Civil War: stereotypes or not?

[Umengus]

In Belgium, we (or rather my compatriots...) know the "Civil War" (1861-1865) by stereotypes: North was good, South was bad. The reason of that is slavery: "honest Abe Lincoln" wanted to delete that (but in fact it's not 100% correct), "diabolic rebels" wanted to maintain this archaism.

But isn't the reality more complex? the fight of the South was not even a war for some values? for liberty?...

What do you think?

[dazzleman]

I think that the reality was more complex than the north being 100% good and the south 100% bad.

I think slavery was an abomination, and the fact that the south sought to continue slavery is a big moral blot on their cause.

But the north did not really fight the war to eliminate slavery, at least in the beginning.  Lincoln wanted to keep the union together, and would have accepted some degree of slavery if that were necessary to keep the union together.  When Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, it applied only to areas of the south under rebellion; in other words, it had no immediate practical effect since it was issued only for areas over which Lincoln had no control.  It was intended to foment insurrection in the south by blacks, not as a moral statement.

By the later part of the war, the confederacy had decided on its own to eliminate slavery, in order to help its then-failing efforts to maintain independence.

I do think that on balance, the north's moral position was ultimately stronger.  But one bad effect of the northern victory was the greater concentration of power in the hands of the federal government.  In many ways, the civil war continues.  The civil rights movement and some of the issues that grew out of that, such as forced busing, were a latter phase of the civil war, which left much unfinished business when it ended in 1865.  As these issues have moved beyond geography, they have become more morally ambiguous.

Those who like to push the "north good/south bad" argument (liberals of today) like to keep the geographical factors at the forefront because once they are removed, it becomes difficult for the north to proclaim such a degree of moral superiority.  Some of the worst violence against blacks in recent history has taken place in the north, in our great liberal state of Massachusetts, and this is something that many liberals would like us to forget.

Ultimately, while the south talks about states' rights, southern states ultimately did great damage to the cause of states' rights by so terribly abusing them that they had to be largely taken away.  And much of this took place long after the end of the civil war, when blacks were treated in a disgraceful and hateful manner in many states, in direct violation of the constitution, unlike during the civil war when the constitution still sanctioned slavery.

[Nym90]

I think that the reality was more complex than the north being 100% good and the south 100% bad.

I think slavery was an abomination, and the fact that the south sought to continue slavery is a big moral blot on their cause.

But the north did not really fight the war to eliminate slavery, at least in the beginning. Lincoln wanted to keep the union together, and would have accepted some degree of slavery if that were necessary to keep the union together. When Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, it applied only to areas of the south under rebellion; in other words, it had no immediate practical effect since it was issued only for areas over which Lincoln had no control. It was intended to foment insurrection in the south by blacks, not as a moral statement.

By the later part of the war, the confederacy had decided on its own to eliminate slavery, in order to help its then-failing efforts to maintain independence.

I do think that on balance, the north's moral position was ultimately stronger. But one bad effect of the northern victory was the greater concentration of power in the hands of the federal government. In many ways, the civil war continues. The civil rights movement and some of the issues that grew out of that, such as forced busing, were a latter phase of the civil war, which left much unfinished business when it ended in 1865. As these issues have moved beyond geography, they have become more morally ambiguous.

Those who like to push the "north good/south bad" argument (liberals of today) like to keep the geographical factors at the forefront because once they are removed, it becomes difficult for the north to proclaim such a degree of moral superiority. Some of the worst violence against blacks in recent history has taken place in the north, in our great liberal state of Massachusetts, and this is something that many liberals would like us to forget.

Ultimately, while the south talks about states' rights, southern states ultimately did great damage to the cause of states' rights by so terribly abusing them that they had to be largely taken away. And much of this took place long after the end of the civil war, when blacks were treated in a disgraceful and hateful manner in many states, in direct violation of the constitution, unlike during the civil war when the constitution still sanctioned slavery.

Great post, Dazzleman. I completely agree.

As always, it's a complex issue. I definitely side with the North over the South without question, but both sides had their pros and cons.

[Akno21]

The Civil War was as much a war over economics as it was over civil rights. The South certainly was wrong over slavery, but they needed the slaves for their own well-being, they didn't feel it was their destiny to whip slaves, they felt it was their destiny to make money.

Much of the North was not anti-slavery, they were just pro-union.

One thing I am curious about is to compare the curriculums of states in the North and South over slavery. I know I hear from people in Virginia that they teach the Civil War there very oddly in comparison to what I would learn in a suburban Maryland school. Does anyone have more information on that?

Also, is Ken Burns (it could have been someone else) making a documentary about the Confederate States of America, and what it would have been?

[dazzleman]

Great post, Dazzleman. I completely agree.

As always, it's a complex issue. I definitely side with the North over the South without question, but both sides had their pros and cons.

Thanks for the feedback, man.  Happy New Year.

[Bono]

The Civil War was as much a war over economics as it was over civil rights. The South certainly was wrong over slavery, but they needed the slaves for their own well-being, they didn't feel it was their destiny to whip slaves, they felt it was their destiny to make money.

Much of the North was not anti-slavery, they were just pro-union.

One thing I am curious about is to compare the curriculums of states in the North and South over slavery. I know I hear from people in Virginia that they teach the Civil War there very oddly in comparison to what I would learn in a suburban Maryland school. Does anyone have more information on that?

Also, is Ken Burns (it could have been someone else) making a documentary about the Confederate States of America, and what it would have been?

Actually, several editorials of nortehrn newspapers prpetested when Lincoln tried to stop secession of the South.

[David S]

I think there were also some tarrifs that favored the manufactured goods of the north and put the agricultural products of the south at a disadvantage.

[dazzleman]

Actually, several editorials of nortehrn newspapers prpetested when Lincoln tried to stop secession of the South.

True.  Not all northerners though the war was worth fighting.  Some didn't think it was worth the cost to preserve the union, while others took a "pro-choice" approach to slavery (I'm against it, but I don't have a right to force my values upon others).

[J. J.]

I'm also going to point out that the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee, had precisely zero slaves at any point during the Civil War.  He was opposed to slavery on moral grounds and had freed all of his, at a reasonably high cost, in 1859.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I voted for complex, and I see that two voted for 100% false (How much do you wanna bet Statesrights is one of the two?)

History textbooks spend dozens of pages on the evils of slavery in the south and give little more than a paragraph about the child labor in factories of the north. The conditions which children in Massachusetts textile mills were forced to work in were no better than those a slave was forced to work in on a Mississippi plantation

[12th Doctor]

It has already been said, but the war was about economics first, ways-of-life second, state's rights third and slavery last, in that order of importance relative to the cause.

Tariffs were a huge issue.  The tariffs that were in place made it difficult for the South to trade their agricultural products abroad, while the North already had a large market for its industries within the US.

Also, you had the conflict between industrialization and the agrarian life-style.  In time, they created two essensially different ways of life to the point when the two sides not only had different interests, but totally different ways of looking at life and the world.  There was a cultural clash of sorts, similar to that going on today.

I could go on, but everyone has said pretty much everything else.

My Answer: It was more complex.  Slavery became an issue only when those in the North were tired of fighting for the acctual causes.  Lincoln (wisely) made the war into an ideological quest to assure equal treatment for all.  That kept the war going.  Niether side was truely "bad".  And as Lincoln said, both sides bore the full burden of responsability not only for the continued existance of slavery, but for the war as a whole.

Don't worry, most Americans, unfortunatly, learn this over simplified version of the war, and thus don't truely take away any lessons from studying it.

BTW General Lewis Armistead was a Confederate general.

[12th Doctor]

I'm also going to point out that the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, Robert E. Lee, had precisely zero slaves at any point during the Civil War.  He was opposed to slavery on moral grounds and had freed all of his, at a reasonably high cost, in 1859.

There is acctually a long list of Southern Military Commanders who were against slavery and presumably, if the south had won, they would have made up the bulk of the southern political structure in the CSA for the next 20-30 years.

Jackson, Joe Johnson, Longstreet, Lee, Hill and several other prominant generals were all opposed to the "peculiar institution".

[A18]

Yes, it would have been interesting to see what happened. The states would definitely have eventually abolished the institution, and I'm sure the South would have rejoined the Union before a hundred years had passed.

[Bono]

Yes, it would have been interesting to see what happened. The states would definitely have eventually abolished the institution, and I'm sure the South would have rejoined the Union before a hundred years had passed.

I don't agree. I think the North would ahve joined the Confederacy.

[12th Doctor]

The South would have become more like the North to some extent.  They would have had too in order to survive.  Richmond, Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, Memphis and Louisville (if KY joined) would have industrialized to the point of competing with Pittsburgh, Cleveland and other industrial northern cities.  The massive resources that could have industrialized the south were discovered just after the end of the war.

[??????????]

Option 2.

[PBrunsel]

Option 2.

I'm with States.

[J. J.]

Option 2.

I'm with States.

I wouldn't say 100% of anything.  Did all Confederates, after the war ended suddenly follow their dream and form NAACP?  :-)

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Definately Option 3.

[JohnG]

It is far more complicated then one side being all right or all wrong.  As many have stated, it was not about one issue.

[minionofmidas]

In Belgium, we (or rather my compatriots...) know the "Civil War" (1861-1865) by stereotypes: North was good, South was bad. The reason of that is slavery: "honest Abe Lincoln" wanted to delete that (but in fact it's not 100% correct), "diabolic rebels" wanted to maintain this archaism.

But isn't the reality more complex? the fight of the South was not even a war for some values? for liberty?...

What do you think?

South was bad, North was more complex.

[J. J.]

In Belgium, we (or rather my compatriots...) know the "Civil War" (1861-1865) by stereotypes: North was good, South was bad. The reason of that is slavery: "honest Abe Lincoln" wanted to delete that (but in fact it's not 100% correct), "diabolic rebels" wanted to maintain this archaism.

But isn't the reality more complex? the fight of the South was not even a war for some values? for liberty?...

What do you think?

South was bad, North was more complex.

I would class the South as complex.  As I posted to StatesRights recently, it's not a black and white issue.  Or a Black and White issue.

Some free Blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy, some Black people owned slaves.  Stereotypes seldom tell the real story.