Printer-friendly version
William Faulkner famously wrote, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” He would not be surprised to learn that Americans, 150 years after the Civil War began, are still getting it wrong.
During the last five years, I’ve asked several thousand teachers for the main reason the South seceded. They always come up with four alternatives: states’ rights, slavery, tariffs and taxes or the election of Lincoln.
When I ask them to vote, the results—and resulting discussions— convince me that no part of our history gets more mythologized than the Civil War, beginning with secession.
My informal polls show that 55 to 75 percent of teachers—regardless of region or race—cite states’ rights as the key reason southern states seceded. These conclusions are backed up by a 2011 Pew Research Center poll, which found that a wide plurality of Americans—48 percent— believe that states’ rights was the main cause of the Civil War. Fewer, 38 percent, attributed the war to slavery, while 9 percent said it was a mixture of both.
These results are alarming because they are essentially wrong. States’ rights was not the main cause of the Civil War—slavery was.
The issue is critically important for teachers to see clearly. Understanding why the Civil War began informs virtually all the attitudes about race that we wrestle with today. The distorted emphasis on states’ rights separates us from the role of slavery and allows us to deny the notions of white supremacy that fostered secession.
In short, this issue is a perfect example of what Faulkner meant when he said the past is not dead—it’s not even past.
The Lost Cause
Confederate sympathizers have long
understood the importance of getting
the Civil War wrong. In 1866, a
year after the war ended, an ex-Confederate
named Edward A. Pollard
published the first pro-southern history,
called The Lost Cause: A New
Southern History of the War of the
Confederates. Pollard’s book was followed
by a torrent of similar propaganda.
Soon, the term “Lost Cause”
perfectly described the South’s collective
memory of the war.
All these works promoting the Lost Cause consoled southern pride by echoing similar themes: The South’s leaders had been noble; the South was not out-fought but merely overwhelmed; Southerners were united in support of the Confederate cause; slavery was a benign institution overseen by benevolent masters.
A chief tenet of the Lost Cause was that secession had been forced on the South to protect states’ rights. This view spread in part because racism pervaded both North and South, and both ex-Confederates and ex-Unionists wanted to put the war behind them. Beginning with Mississippi’s new constitution in 1890, white southerners effectively removed African Americans from citizenship and enshrined their new status in Jim Crow laws. Northerners put the war behind them by turning their backs on blacks and letting Jim Crow happen.
From 1890 to about 1940, the Lost Cause version of events held sway across the United States. This worldview influenced popular culture, such as the racist 1915 movie The Birth of a Nation and Margaret Mitchell’s 1936 bestselling paean to the Old South, Gone With the Wind. As I point out in my book Lies My Teacher Told Me, history textbooks also bought into the myth and helped promote it nationwide.
What’s Wrong About States’ Rights?
But advocates of the Lost Cause—
Confederates and later neo-
Confederates—had a problem. The
leaders of southern secession left
voluminous records. The civil rights
movement of the 1950s and 1960s
prompted historians and teachers to
review those records and challenge the
Lost Cause. One main point they came
to was this: Confederate states seceded
against states’ rights, not for them.
As states left the Union, they said why. On Christmas Eve of 1860, South Carolina, the first to go, adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It listed South Carolina’s grievances, including the exercise of northern states’ rights: “We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.” The phrase “constitutional obligations” sounds vague, but delegates went on to quote the part of the Constitution that concerned them— the Fugitive Slave Clause. They then noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery. ... In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed ...”
South Carolina also attacked New York for no longer allowing temporary slavery. In the past, Charleston gentry who wanted to spend a cool August in the North could bring their cooks along. By 1860, New York made it clear that it was a free state and any slave brought there would become free. South Carolina was outraged. Delegates were further upset at a handful of northern states for letting African-American men vote. Voting was a state matter at the time, so this should have fallen under the purview of states’ rights. Nevertheless, southerners were outraged. In 1860, South Carolina pointed out that according to “the supreme law of the land, [blacks] are incapable of becoming citizens.” This was a reference to the 1857 Dred Scott decision by the southern- dominated U.S. Supreme Court.
Delegates also took offense that northern states have “denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery” and “permitted open establishment among them of [abolitionist] societies ...” In other words, northern and western states should not have the right to let people assemble and speak freely—not if what they say might threaten slavery.
Thoroughly Identified With Slavery
Other seceding states echoed South
Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly
identified with the institution of slavery—
the greatest material interest of
the world,” proclaimed Mississippi.
“... [A] blow at slavery is a blow at
commerce and civilization.” Northern
abolitionists, Mississippi went on to
complain, have “nullified the Fugitive
Slave Law,” “broken every compact”
and even “invested with the honors of
martyrdom” John Brown—the radical
abolitionist who tried to lead a slave
uprising in Virginia in 1859.
Once the Confederacy formed, its leaders wrote a new constitution that protected the institution of slavery at the national level. As historian William C. Davis has said, this showed how little Confederates cared about states’ rights and how much they cared about slavery. “To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state,” he said. “To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery.”
Their founding documents show that the South seceded over slavery, not states’ rights. But the neo-Confederates are right in a sense. Slavery was not the only cause. The South also seceded over white supremacy, something in which most whites—North and South—sincerely believed. White southerners came to see the 4 million African Americans in their midst as a menace, going so far as to predict calamity, even race war, were slavery ever to end. This facet of Confederate ideology helps explain why many white southerners—even those who owned no slaves and had no prospects of owning any—mobilized so swiftly and effectively to protect their key institution.
This historic map shows how the United States was divided in 1861, as the Civil War began. All of the seceding southern states were heavily dependant on slavery. Keeping African Americans in bondage allowed slave owners to cheaply grow cash crops like cotton, rice and sugar cane.
Tariffs, Taxes and Lincoln
The other alleged causes of the Civil War
can be dispensed with fairly quickly. The
argument that tariffs and taxes also
caused secession is a part of the Lost
Cause line favored by modern neo-Confederates.
But this, too, is flatly wrong.
High tariffs had been the issue in the 1831 nullification controversy, but not in 1860. About tariffs and taxes, the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes” said nothing. Why would it? Tariffs had been steadily decreasing for a generation. The tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning, had been written by a Virginia slaveowner and was warmly approved of by southern members of Congress. Its rates were lower than at any other point in the century.
The election of Lincoln is a valid explanation for secession—not an underlying cause, but clearly the trigger. Many southern states referred to the “Black Republican Party,” to use Alabama’s term, that had “elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President.” As “Black Republican” implies, Alabama was upset with Lincoln because he held “that the power of the Government should be so exercised that slavery in time, should be exterminated.” So it all comes back to slavery.
Study the Writing of History
None of this was secret in the 1860s.
The “anything but slavery” explanations
gained traction only after the
war, especially after 1890—at exactly
the same time that Jim Crow laws
became entrenched across the South.
Thus when people wrote about secession
influenced what they wrote.
And here the states’ rights argument opens a door for teachers to explain how perceptions of the past change from one generation to the next. Most students imagine history is something “to be learned,” so the whole idea of historiography—that who writes history, when and for what audience, affects how history is written— is new to them. They need to know it. Knowledge of historiography empowers students, helping them become critical readers and thinkers.
Concealing the role of white supremacy—on both sides of the conflict— makes it harder for students to see white supremacy today. After all, if southerners were not championing slavery but states’ rights, then that minimizes southern racism as a cause of the war. And it gives implicit support to the Lost Cause argument that slavery was a benevolent institution. Espousing states’ rights as the reason for secession whitewashes the Confederate cause into a “David versus Goliath” undertaking— the states against the mighty federal government.
States’ rights became a rallying cry for southerners fighting all federal guarantees of civil rights for African Americans. This was true both during Reconstruction and in the 1950s, when the modern civil rights movement gained strength. Today, the cause of states’ rights is still invoked against federal social programs and education initiatives that are often beneficial to people of color.
In other words, teaching the Civil War wrong cedes power to some of the most reactionary forces in the United States, letting them, rather than truth, dictate what we say in the classroom. Allowing bad history to stand literally makes the public stupid about the past—today.
Comments
Well to me your article was
Well to me your article was well thought out and and written in perspective, a "Northern" perspective. The main cause of the Civil War was states rights. I feel that way because if the North had passed laws that would ban slavery, prior to the sucession of the Civil War, the south would be thrown into an economic depression. Their whole economy was based largely on agriculture, which depended on slaves to work the plantations. If the south lost all of their work force, then they would have no economy. They would loose everything they had worked for, so in turn they needed to defend their rights as the majority of congress was in the north. I might also point out that the north being the majority in congress, they had no need for slaves and simply did not like the idea of slavery, their economy did not depend on slavery so they had nothing to loose in passing anti-slavery laws. The civil war never was about slavery untill Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it was by passing the 13th amendment. Up untill then the North was loosing and really had no real reason to fight the south but to get their land back. You have to look at things in a different perspective, both sides were right by their own way. Look at the history books from both sides and don't come to a conclusion untill you have. This is coming from a Pennsylvanian School Student with family that fought for ONLY the north. -S.L.
I think it's true that
I think it's true that slavery was MADE the issue and justification for the Union to declare War on the Confederacy, but one cannot deny the role that states rights and tariffs have on the issue as well. Those issues were being debated in both houses of the US Congress since the beginning of the Republic. ONe need only look at the debates on those house of Congress to see that tariffs and states rights were very much an issue- debates between Henry Clay, John. C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster and many more. Even some who argued against states rights over the federal gov't, supported the right of the current slave states to stay as they were, as long as no new slave states were esatblished, and while he waS personally against slavery, he deplored the "extreme views" of the abolitionist movement. Slavery was the perfect issue to declare war: it would appeal to the growing abolitionist sentiment in the North, it would solve the problenm of Britain allying with the South, and destrying the Union, because Britain had already banned slavery, they could hardly support the Confederacy while the Confederacy owned, and traded slaves, and it was the perfect solution for the federal gov't and the growing sentiment in the North as well to have precedence over ALL states right's issues. So all this is to say, I believe state's rights were the issue of secession, and that states rights vs Union as well as slavery were the issues for which the war was fought- and slavery was the issue that galvanized the North's support for going to war over these issues. Certainly the motives regarding slavery may not have been entirely pure, but it resulted in the right thing- A strong Federal Gov't, and an huge improvement in human rights issues.
William, I'm not sure facts
William,
I'm not sure facts support your beliefs. The South argued against states rights in many of their secession documents (and what was the main states' right they wanted other than to maintain slavery?) and tariffs were as lower or lower than in 1820. There is no legitimate argument for either of those as a base cause for 620,000 deaths and millions of dollars of destruction. Slavery was "made" the issue because it was and continued to be THE underlying cause that led to the war.
Of course slavery was the issue. Were tariffs discussed on the Senate floor over Bloody Kansas? No.
Were States' rights? Unless it involved slavery, the answer is again, no. Was slavery discussed? Absolutely.
Secondly, was the fighting in Bloody Kansas over tariffs? Again, a clear no. It was over slavery. Allowing slavery in the territories fueled the fire. Southern states weren't arguing about tariffs in the territories and the main "states' rights" they wanted was to maintain slavery in those areas.
I'm sorry, but to deny slavery as the No. 1, primary cause of the war is to ignore the facts. Anything else is so minor in scope.
Good article, but as a
Good article, but as a teacher of history in middle school, my interpretation of the main cause of the Civil War, as stated in the beginning of the article is all four of those listed woven together lead to the succession of the South in 1860-61. The election of Abraham Lincoln, along with the state's wanting their "peculiar institution" (states rights) lead to the war. Ending slavery, was not an issue in the war until 1862, Lincoln's main goal was to preserve the Union. The states having the right to have the institution of slavery was the main cause of the Civil War ????? Could we be looking at the issue in hind sight. Slavery was the underlying reason, state's rights was the issue, a states right to choose it economic activities and the election of Lincoln was the spark to start the wick.
I believe you are teaching
I believe you are teaching the consenus of most historians . Mr Loewen provides a great service for historians with his view and facts . Such as now we learn that blacks actually served in the southern armies . Which is true , but if you investigate it , and it has been , you only find a hand ful , perhaps 200 , and basically no evidence that fire arms were ever used .
But we have Congressional records , debates recorded in newspapers and letters that support the growing tension between the south and north based on other issues besides just slavery . It goes to our roots , the Federalist papers and Anti Federalist papers provide insight . I don't quite understand the need to disregard certain documentaion while Mr Loewen is providing so much new documentaion that provides a better over all picture .
It is as though he giveth and then he taketh . ;0)
http://opinionator.blogs.nyti
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/the-causes-of-the-civil-war-2-0/
Attached is an article with a more balanced perspective.
Also, the OP and others who support the "anti-slavery North/ pro-slavery South" perspective should keep in mind the possible motives of the North to wash their hands of slavery by pinning it on the South. The two main are regionalism (sophisticated, educated, progressive North and backward, uneducated, degenerate South) and economic (someone had to pay to rebuild the terrible, terrible South that is now part of the Union). This actually still exists today on a national level and on a state level (in Va I know for sure, probably in other states as well).
Federal funds are not divided equally among all states for services, nor are state funds in Va.
Note a previous poster who is from No. Va. and separates him/herself from the "south". I am also from NoVa, and can attest that is a huge political tactic to keep more money flowing into NoVa, than other parts of the state. Poor, welfare collecting, ignorant, southern Virginians leaching the hard earned money from wealthy, tax contributing, well-educated, northern Virginians. And before someone gets their panties in a bunch, I do not agree with the adjectives, just putting bluntly the sentiment that is tossed around.
Not much changes throughout history, money and power are the reasons for all wars. Those with convince those without to fight their battles for other 'moral' reasons. Slavery or State rights? Free the Jews or millions of dollars aid loan opportunities? Terror/freedom or Oil?
By arguing blame, we play into the hands of those with money and power and set ourselves up to be hoodwinked again in the future. If they can divide us minions, we can be conquered (and help them do it).
True education is not about pontificating 'facts' to children. What we should be teaching our children is the critical thinking skills needed to come up with their own theories as to why the war started and they and we will learn something even more valuable - what is and will be important to them in the future and confidence to handle it.
Okay, rambling, yes. Tired, yes. Long day at work today and tomorrow "educating our youth," yes.
I'll not comment again, but
I'll not comment again, but let me note here: teachers need to exemplify the same kind of response we want from our students. That is, unsupported opinion won't do. As someone (Moynihan?) said, "You have a right to your own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts." You must use evidence that is credible to others.
So when “jacksonskin” writes, for example, “Although Ulysses S. Grant also owned slaves and he kept them well after the war was over,” well, no, the facts are quite different. Indeed, this claim is part of the Neo-Confederate panoply of unsupported assertions about the War, even though jacksonskin does not like that term.
It is of course true that many Confederate soldiers went to war because, as they saw it, their state or their region was under attack. (Rarely did they see their own homes under attack, of course, at least not as a cause for their signing up, but that is more a rhetorical point.) However, that does not mean that the Southern states seceded because their region was under attack. It was not. Most of the Southern states seceded when Buchanan was still president, and he never attacked the South. Again, the Southern states SAY why they seceded, and they emphasize the maintenance and extension of slavery, first, last, and throughout their secession documents. And again, the North did NOT attack to end slavery, but to hold the country together. For that matter, the North did not attack. The South fired on Fort Sumter. No president could have ignored that and stayed in office.
To argue that it wasn’t slavery but the enormous investment in slaves that prodded the South to secede splits a hair. It says the same thing stated twice, to me. Similarly, “greed” is just another way of saying “desire for the profits made from slavery,” stating the same thing thrice.
Mick Sheldon would have us believe that “most counties in the south were slave free.” A quick trip to the US Census on-line for 1860 will disabuse one of that notion. Again, facts matter. Moreover, those counties where slaves were few (West Virginia, most of East Tennessee, northwest Arkansas, Winston County AL, etc.) showed much less enthusiasm for the Confederacy than counties where slaves were numerous.
If you teach K-12 (or college, for that matter), have your school library get THE CONFEDERATE AND NEO-CONFEDERATE READER. Then YOU read it first and make sure that anyone, student or faculty, who argues that the South did NOT secede for slavery, can answer this question: “Why, then, does each state, when it leaves the Union, SAY that it is doing so over slavery?” [except NC, which issued no statement of causes] Are they all a bunch of liars?
No one who studies history
No one who studies history will argue that slavery was not part of the reasons for the American Civil War . In fact it is still taught as the main reason in many schools and most students will tell you the Civil war was fought to end slavery . Actually I am glad sometimes that they still teach who won .
But of course their were other factors, Industrial factories of the north combined with political strength provided a hostile climate itariffsfs for southern goods to be able to be traded with England and other countries because of high tariffs. ThAbolitionistst movement was quite passionate in the North , much of it religiously based also. You had regional differences that brought other issues that combined to cause a bloody civil war . And many people , including those who fought at the time of the Civil War would say they were fighting to free others . So your point is well taken , but it appears to be causing you loose your perspective on the over all historical understanding .
Our Trade relations with Japan were highly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor . But it would be historcally in accurate to focus on that issue alone with out the many many others that were responsible . You may have your facts , but not the right to pick only the facts you choose to use in the over all understanding of what caused the Civil War . You do realize that blacks actually fought on the side of the South in some cases, yes strange , but not all people think like you or me my friend . Others do things for their own reasons , and history has people who do also.
I think Jackson and other are
I think Jackson and other are talking about two completely different subjects.
First, JacksonSkin is right in that the reasons the individual Confederate (NOT Southern--nearly 150,000 white and 200,000 black "Southerners" fought for the Union) soldier fought is more than just "to preserve slavery." How their units were raised--on a local/community basis--had much to do with the reasons they fought. To simplify, most fought because their neighbors, friends and relatives were going to fight. The US in 1860 is not like the USA today--the concept of nationalism really hadn't taken hold yet; local community was much, much more important than late 19th/20th century national identity.
Second, slavery was the main cause. Both North and South argued the State's Rights issue--as the author notes, the CSA (in its founding documents) accused the North of ignoring national law for state privledge. So, for the North, it was a State's Rights issue (to some extent--not to over do this...the pseudo-religious concept of "The Union", combined with war fever and the attack on Ft Sumter, all helped). For the South, the "States Right"in question wasn't the right to create their own coinage, maintain their own tariffs or to have direct foreign relations. Nope. The "Right" in question--and clearly stated in the CS Constitution--is the "right" to own slaves without interference from a centralized government.
Lastly, the large body of writing in the past 50 years on the CSA is well worth considering--much of it has focused on issues such as Confederate nationalism (or lack thereof), the Lost Cause mythology (an invention of the New South and Jim Crow) and the long term strategic-political goals of the CSA (spreading slavery to Cuba, the Caribbean, and Central America).
So, the individual soldier--both Union and CSA--fought for a myriad of reasons. The war, however, was caused and about slavery.
Actually, I grew up in the
Actually, I grew up in the South (Virginia, to be exact), and I never once heard anything more aobut the Civil War than 'ALL YOU SOUTHERNERS ARE HORRIBLE RACIST PEOPLE AND NORTHERN PEOPLE ARE THE BEST BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BIGOTS AT ALL AND ALL YOU SOUTHERNERS SHOULD JUST GO DIE BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL STILL RACISTS'. Having taken anthropology, I understand that racism is a scale and EVERYBODY IS RACIST, regardless of their own race. I also feel like I'm constantly being judged for having been born in the south, like people automatically assume that I'm a horrible slave-owning racist person despite the fact that my family didn't even get to this country until 1910 (and even if we had gotten here sooner, we were Irish and wouldn't have been treated any better, since the Irish weren't even considered white when they first got to America).
I don't know where he's getting this from, that all southerners think that the Civil War was about states' rights. I didn't even learn about states' rights until 11th grade APUSH, and if I hadn't taken it AP I probably wouldn't have learned about it at all and just kept living the rest of my life feeling like shit for being a white 'southerner' (I live in Northern Virginia, no one counts as as southern). I did, however, learn that Lincoln wasn't going to repeal slavery at all (the same way JFK was never going to pass the Civil Rights Bill, that was all LBJ) and that plenty of northerners owned slaves as well... in fact, my supervisor's family is from upstate New York, and they owned slaves. Not sure where New York gets off being all high-and-mighty about the issue...
I can relate greatly to you,
I can relate greatly to you, Erin. I'm from the even deeper South (Southern Louisiana) and my family is Irish and came here in 1904. First, many Northern people I've met assume we ride alligators to work. Secondly, (let me make it clear that I've adored every Northerner I've met and they talk much faster than we do...) they seem to hold to certain prejudice about the South: they believe us to be racist (if not completely so, then just enough to be called a bigot), poorly educated, flat out poor, and constantly being misplaced by hurricanes. Once they talk to me, those prejudices fall away, but they still remain there. According to all the history books I've read, even the ones we read in APUSH, it isn't clear that racism was a wide-spread thing back then. It was portrayed in such a way that the Southerners were the only ones to be blamed and the Northerners were the portrait of moral uprightness. To be honest, I've never even really heard of state's rights as being a main cause, but I have heard of the war being the War of Northern Aggression. Sure, I'm aware of a KKK group that still meets around here and there still are a few people that rail about white supremacy, but there will always be those people. It would just really be nice to be looked at like a normal, fair person when I say I'm from Louisiana.
Erin, I'm sure you suffer a
Erin,
I'm sure you suffer a stereotype some "northerners" have of southerners. I'm sure some northerners hold such negative stereotypes. May I suggest that you seek out "northerners" who are open to non-racist "southerners," of which I'm sure there are many.
May I also suggest that you reread the article? Mr. Loewen is a professional historian and not given to claims such as, "... all southerners think that the Civil War was about states' rights." At no point in the article does he make that claim.
I think your emotional, very
I think your emotional, very personal reaction influenced your reading of the article. Mr. Loewen never once said that "all southerners think that the Civil War was about states' rights." He is talking about Confederate-sympathizing historians and their influence on popular opinion. It seems that you are fairly young, and the South has changed a lot in recent years. However, I can assure you that "states' rights" was political code for "Jim Crow" for a very long time. You migh try reading Confederates in the Attic.
Also, don't take your APUSH teacher's (or textbook's) word as gospel. Anyone who says that they know that Lincoln wasn't going to repeal slavery (or that JFK was not supportive of a civil rights bill - btw, presidents don't pass bills) doesn't really know that - it is a supposition based upon contradictory evidence. Politicians always have to balance what they WANT to do with what they CAN get done. Nonetheless, Lincoln clearly hated slavery, believed that blacks deserved basic human rights, and no politician took more concrete actions to end slavery than he did.
As for slaves in upstate New York... well, I was told for years that in upstate New York (ironically) there was a statue of one of my ancestors, a general who was a Revolutionary War hero. Turns out he was a private and his was one of many names on a monument to the dead in one battle. Family anecdotes aren't always very accurate. Still, there was lots of racism in the North, so you're correct - no one should be high and mighty. I don't think that Mr. Loewen is.
I think Erin's point is
I think Erin's point is really valid. I grew up feeling like I was evil for being southern. And having lived in the North for almost ten years, I am often treated as a racist the moment someone finds out that my family is from the South. The North did an active trade in slavery for many years. So why do northerners get off feeling superior more than a hundred years later because the South called it quits later than they did? If most of the money flowing into the North at the time of the Civil War was from slavery, would they still have ended it? And if they had suddenly found themselves outnumbered by the people who they had ruled over for years would they have treated them kindly, or would they have reacted in fear? Personally, I think the relative racism of the North and the South has a lot more to do with circumstance than with any higher morality of one or the other. Both the North and the South profited from slavery and both treated slaves horribly.
When we teach our children, even implicitly--even by not challenging this assumption, that the war or the issue is less simple than it is, we perpetuate the attitude that northerners are good and southerners are bad. I think our children deserve better than this.
Yes I agree with your point
Yes I agree with your point that states rights is code for segration and such . Or even now an attempt to sugar coat some of the issues dealing with the Civil War. But has not also religions used sexual morality as reasons for expressing a prejudice against homosexuals ? It does not mean the sexual morality is wrong , it is how "some" counterfeit that view . Just as I would not be surprised that some northern interests did not give a hoot about slavery but making war profits . But we do provide a historical view that the north just wanted to make a profit by waging war ? South Carolina put nullification of Federal Taxation to the test in 1832, when a state convention declared all protective tariffs, particularly those of 1828 and 1832, to be null and void within the state.President Andrew Jackson denounced nullification as treason and asked Congress for authority to use the army and the navy to enforce the laws.
A compromise was made, SC backed down . And Jackson compromised by signing a bill that lowered the Tariffs. No southern states joined in with SC , but indeed it is important to note . Many of the slave states understood and sympathized with SC. But what is interesting when we try to understand the states rights aspect , is the inconsistency of the Confederate Government . They apparently gave less rights to the states in their Constitution then the federal one , no 10th Amendment for instance . Texas objected to giving up control of state troops, as did Alabama, Mississippi, and most all the Gulf states . North Carolina, where Governor Vance took pains to "preserve the rights and honor of the State." He said it was "mortifying" to see North Carolinians "commanded by strangers"--that is, by men from other states--and he demanded that their officers be North Carolinians. The fact the above essay does not speak to some of my points shows how facts not given may at times be the same as miss stated facts . Because obvious facts show the southern states dealing with the Confederacy with resentment when their states authority was subjected to the larger Confederate government . For instance Operating a state-owned blockade runner, Advance, Governor Vance objected to the Confederacy's claim to half of the cargo space. He warehoused uniforms, shoes, and blankets for the exclusive use of North Carolina troops at a time when Robert E. Lees army in Virginia was suffering from the want of such supplies. State officials being exempt from the draft, he appointed thousands of men to state jobs to keep them out of the Confederate army. The point I make is Mr Lowen keeps so much facts out of his views that compromise his narrow understanding . His contribution to history is credible , and helps us see the bigger picture . But he himself seems content to allow his view to become more raarrow , while widening so many of ours.
Slavery was abolished in New
Slavery was abolished in New York in 1827, so yes, there were slaves in NY at some point in history but not at the start of the Civil War.
This article simplifies the
This article simplifies the cause of the Civil War. Greed is the cause of all wars. Slavery was the major part of the capital of southern plantation owners and without slavery their plantation system could not exist. These plantation owners possessed a privileged way of life that would be envied today. The owners were driven by greed and slavery was merely a part of this greed infested culture. Making slavery the cause of the war is an attempt to avoid talking about the larger problem of humanity.
Interesting article . My real
Interesting article . My real introduction to understanding History was listening to three professors all give lectures on FDR and the New Deal , one professor stated he was only adequate handling the historic issues of war and depression , one stating he basically saved this nation , one stating a mix bag . All with valid and important points . I learned from all of them . Stating slavery was the cause of the Civil War has merit , but also we need to remember most counties in the south were slave free. Slaves were basically owned by the rich . In the South at the end of the war soldiers were basically marching barefoot in many cases . In Georgia there were actually factories and warehouses that had more shoes then needed for the entire Confederate Army at the time , but their allegiance was to Georgia , not the Confederate Army . They would not spare them , their view was geared to allegiance to their state first .
Meaning you get different reasons for the Civil just like today you may get different reasons for protestersrs on Wall Street . The best history I found , maybe boring , is when I found scrapbooks of newspaper articles from the deep south during the war . Just the way the news was slanted and told you got a perspective that was illuminating . But slavery was not the most important factor to the majority of southerners, they did not have slaves , in some places never even seen them till the war forced them to travel . But like today , I am sure the rich plantation owners sure had a say and slavery was an important issue .
History is a mixture of perspectives . The first blogger I believe had a valid point , the article is written through an idealogical lens . Not really meant for a young classroom , but one where a diversity of ideas are presented and can be evaluated on thown onw merit.
Mick, "Not really meant for a
Mick,
"Not really meant for a young classroom ..."
Why shouldn't the truth be told? Why should lies be spread? GThat's like saying 1+1= 2.1 and then correcting it later?
While it is true that there
While it is true that there were some satellite issues that also went into consideration, those were minimal and only dear to those wealthy gentlemen you mentioned.
But, you forget one lesson of popular opinion, the wealthy have the largest say in formation of public opinion. The wealthy will be published in the newspapers, then and now, not the barefoot farmer or poor factory worker. The wealthy will spin doctor the north invading, whilst attacking a US Army fort. The wealthy will form and mold an army of followers. And the wealthy DID do so, becoming senior officers and the barefoot farmer was a foot soldier.
And of final consideration, the Confederate States did NOT have a federal budget, other than what was donated to that government, the CSA Army being paid for by the wealthy directly.
And do not forget, it was a number of southern gentlemen who objected to a 0.5% tax to the King of England that spurred rebellion and independence from England. Along with a very few satellite issues, such as a voice in Parliament (if the colonies were to be taxed).
That is a good point ,
That is a good point , another way of saying it is also the Victors write the history .
But I can say the same for this view. Is the historical perspective not matching the political views of the author ? I suggest it is . He is correct in taking me to task however for my mis representation that the so many counties were slave less. Actually I read that , and it was inaccurate . The number of slave owners compared to those whites who did not own slaves though was accurate in regards to being quite wide . But my point as your point affirms is the people with the slaves were the rich . In some counties their were more slaves then white people .
Many white farmers lived the same life of many slaves in poverty however . Those counties where wealthy plantation owners lived had the greatest number of slaves . But again I would take the authors historical information as one to listen , but defintely not one to make my over all understanding of the reasons for the Civil War . In fact , he is in the minority . Not proof of being wrong , but is important when doing research to be open to other views .
On reading the article in its
On reading the article in its entirety, I was delighted to find that it was not even remotely as oversimplified as I'd feared. It was not as oversimplified as the assertions of the "war to free the slaves crowd," and it certainly wasn't even remotely as oversimplified as the drivel being pushed by the "states' rights crowd."
But it was, nonetheless, oversimplified.
In the North, slavery had already ceased to serve any economic purpose (except to those shipowners involved in the slave trade) by the Revolutionary War, and since much of that part of the country (and particularly much of the Northeast) had been settled by religious dissenters who abhorred slavery, it had long been abolished there.
In the South, slavery had only become more deeply entrenched in the time between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. The whole Southern political, economic, and social order revolved around slavery, and around plantation-scale cash-crop monoculture. Since that type of farming, especially with the primitive slash-and-burn techniques then in use, caused rapid soil depletion, the Southern order depended not only on the continuation, but on its expansion into new territory, a thing that the North had good reason to despise.
As to States Rights, it's clear that the Southern States were downright rabid about protecting THEIR rights to PRESERVE and EXPAND slavery, but downright hostile to the Northern States rights to refuse to condone it.
Tariffs were certainly a major factor in the initial bad feelings between the North and the South, and disagreements over them had certainly not been forgotten, but Loewen is quite correct in stating that they'd ceased to have any immediate impact. And to say that Lincoln's election "caused" the Civil War is as nonsensical as saying that Gavrilo Princip "caused" World War I, by assassinating Franz Ferdinand: in both cases, they were just the sparks that touched off "powder kegs" that had been building up for decades.
Suffice it to say that the Civil War was far too complex to have had only one cause.
I love the presentaion of the
I love the presentaion of the arguments...very thought provoking. However, unfortunately, teachers are evaluated now on whether their students pass "the test". So my question is...what answer will be the "right one" on "the test"?
Thank You Robin:) Somehow
Thank You Robin:)
Somehow this article caught my eye. The discussion pulled me in and you made me smile. I'm right there with you...
...also, thanks to all you "historians" helping to clarify the issues that we no longer have time to review in our schools. We love you and try to represent to the best of our collective understanding. I'm with Loewen.
Thank you all for your
Thank you all for your comments. I apologize for the tone of my previous comment. You can attribute it to reading the article and immediately reacting to it without giving myself some time to understand the authors intent and formulate an opinion.
This War has sparked many debates among historians. I certainly don't consider myself to be a historian but I have read a fair amount of material on this tragic period of our history. I realize that issue of slavery is appalling to almost everyone. Yet slavery can been found in the history of most civilizations throughout the world.
There is also no doubt that slavery deeply impacted our country as well. However, I don't agree with the author that slavery is the only reason for the war. I can't think of hardly any wars that came about as a result of one single issue alone. The fact that many teachers in your poll believe that there were other issues, besides slavery, should not make you think that all of these teachers got it wrong and that you must now set them straight. To me it shows that there were numerous issues which led to the differing opinions between the Federal & State leaders.
Slavery was a huge issue in the South. I get that. (Although Ulysses S. Grant also owned slaves and he kept them well after the war was over.) Yet I have read a number of letters written by Confederate soldiers. Almost all of them make no mention of going to war because they wanted to save the institution of slavery. Most joined because their homes were being attacked. From the things I've read, many Southerners considered loyalty to their state to be more important than loyalty to the Federal government.
I also believe that President Lincoln should have tried to go another route rather than to force the South into submission. I think he made a critical mistake into thinking the war would be over quickly and yet it lasted for 4 years and cost the lives of many American citizens. If a modern day President brought about the death of 600,000 Americans would people be so quick to say "he had no other choice?" Yet many people try an excuse Mr. Lincoln for doing the very same thing and even go so far at to say he was one of our greatest President ever because he saved the Union. Butt what a price to pay though?
One of the difficult issues for us who were born in the 20th century, is to fully know and understand what the people were thinking during this time period and to not judge it in hindsight. We, by human nature look at things from our own perspective and we view the past in the same light based on our own knowledge, belief system and experience.
I have no doubt that Mr. Loewen has spent countless hours studying this issue. But from this article he has written it looks like he came to only one conclusion and that is that slavery was the single cause of the War. The obvious implication to his conclusion conclusion is that since the South owned slaves, therefore the North was justified in putting all these rebels to death.
Also to label everyone who has a differing opinion than yours and call them neo-confederate's is very disturbing to me. I know that I am just as guilty for calling you "a Leftist" since I really know nothing about you. I hope you will accept my apology.
I have subscribed to Teaching Tolerance magazine for many years and I was completely taken back that an article that was this one sided and showed so little lack of tolerance for differing opinions, was considered important enough to be included in this magazine. This was very surprising to me.
And to James, one of the other people who commented here that said the Christian South was a myth is simply ignoring the facts. There are numerous and well documented accounts of people who lived during this time period who spoke much about the religious revivals that swept through the Southern armies. Many of the Southern leaders were also known for their Christian faith. (Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jeb Stuart just to name a few.)
This War was an important time in our history and one worthy of our attention. May we all continue to grow in our understanding of it and realize the impact it has had on our lives and in the history of our country. Thank you for your time.
It seems to me that everyone
It seems to me that everyone (including the author) is missing an essential point. The single dominant cause of the American Civil War was economics. The South had more capital tied up its ownership of slaves than anything else - including land. Its investment in human beings was greater than the North's investment in factories or railroads.
The "new" South - Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas - created a huge demand for slaves that made the "old" South - Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina rich. In fact, by the time of the Civil War, slaves were the most important "product" of the southern eastern seaboard.
Lincoln threatened that economy by saying he would stop slavery in the new territories. The southerners knew they needed expanding markets in order to drive the value of their investment in black human beings higher. Lincoln would kill that. As a result, their investments would begin to decline rather than continue to increase.
Many historians argue that the evils of mid-nineteenth century slavery can be traced to the invention of the cotton gin. That, of course, was important. But I think you can trace it to the action by the Congress to make importation of slaves illegal in 1807. With a closed market, the value of slaves began to increase rapidly.
It is sorry commentary on the history of this nation that greedy capitalists, investing in human beings, nearly destroyed us. It is time to call out the people who become apologists for this travesty of humanity.
Not economics, as you put it,
Not economics, as you put it, but economics built around slavery. So, it all comes back to slavery then, doesn't it?
I don't think the author
I don't think the author would agree that Slavery was the only reason either, nor does he ever say it was. He simply says it was the most important reason. Therein lies an important distinction.
Terrific article that sums up
Terrific article that sums up very well the evidence that exposes the true reasons for Southern secession and the Civil War.
As a Southerner it has taken me most of my life to let go of the "Lost Cause" and "Noble, Christian South" mythology. I was even one of those who refused to call it the Civil War, choosing instead to refer to it by that revisionist title, "The War of Northern Aggression."
Over time, as I read and studied and learned the truth, I had to abandon the fairy tales and outright lies that were taught me about the Southern cause and Southern leaders. I recognized that the Civil War was fought for no other reason than slavery, racism and white supremacy. No honest person can do otherwise when confronted with the evidence of history.
I am a teacher striving to
I am a teacher striving to encourage students and their parents to critically analyze similar misconceptions. The work can be quite frustrating as there is often a significant amount of push back. I was wondering what caused you to get to the point where you were open to considering different perspectives on what you previously learned and believed? Was there an event or series of events or particular educator behind the shift in mindset or did it occur gradually over time?
This article is laughable and
This article is laughable and one of the most least tolerant articles I have ever read in your magazine. The author tries to make the point that the Southern view about the war must be wrong, even though the overwhelming majority of teachers believe the main cause of the "Civil War" was state rights. The author then sets out to prove that the Northern view is the only correct view and that all the teachers are wrong. Since the North won the war you would think that most people, especially teachers, would teach the same views as the author. But that is certainly not the case. I think the author is most upset that his narrow view is only held by a few leftists and that people are not as ignorant as they once may have been. For a magazine that is supposed to be tolerant and open-minded, how this article was allowed in your publication is beyond me.
I couldn't agree more!
I couldn't agree more!
Well, since you obviously are
Well, since you obviously are too lazy to actually do your own research, something that Mr. Loewen has spent nearly his whole life doing, to bring the 'Facts' supported by actual existing documents, loggin thousands of hours in searching and summarizing without surpressing the truth, sure it would be so easy to laugh it off. What you don't see, is how laughable we are at you for slamming someone much more capable in every aspect of intelligence, articulate, witty and actually doing good for all humans that live in America from the past to now. You have nothing even important to share...your just complaining to complain about nothing you know nothing of. Your someone who has had training in how to think, act that was just passed down from your own family ideals. Next time, try to share soemthing worthy. Hence, your idiocy is startling and it is exactly! as Mr. Loewens shows of what happens when History is taught wrong and/or in outright lies...your the product of such, so the laugh is on you. *Mr. Loewen, Keep bringing the truth to light. I have much respect and hope to one day meet you, as I journey through my own History interest and join in the same path as you. Actually, I thought I was the only person that had rational and sense to know there is more than what is taught/read in elementry/high school books. I was quite happy to find an ally and mentor in you. Thank you for your hardwork and please keep sharing and bringing the truth to light*
I spent a whole college
I spent a whole college semester (12 credits) studying the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln a few years ago. I read volumes of primary sources from the era. I learned much - Slavery was the issue.
I pulled out my old high school text books to see what was taught in the 1970s when I was in high school. I was taught that is was state rights. Slavery was not mentioned in that old high school text book as the reason. How did that happen?
It happened because history was rewritten. In this case it was later changed by writers from the South. If you follow it you can actually find the threads of how things were woven to create a very different fabric - or story.
Thank you Teaching Tolerance for reminding us that we have to search for the truth at times.
jacksonskin, you make a very
jacksonskin, you make a very critical error in your response to the article, you confuse opinion with fact "an overwhelming majority of teachers BELIEVE the main cause of the "Civil War" was states rights." So what? You, me and half the population of the planet could BELIEVE that 3+5=7, but that dosen't make it correct; the fact that 3+5=8 dosen't change no matter what my opinion is. The author cites the original documents as evidence, his opinion is not involed.
As to your comment concerning tolerance and open-mindedness; stating that a whole line of arguement is factually wrong is neither intolerant nor close-minded, it is merely a statement of fact supported by evidence. By your view my friend, I am supposed to give equal credence and consideration to those who believe 3+5=7 or 9, and not point out that 3+5=8 is a fact.
I am sorry that you don't seem to have understood the whole point of the article which boils down to Opinion, no matter how univerally held, is not (necessaily) fact, myth, no matter how universally brlieved is still myth. Learn that difference, mi amigo, and you will have a much less angry time of it.
I wish you well John
I agree, the truth is so much
I agree, the truth is so much more complex than simply North was good, South was bad. The main reason for the "mythology" that grew up during reconstruction was because of the oppressiveness and brutality of reconstruction itself. The simple fact is that a very small, but very vocal percentage of people ie. Stowe, Grimke sisters, Garrison et al, had a misguided sense of urgency about slavery, which I contend was on its way out to begin with. People in the North were every bit as intolerant and racist as people in the South ever were. And if the war was about slavery, why then did the Virginia House of Burgesses attempt on several occasions to rid themselves of the practice? Why did Robert E Lee not own slaves at the outset of the war and Grant give his up only when forced to do so by the 13th Amendment?
The main reason that most
The main reason that most teachers teach that cause is because that is what they were taught. I suggest you research the sources that he used and then state your opinion. If he is wrong then prove it. Don't just restate your beliefs.
Actually, jacksonskin, you
Actually, jacksonskin, you miss the overall point of the article. Perhaps you became so frustrated that you never made it to the point where he discusses- and this is important- when we write about something influences what we write. Having grown up in the South, there was always a duplicity in "why" the South seceded. "State's Rights" was a common belief, but, to think of the Jim Crow Laws implemented after the Civil War in response to attempts made to implement Government sponsored equality, as well as other laws against interracial dating and marriage and what not, it's difficult to take as fact that race had absolutely nothing to do with the South's decision. People, especially we Americans, really want to value our beliefs and history with integrity. We don't want to believe that we aren't the after school special we really want to think we are. Unfortunately, every person has made mistakes and have done things in our past we aren't happy about, and groups of people have done the same, essentially forming our history.
In short, if you read the documents concerning secession, or even other articles written during that time, then you don't get muddied up revisionist perspectives. You get the direct reasoning. They had no reason to be politically correct in a time when it didn't exist. I've read them, and the leading reason is the "peculiar institution" that they want to maintain. So, to a degree, it can be argued that it's about one particular state right- but that was slavery. It's not pretty, it's fairly embarrassing, but it is fact, and it was a prevalent belief amongst people who simply didn't know better. When you read "scientific" articles about diseases blacks have that make them want to run away from their masters, or religious support for why blacks should be slaves, you realize that history isn't always pretty. Mr. Loewen shouldn't be vilified for revealing facts.
Pretending something didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can still be proud of your heritage, accepting that mistakes were made. Here in North Carolina NOW, we're continuing to fight against legislation designed to create a second class of citizenry. Doesn't mean I don't love my state, it just means I actively participate to prevent history from repeating itself, in whatever form that may take.
hear, hear!
hear, hear!
Your quarrel is not with me
Your quarrel is not with me but with what the Southern states said as they left the U.S. Ask your school or public library to get a copy of THE CONFEDERATE AND NEO-CONFEDERATE READER. Then read it. In 1860-61 the "Southern view," as you call it, was AGAINST states' rights, and Southern spokesmen named the states and the rights they were trying to exercise that upset them so. "Tolerance" has nothing to do with historical facts, which must be respected and taught.
To clarify and correct your
To clarify and correct your statement for other readers.
I suggest that you carefully reread this book. (Also, this book is a definite read that supports the claims in the article!) You misunderstood what the authors intent was in revealing the common misinterpretation of state's rights, and you did not read the primary documents. Possibly you read the opening paragraph, which may have led to your interpretation of the book's contents. I have quoted a section here that I believe sums up the book's argument. Here is the google book link for those who wish to trace the source. http://sp.lc/pMkIob
'Professional historians find it "incredible" that "some sort of abstract commitment to states' rights" is still widely believed to have motivated secession, rather than "preserving slavery and racial subordination," in the words of historian Christopher Olsen, and they are right: evidence to the contrary has always been available, in plain view'(p.7).