Thursday, June 24, 2010

What is is all about - in my opinion.

For what it's worth, while I think Battle Cry is so interesting and I learned so much, I think it really earns its money in the early chapters. After reading those chapters it was hard to go away thinking the war wasn't actually caused by slavery. The most shocking portion to me was when MacPherson detailed how planters were actually plotting to erect an empire based on slavery stretching into South America and beyond. That whole section gave me a cold chill, because I think it really outlines what was at stake.

Also comparing it with some of the dialogue in Killer Angels, after capturing some of the Rebel soldiers, Thomas Chamberlain was shocked that the Reb soldiers denied they were fighting to keep slavery but rather for their "rats" (aka rights). This is brought up on a couple of occasions but from the points of view of the Chamberlain brothers they truly believed that it all boiled down to slavery. So even thought they may have been fighting for their "rats" (I thought that part was funny), the big argument was their right to expand and protect their way of life which was slavery.

I tell my students that to say the war was about slavery is an elementary answer (no offense) but when you detail all the factors and issues, to me it returns to the elementary answer. Just my thoughts.

2 comments:

  1. I have to agree with you. And, I thought you put it well. To say that it was just about slavery would be wrong, but slavery was absolutely the core issue from which most all other peripheral issues extended.
    However, most students and even some teachers still cling tenaciously to the notion that saying that the war was about "slavery" means that it was the "good guys", aka the Northerners who were, of their own good will, trying to eradicate slavery from the South (the bad guys) because slavery was just so offensive to them (the North). Dot dot dot, and there was a Civil War, and the slaves were freed when the good guys won. The End.
    Unfortunately, if you look at the progress of any minorities/minority rights, specifically with Black Americans, you find that the white majority is never on the side of the blacks purely because it was morally the right thing to do. There are always strings attached, economic perks or political advantage, (in the case of the Civil War, military advantage)or some other reason for helping out the oppressed. So it was in the Civil War, so it was with the Civil Rights movement.
    Of course there are always a few fighting for the rights of others because it is the right thing to do, (William Lloyd Garrison, Beecher Stowe, et al.) but they are the exception rather than the rule. This is a harsh reality of history, and students (and teachers) need to understand that.

    I'm rambling... good post. Thanks.

    Matt Lorenzen

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is clear to me that while the South wanted others - especially England - to believe they were fighting for their "rats" (rights), they largely failed, even amongst themselves. No person who had any amount of objectivity could deny that the real issue was slavery. The South wanted to keep their "peculiar institution", which made their lifestyle unique (and in their minds defined why they were superior) and their economy dynamic. Their "peculiar institution" was slavery. Yes, they were fighting to protect their way of living; however, their way of living was slavery. Any way you look at it, the issue was always slavery! McPherson leaves no doubt about it in his writing.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.