectively.

On the one hand you got people who will insist that Slavery wasn't an important issue in the Civil War and that the war was waged by greedy northern industrialists.  On the other hand you got nationalistic types who will insist that history would've been better if the Union carried out a Bolshevik like purge of the Southern planter class.
I'm not saying that I believe that both sides were equally bad (personally I think Slavery is a hard thing to overlook) but that this idea that there is one completely good side in conflicts is unheard of.  The Union, while it inevitably would end up fighting to abolish slavery (and there was quite a bit of support of north for abolition) had some moral failings of it's own during the war which are most of the time ignored by Union hawks.  Things like drafting immigrants right off the boat to fight in a war they knew nothing about or the widespread nativist racism that was par the course.  And of course, some of the war tactics and behavior of Union troops (though the same could be said of Confederate troops).
At the same time revisionism to make Southerners feel better about their past doesn't help either.  Slavery did happen, it was a problem, and people supported it in the South (and in the North).  Of course a nation, whose economic existence DEPENDS on free labor, would have it as a motivation for a war where it's existence might be in jeopardy.  Nothing you can do to change the past.

Pretty much, what bothers me about the Civil War debate is that with the exception of a few posters on here it seems to be a debate between extremists on both sides.  The fact is that the Civil War, like most wars, was a very complex war with many issues in it.  And the Civil War, as exemplified by the responses that usually get posted in a thread about it, led to extreme bitterness between the North and the South that remains to this day.
It is a subject that deserves more honest debate and insight into and not merely to exist as a political hand wringing "I told you so" type of exercise amongst the hacks.

EDIT: Re-worded part of the post because it might sound a little condescending and insulting the intelligence of people.

[/Civil War Moderate Hero]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There have really been some good posts in this thread. It has been a good thread to read.

On the issue of confusion over which civil war I find that referring to the imbroglio of 1861-1865 as the War of Secession does the trick. It actually explains the war in a very effect and short way. The North was fighting for unity and against the "right" to secede. The South fought for the "right" to secede. The War of Secession covers all bases, is not an emotionally charged name and eliminates confusion when speaking to experts on English, Russian, Spanish and Central American history.   

Not really.  Gran Colombia broke up into three separate republics.  Five of the Mexican states tried to secede in the 1830's and -40's, tho only Texas was able to make a go if it.  Portugal fought and won a war to secede from Spain. The Swiss had a war of secession in the 1840's.

Besides, if we were to name the war after what the South fought for, it would be called the War of Negro Slavery, not the War of Secession.

[The Mikado]

The name "American Civil War" is perfectly unambiguous.  There's only been one and if there's ever another, it'll be the Second/Third/Xth American Civil War.