Read the following articles: 150 year war; Gone with the Myths; 5 Myths; New Look & Secession w/out Slaves
and post a reflection on an issue/quote of your choosing from one of the articles. Be sure to contextualize the information so that we understand your perspective by addressing information that we've covered in addition to that which is in the articles.
YES I GET TO START
ReplyDeleteOK so the article I found most interesting was definitely "Gone With the Myths" and the statistical information it included about the Civil War, including the fact that an "equivalent war today would send home more than six million body bags." I found that fascinating because of the exact parallel to the Holocaust and how 6 million Jews were killed. I know many people, including me, think of the Holocaust as possibly the most gruesome massacre in world history. Before taking U.S. History this year, my preconception was definitely that the American Civil War was nothing compared to the Holocaust in terms of the amount of lives lost and the brutality of the event. However, after learning about the Civil War and how it was actually the most destructive and fatal war in U.S. history and seeing that statistic in the article, it makes me wonder why the Civil War has never been seen as being as destructive and horrible as the Holocaust; obviously it's hard, basically impossible, to match genocide but I feel as though not many people really grasp the severity of the Civil War as much as they do the Holocaust.
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my next point about how I never really understood how odd yet drastic it is that states seceded, and how it is over something so seemingly trivial. The fact that there are a plethora of articles trying to take a stab at why the south really seceded is just mind-boggling. It makes me wonder why it's so easy to blame the Civil War on the issue of slavery and why the socioeconomic, geographical, and bajillions of other possible causes are generally ignored. Yet, in the same article, the author said that all his life he'd been told that “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery;" I guess it's only communicated that way in the South, so is the North, from generation to generation, trying to hide something about the Civil War? Like it says in the article "5 Myths," literally all 5 of the most classic myths of the Civil War involve the role of slavery. I personally find that blaming it on slavery, which is a myth, makes the war seem totally at the fault of the South-- after all, the North was *obviously* the more civilized area because it was generally believed that we were *morally* opposed to slavery. I'd say this explains most of the myths of the Civil War and why we still have a "Civil War" going on today: the South won't let go, but neither will the North.
At the same time, according to the article “One State Takes a New Look at Causes of War,” The South is just beginning to admit that slavery had a very important role in the Civil War. Do you guys think that in the near future the North will realize that the war was largely about states’ rights? Have we already? Was the war equally about states rights and slavery because of the fact that it wasn’t just one or the other?
^^ If any of you noticed above, I literally just typed my reaction to these articles and it's SO easy to sense my Northern bias. New York City born and (not) raised!11!!11!!!!
Wow okay well I just typed literally a million pages of epic reflection/comment and then Google was stupid and didn't post it, and I did not copy it sooo....if this reflection is not up to par it is because my brain is still crying from the loss of much toilsome work.
ReplyDeleteANYWAY
To start with, I really like Caitlyn's point about the connection between the Civil War and the Holocaust. I had always considered the Holocaust to be the most deadly event, but now I am driven to wonder whether the Civil War was actually more damaging. My thinking behind this is that while the Holocaust was a war between different countries and races, the Civil War was between "brothers" (men of the same country, I guess). However, I also think that the Holocaust was extremely inhumane because it was truly against people, and not against the ideas of the state. It's definitely a question with many layers.
My second point is about the impact of slavery on the way we think of the war today. While we have been taught in this class that the Civil War was definitely not caused directly by slavery, I believe it played an extremely significant role since many southern states used it as prime reasoning for their secession of the union. However, I think the term "slavery" is very broad; it did not cause the war in that the Northerners where super-passionate about emancipation, but rather in that the south felt their rights were being violated because they were told they could not be slave states. In the end, I believe that the outer layer is composed of slavery and other conflicting ideas, while the inner layers regarding the south's secession truly come down to states' rights.
AND finally, I really liked the article "The 150-Year War" because of its quote from Abraham Lincoln: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." He said this in his second annual message to congress, and I think it is very meaningful in regards to how this country functions. I believe it reflects on the importance of examining the past and using it to make a more prosperous future. In this way, it can be applied to all eras of United States history. Perhaps our view of the Civil War should be less angry and bitter, and more reflective, since this could ultimately prove to be more successful and prevent other things like this from happening again.
OKAY I'm copying and pasting this into word so Google won't kill me again...
It's weird how many layers the one question of slavery (to what extent was it a cause of the war?) has. Little "northerner kids" usually have the idea that slavery caused the Civil War. As soon as we get to school, everyone tells us that slavery was NOT the cause of the war; clearly, it was states' rights. But then we read Zinn and documents like the Declaration of the Immediate Causes...Secession and find out that maybe slavery really was the cause; it certainly seems to be what the Southern states cared most passionately about. You could then argue that states' rights are more important because they allow states to choose about slavery, a position some historians or reporters seem to embrace, but then again, since arguably the primary reason the South wanted states rights was to sustain their right to slavery, wouldn't slavery be the real cause in the end? I loved the point made in the article "5 Myths" that the Southern states didn't truly support states' rights when it came to the right of the Northern states to abolish slavery.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that this blog is titled "How to understand the American Civil War in 2011," but it is so verrrry hard to know how. If it's by reading articles and forming opinions, then understanding the Civil War is truly impossibility, since our opinions are all different. Caitlyn brings up a fascinating argument that the mere existence of this conversation proves that there was really no single cause to the war.
Maybe it was because the better part of our reconstruction discussion in class so far has been centered on Zinn's chapter 9, but whatever the reason, the discussion is based on slavery's role in the war. I'm wondering what happened to the causes we read about first; where did the huge issues and differences besides slavery go? What happened to the "inferiority complex" the South was suffering from, the economic inequality between the industrialized North and rural South, the "fresh wind of ideas" that blew in the North and not the South, the "oversimplification of principles to abstract ideas" with party politics that kept the North and South from functionally communicating, the invisibility of minorities in both regions, the desire of the South to sustain its feudalistic or aristocratic normalcy, and even the increasingly differing views of education? It all seemed to go down the drain once the war commenced and slavery took front and center. Tariffs were mentioned in an article or two, but besides that, slavery and states' rights appear to be the only contenders in the question of the cause of the war. I guess it could be argued that everything falls under the category of right versus rights (which is still NOT merely a matter of states’ rights) but why is slavery the only exception?
I think it’s pretty interesting how, as “Five Myths” said, we are still “fighting over” the history of the civil war. As Caitlyn discussed in her post, many Southerners believe that secession was cause by states’ rights (and not slavery), while most of us in the North believe it was simply slavery. But as we find with many things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. We know that the war wasn’t just caused by slavery, but we also know it wasn’t just states’ rights itself either. In “Gone With the Myths,” four of the seceding states identified slavery as means for seceding when they seceded, and even as we have learned, the South saw that slavery, which sustained the South’s economy, was being threatened by the North, whether it really was or not. It’s weird that we can’t agree, even 150 years later, and say that the Civil War was caused by “a confluence of complex factors” rather than just slavery or states rights alone. Isn’t it clear that such a catastrophic and widespread war wasn’t cause solely by one issue? I guess my previous self thought so, because as I’m finding with a ton of things we learn, I either had massive gaps in knowledge about parts of our history or blindly believed in something I was taught years ago. I agree with Caitlyn in that the reason why those in the North claim the war was fought over slavery while those in the South say it was for states’ rights is because each wants to be on the right side of history and justify its position. The union, as written in “One State Takes...,” didn’t really fight the war over slavery but rather to keep the union together. Likewise, the South fought for “states’ rights” but at the same time opposed the rights of northern states to abolish and demonstrate against the institution. The North and South want to justify its history and positions in the war by believing it was for a moral cause, which I feel is only human nature.
ReplyDeleteI am actually pretty surprised at how passionate some of those in the South are about the Civil War and the confederacy. The war was 150 years ago, yet the divisions arising from this war are still pretty profound. In “One State Takes a New Look..., Michael Givens of the “Sons of Confederate Veterans” said, “ our people were only fighting to protect themselves from an invasion and for their independence.” This guy does seem on the fringe a little bit, but the fact that he used the word “our people” is quite shocking to me. Those in the North aren’t really a “different people”; we’re all a “united” country, right? But there were also many celebrations around the South celebrating the Confederacy and their Southern heritage, as many of them do have ancestors that did fight and die in the war. And I find myself coming to this question: are these Southerners who celebrate the Confederacy and look back upon the “glory days of secession” (Celebrating Secession...) doing so because their ancestors fought for it, or because they still believe in what it stood for, as in states’ rights, or a combination of both? “Gone With the Myths” said that the governor of Texas was “wondering” about whether his state should have the right to secede, today! Putting slavery aside, I feel that in some respects the debate over states’ rights is still relevant and arguable from both sides, whereas it is not for slavery.
ReplyDeleteI think it's both frustrating and unfortunately amusing that our nation is still divided about the extent of which slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Like Doug said, even modern society is convinced that the cause was one reason or the other and refuses to accept the idea of "a confluence of complex factors." It's amazing how much of this relates to the idea of bipartisanship.
ReplyDeleteThen again, I guess I can't be particularly angry about this. No one living now can figure out exactly what the cause of the Civil War was simply because we weren't there. For those who lived during the war, it's hard to identify the cause because they were part of all the bias. Schager brought up the saying, "Hindsight is 20/20." I'm not sure this applies to this situation. Even 150 years later, the northern and southern states are debating about the "real" cause. It's hard to look at the Civil War even now because we still live in conflicting seas of bias. Oh, the confusion...
But let's say that this debate isn't one between deceitful northerners and southerners. Now we can bring in the idea of rhetoric and brainwash. So, if we are to assume that there was one version or another of the Civil War, the two versions in question, as Tiffany brought up, are a war driven by states' rights or by slavery.
In version 1, the war was driven by states' rights. The Union's argument, in this version, was that the southern states didn't have any rights to secession. Many interpreted the Constitution as a contractual agreement among participating states. "Union is perpetual" was their slogan. On the other hand, the Confederacy argued that being a state gave them the right to secession. They found justification in the Declaration of Independence. So that's that.
In version 2, the war was driven by slavery. The Union's argument was that slavery was unethical, immoral, just wrong. The South's argument was that the economy depended on slavery and that blacks were naturally inferior to whites.
In my third version, independence was a cover up. Arguing about slavery, like Caitlyn mentioned, seemed a bit too trivial to actually be serious about secession. Blaming their issues on the government gave them more leverage in the Civil War.
In my fourth version, the Union was just trying to suck the power out of the South. Their power was threatened. They needed any reason to fight the rebelling states. In this fourth version, the war was driven by greed.
And what if these "cover up" reasons were a result of rhetoric? Not everyone was two-faced. And now I'm brought to my next point: Perhaps the Civil War was two wars fought on the same battlefield. Actually, considering Tiffany's point about ignoring the other contributors to the Civil War, it was probably more than two wars. One set of soldiers was fighting for/against slavery. The other set was fighting for/against the south's secession. Another set was fighting because of the tariffs. A fourth war about the economic inequalities too?
While reading the articles, I read from a line from "Gone with the Myths," was stuck with me. The article stated that, " Instead, the Secession Convention was the beginning of the Civil War." I could not disagree more with this statement. The secession of several southern states was just an effect of slavery in this country. First off, slavery was brought about in this nation before it became a country or even colonies. A theory was brought about that when Columbus and the rest of the Englishmen arrived in America, they treated the native Americans as dirt and caused them to be slaves (Class Discussion on Thanksgiving). This was the origin of slavery in our country. Since then, the treatment from whites to other races has exacerbated. Shipments and Shipments of African Americans were delivered to the colonies and people started depending on blacks for manual labor. That is how the relationship between those of color and those of no color formed. As the country formed, those in the South became more dependent on others to do manual labor. This is why in the years leading up to the war, the South was not willing to abolish slavery and risk economic implications. By having separate states secede, they would be saving their own economy and not being at risk of losing everything. Therefore, the want to secede was inevitable once the importation of slaves began. The secession Convention was definitely not the beginning of the Civil War, but simple one cause that led up to fighting.
ReplyDeleteI think the point that Doug brought up is very accurate- the truth is somewhere in the middle. The misconception in the North is that the Civil War was about slavery. I know people from the South who, interestingly enough have the preconception that the Civil War was all about state’s rights. Neither of these are really true, but both paint their region into a better picture. It tells future generations of the South that the North wronged them and it tells future generations of the North that the South was immoral. I think this can be applied to what is going on domestically today with hyper partisanship. Neither the republicans nor democrats can seem to agree or compromise on anything- from budgets to abortion. There is no willingness to compromise and bringing this back to the Civil War, I firmly believe some of the war could have been avoided had the North and the South tried to compromise a little more.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel that the statement she mentioned certainly is not true. However, I disagree that secession was an effect of slavery. I think slavery was more of a secondary problem with the country at the time. As we’ve seen and read, the North did not really care that much except for the handful of abolitionists. I think there were more factors playing into the secession like the tariff of abominations and the effect that had on Southern economy.
In reference to "5 myths," the author essentially refutes everything taught in history classes across the country about the civil war. I found the two most interesting points to be that one, the south didn't succeed over states rights and two, the south didn't succeed over tariffs or taxes. After spending so much time talking about the tariff of abominations and the nullification crisis and how it upset the south, I assumed that was a cause of the war. While they were important tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states had largely forgotten the issue. He writes, "Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816." I found this to me surprising, I thought that at the time of the war, the South was still working under those oppressive tariffs. This has confused me even further. What was the cause of the war besides slavery?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOH MY GOSH THIS BLOG HATES ME
ReplyDeletestand by...
When I first think about trying to understand the Civil War, I really want to get behind the feelings of the north and south. Their actions are merely indicators, symptoms to a deeper illness. The people of the south especially were rocked by an inner fear, and I do think that that fear had everything to do with a feeling that their rights were slowly being stripped from them by a government that suddenly wanted control. Yet, I yearned to know specifically what rights they were truly afraid of losing, and a common thread I am seeing between these articles (excluding “The 150-Year War”) is the issue of states rights vs. slavery. The articles demonstrate point to myths regarding the real start of the Civil War, yet their variances show that even today, citizens can’t seem to make up their mind regarding whether states rights or slavery was the real reason why the southern states seceded. Yet, I don’t think there really is just one choice. From what I’ve learned, I think for the southerners, both states rights and slavery were so deeply intertwined that they were nearly the same concept, and both were the reason why the south saw an escape route in secession. I’ll try to draw together what I’ve learned to support the conclusion I’ve come to from reading the different articles with their respective ideas…
ReplyDeleteCONTINUED
ReplyDeleteThe south was completely and utterly dependent on its slavery to guide it economically and even socially, instilling the idea within the white southerners that they were above the blacks (which was a social standard). The state rights part ties in because the southern states had almost always been able to make their own decisions regarding slavery. They could do what they wanted without any true, disruptive interference from the federal government. Heck, the north was just as dependent on slavery as the south was, for the north relied on southern agriculture to provide the raw materials it needed to manufacture goods. So, the south was left to its own conventions and control, giving it the false illusion that the government would never get involved with their slave trade. Of course, when the country began to fumble and the feds tried to be a bit more controlling over slavery, some people even wanting it gone forever, the south was upset. They had assumed that slavery, the “cornerstone” of their society as Alexander Stephens (<33333) himself said, was under the state’s control, and I think this is purely due to the fact that the federal government had lacked involvement in southern slavery essentially since the inception of the concept of slavery itself.
If any of you care, I literally had to put a different security code about 20 times before it would let me post ONE post...and I needed to post three...either it's a sign that my reflections need to be shorter or that I'm a robot.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that the secession of the Southern states and the Civil War was because of what the Elites in the South wanted. The Five Myths article tries to explain that the South's secession was not because of states rights because they opposed the North's right to legislate against slavery and for the blacks and not for taxes because, "Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them." However, even after reading this, I still think that slavery was only part of the problem. If slavery was the whole problem, the South would not have seceded because there was not a threat of losing their slaves, found in Lincoln's quote, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." Lincoln only wanted to keep the Union together, the North's intentions had nothing to do with slavery, only to keep the Southern states part of the Union. The Southern states wanted their independence so they could govern themselves, the North had monopolized the trading with external countries, and was able to benefit economically at the South's expense by imposing such high import taxes. Economically, it would benefited the Southern elite to leave the North, and that is why they did, not because they were worried about losing their slaves.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Five Myths" New York Times article, a point that I found really interesting was listed under myth number three (Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery). The article lists two ideological factors that caused most white Southern slaves to support slavery, one of them being that "Americans are wondrous optimists, looking to the upper class and expecting to join it someday" (Loewen). I actually laughed out loud when I read this, because I think it still rings true today. Although most poor Southerners back then aspired to become wealthy slaveowners, it was never going to happen, just because financially, that's the position they were stuck in. However, because they were "optimistic" to the point of being unrealistic, they espoused the beliefs that they thought would warrant their journey into "upper class land." Today, in a country where we clearly have a top one percent of wealthy and powerful Americans, there is still a large lower and middle class being overly optimistic and believing that they can make it into that top one percent. It's essentially what increasing taxes for the wealthy is doing -- making the gap between the upper and lower classes smaller, and by doing so, lower class citizens falsely believe that they are of the same status as that "upper class." I'd love to hear what other examples, if any, people came up with to apply this point to today's America.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly to Ben, I found the 5 myths about slavery to be the most interesting. The two that stood out to me were regarding slavery, which is so often a focus of the civil war but was certainly not the initial cause. The first myth was the one Ben brought up, which stated: "3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery." Even now, after studying the civil war, I still thought that basically all southerners owned slaves. This is clearly not true though and I think that my assumption is very demonstrative of people today. All through middle and elementary school, I thought that the civil war was the war on slavery. It was the focus of everything I learned in school and made it seem that slaves were the "norm" in the south. This brings me to the next part of the article that I focused on, which stated: "4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery. Since the Civil War did end slavery, many Americans think abolition was the Union's goal. But the North initially went to war to hold the nation together. Abolition came later." This drove the point home that we learned about all during this unit- the civil war did have aspects that referred to slavery but it was NOT the primary cause and it was NOT the most important issue of the war. I actually think that it is more fascinating to know about the preservation of the union because the succession of the south was such a pressing issue for the government to deal with. I think it is a problem that slavery is so harped upon and it is my opinion that slavery should be mentioned and studied, but not given as much time and energy it is today.
ReplyDeleteThe fifth myth about in "five myths" caught my attention because it really revealed the magnitude in which the abolition of slavery had on the South. I used to believe that yeah it was important to them, but the industrialized North was churning out money no problem, and the slave trade was declining. But, the fifth myth revealed to me that it was quite the opposite.
ReplyDelete"Slavery was hardly on its last legs in 1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them - or forced them to abandon slavery?"
I was astonished to find out that slavery was 75 PERCENT of all US exports. I think the equivalent of that today would be like abolishing oil/gas completely; basically, it's like committing economic-suicide. But, the issue with slavery is interesting, because it also becomes an ethical and social debate. We are not just talking about an element or chemical: THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE. And these real people as slaves was a way of life in the south. Finally, the "150 years war" interested me because it spoke about the reality of the war. This was not Iraq war where most of us are sitting here on our computers typing and texting, this was total war. I really do feel spoiled.
Reading these articles made me sad. While reading the Washington Post article, "Five Myths about why the South Seceded", the first line grabbed a hold of me: "One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it". I never really realized how TRUE this statement is. When looking and reflecting on the society we live in, it's pretty obvious that we are still a country divided into two groups. Depending on one's location, they will take on a certain view point, because of how their community influence's them.
ReplyDeleteI have to say the part that I think we are still fighting is the inequality of race. Blacks and Whites are still unspokenly regarded as unequals, that being whites are superior to blacks. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in the 60's, from the article "The 150 Year War", "One hundred years later, the negro is still is not free". This is still true in 2011. Although they are treated better and are promised equal rights by legislation, the Blacks of America still face prejudice today. Why this has happened, I'm not sure, but I do know that it is something that should have been corrected better. The end of the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery were perfect places in time where the country could have worked on making this nation's people more equal. However, because this did not occur, the mistakes of these generations before us have led us to behave the way we do towards different races today.
So right now after writing a nice long piece regarding the civil war google decided to inform me that I am not allowed to submit a blank piece and therefore has deleted all my work so I'm crying right now.
ReplyDeleteAnywayzzzz...
The article that stuck with me the most was the 150 Year War article. The first paragraph was interesting in the fact that generations expereince such different things. While we are learning about the civil battles occuring in the middle east the author stated how he remembered, "In the 1960s, the Civil War centennial recalled great battles as protesters marched for civil rights and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declared from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, “One hundred years later, the Negro still is not free.”" These differences show that no matter what generation you are from, although the reasons and situations are different the basic idea of rebelling against the goverment has stayed true throughout years. The quote that summed up the entire article for me was when he stated, "It’s a bottomless treasure, this Civil War, much of it encrusted in myth or still unexplored. Which is why, a century and a half later, it still claims our attention and remembrance." There is so much that is controversial and the different views of peopel seem to controdict each other. The only idea that only seems to agree on is the horrific and unnecessary fighting that occured.
Both "Gone With the Myths" and "Five Myths About Why the South Seceded" captured my attention when it discussed that the real reason the South seceded was due to the "Northern states... threatening to do away with slavery" (Ball). It's interesting how many Southerners today say the reason is actually due to state rights. I couldn't help but wonder how Southerners today came to feel this way. When reading the article "Celebrating Secession Without the Slaves" that Southerners feel that they "have been kicked around an awfully longtime and are accused of being racist" (Seelye), I hypothesized that perhaps one of the reasons the Southerners insist the reason for secession was not due to slavery is because they are trying to be less seen as racists, by trying to erase the history where they had once fought for the institution of slavery. Besides, even if the Southern states seceded due to the issue of slavery, they still wanted state rights. Many Southerners, who are Republicans, want more state rights today and they are probably aware of the fact that Southerners wanted that too before the Civil War began, contributing to how they think secession was over state rights.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the article " Five Myths about why the South seceded" was interesting as it gave me a new outlook onto the situation. I was intrigued when that article stated "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right." I had never looked at the war that way as i automatically assumed that one of the desires of the Souths' was states rights. As it turns out, this article claims "Slavery, not states rights birthed the Civil War" and confederate states opposed States rights. It was fascinating to find out that in not supporting states rights, people in power are able to preserve their own rights. This seems kind of selfish to me as I think people in power positions should be thinking of their own personal rights in equality to the rights of others which they stand for.
ReplyDeleteThe fifth myth also caught my attention as it implied that the South could have lasted as a slave society. Although I do not doubt the South's ability to prosper with slavery (as it did for many years), I wondered how the South would completely survive with the North being so powerful and having free states. The article informs us that "slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation." but it also includes that it "is impossible to disprove" that slavery would have ended no matter what. I do think that the South could have survived without the North but slavery would have died out in the end due to the constant proximity between the North and South. Before long, a majority of slaves would have moved or escaped to the North with the desire to be free.
The article that most struck me was Gone with the Myths; This article resonated the most with me because it caused me to contemplate a different approach to the recurring idea of the cause, or non-cause, of the civil war: Slavery. Within classroom discussion we have talked a lot about slavery and distention from slavery at the this time, and through the sources we have read, that in my opinion contained the same bias, we deduced that slavery was not the root cause of the civil war. However I think that statement must be dissected more deeply. When we state that slavery was not the cause of the civil war, we usually do so with the implication that the problem of slavery was that the south wanted it and the north didn't. And while i completely agree now that this commonly accepted statement is invalid, I cannot deny that slavery was the root. This article made me reconsider it as a root, but not in the traditional sense. It was more that the south had been misrepresented (at topic that was touched upon in class), and that the problem as slavery was not so cut and dry).
ReplyDelete