It's not just Virginia - this kind of bullshit is being taught to kids all over the South, and has been for a long, long time.

Not about slavery my ass.

It was about states' rights. You know, the states' "right" to enslave other human beings.

I love how the author is defending herself by saying she did much of her research online, citing works by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Now that's the way you conduct scholarship!

Hey, I wonder if my professors will accept a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia as my thesis....

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen is an amazing book. Not only does it give you a comprehensive look at everything you didn't learn about US history in school, it describes the way history textbooks in the States are written, and approved, for use in schools. He maintains that there is a need to maintain the "creation myth" of how the US came to be, so as to continue the unquestioning patriotism that we seem to have in such large supply.

My best friend went to veterinary school in the South. Whenever she encountered people referring to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression" she would refer to it as the "War of Southern Stupidity" :)

*maintains*, gaa. Wish spell check would point out over-use of the same word...

Slavery, of course, had a lot to do with the civil war, but to lay that out as the only cause (which a lot of people do, even our history textbooks down here in Tennessee) is overly simplistic. There were numerous causes, such as differing economic and political structures and states rights. It could not have been all about slavery because many in the north also owned slaves--slaves who were not freed until the 13th amendment was ratified, after the civil war.

As for black confederates, I was always taught that they did exist, though most of them were slaves. However, after a quick Google search, I notice that most of the websites supporting do seem to have a very pro-confederacy bias, so my own textbooks may have been incorrect about that.

Also, I see what you're doing with "The South will lies again," but "will lies" makes absolutely no sense grammatically.

And, in conclusion, The Simpsons did a great bit on the causes of the Civil War in the episode "Much Apu About Nothing" (which NPR was kind enough to transcribe for me):
Mr. HARRY SHEARER: (As Exam Procter) All right, here's your last question: What was the cause of the Civil War?

Mr. HANK AZARIA: (As Apu) Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both domestic and international, played a significant...

Mr. SHEARER: (As Exam Procter) Hey, Mate.

Mr. AZARIA: (As Apu) Yeah.

Mr. SHEARER: (As Exam Procter) Just say slavery.

Mr. AZARIA: (As Apu) Slavery it is, sir. Yes, I am a citizen!

The Civil War was entirely about slavery. The south wanted new territories to be slave states and refused any compromise at all. That was the reason they seceeded.

Anyone interested in a detailed account of the U.S. Civil War should read Bruce Catton's books.

fyi... Some former slaves actually did fight for the Confederacy (they were freed on the condition they join the army), but not "large numbers" as claimed.

@7 "Also, I see what you're doing with "The South will lies again," but "will lies" makes absolutely no sense grammatically."

Really? I bet Dan wouldn't have missed that if he were an editor, or something. Editors never take grammatical liberties in order to flesh out a little pun.

I was very glad to read that it's Southerners blowing the whistle on this bullshit, too.

Exactly Fifty-Two-Eighty, it IS about slavery. All these years later and they're still lying about it.

So what's the underlying concern here? We know facts get distorted over time. So a few kids grow up knowing less about the role of slavery in relation to the Civil War. What is the worry here? That history will repeat itself in the south? That kids in the south are somehow "getting away" with not being made to feel sufficiently guilty by the actions of their ancestors? Does the level of knowledge of U.S. slavery history somehow correlate to how racist you will become?

@12, so you're OK with public schools in 11 states of this country using tax dollars to teach absolute hogwash to their kids? I guess you wouldn't have a problem if they taught creationism too, then.

...and now I'll spend the day watching Tom Lehrer videos on youtube. THANK YOU!

My interpretation has always been that the Civil War's cause was rooted primarily in slavery. Of course the Southern states were concerned with states' rights - they didn't have enough people to counteract the North's numbers in the House of Reps (thus the 3/5ths compromise that let them count their slaves as "kinda people"). Yes, there were slaves in the North, but very few by comparison. The South's entire economy was dependent on slavery though. Any threat to it was a threat to the very fabric of the South's prosperity. What were the other "state's rights" issues that the South was concerned about? Were there any? And why on earth didn't they try to diversify their economy? The South could have undergone the same industrialization as the North underwent, but the North could not have had the same agricultural success as the South because of its shorter growing season. And yes, there were all sorts of small farmers siding with the South who didn't own slaves because they didn't want outsiders bossing them around, but they wouldn't have instigated a war left to their own devices. It was slavery's defenders that drove the march to war.

Well, I'm against public education altogether but that wasn't the issue. I'm just wondering what problem you think will arise by not focusing on slavery when teaching the Civil War.

Compromise of 1820, Missouri Compromise, Bloody Kansas, were all about states rights not slavery dontcha know.. The South would have gone to war over tariffs, militia recruitment, or the US Bank, just as readily as slavery. I'm sure of it.

i wanna go back to the swanny/where pellagra makes you scrawny/and the tear gas and the jasmine smell just fine.

i really get a fixin'/to go back where there's no mixin'/down below that mason-dixon line!

@12,
The problem is that the south want to brand themselves as fighting for their freedom against a tyrannical, aggressive north. It's not true.

It was about a few wealthy, powerful, and politically connected men who forced the south into a terrible position. The Confederacy brought the Civil War upon themselves based on a cause (slavery) that was already obsolete even then. The Union was not the aggressor... The Confederacy was. They started the war, they fired the first shots, they made the first invasions.

Now they're trying to make themselves look like poor folk heroes who were only defending their rights from an opponent who wanted to dominate them. It's pure bullshit. THAT'S the problem.

@19: well, at least we know Luby's slog handle now.

@15: The South was concerned about states' rights, but it OPPOSED states' rights where slavery was concerned. The South wanted the Northern states to enforce federal laws compelling the return of fugitive slaves. The principal complaint of the South was NOT that there were slave states and free states, but that the free states, in violation of federal law and the compromise reached in the federal Constitution, stopped recognizing the property rights of slave states. Of course, the South also feared the eventual abolition of slavery in the event they became outnumbered by the addition of more free states (one of the reasons that Texas, upon its admission to the Union, retained the right to divide itself into up to five states).

I think it's fair to call BS on the obvious crap (ie blacks serving in large numbers on the Southern side) while still recognizing that to simply say "slavery" was the cause of the war is a gross oversimplification. One can abhor slavery (or indeed, any of the other issues involved) without buying into that jingoistic simplicity.

The reason the term "Civil War" has never been liked in the South is that it, too, misrepresents what actually happened. A civil war is a fight for control of the government of a country, between the government in power (whether duly elected, a military dictatorship, monarchy, or whatever) and insurgent forces who want to overthrow that government. That's not what the Southern states did - they withdrew to form their own government and were prepared to leave the northern states alone. Those who think that dividing a country this way is inherently wrong by American standards should examine our record in, say, the former Yugoslavia, where we supported split after split and secession after secession. In other words, the American position is that parts of a nation may legitimately split themselves from the rest, unless we decide it can't.

I do think "War of Northern Aggression" is pretty trite, but "War of the Secession" or "War for Southern Independence" is a hell of a lot more accurate than "Civil War". But since the victors write the history, they chose the term that paints themselves in the best light.

@8: The South didn't necessarily want all new territories to be slave states. An uneasy balance had been maintained for years between slave and free states in the US Senate, which enabled the slave states to block bills that would have interfered with slavery as an institution. A series of compromises enacted over the years admitted pairs of states (one free, one slave, as in the case of Maine and Missouri) to preserve that balance, and then continued to tinker with that system, all with the hopes of avoiding the war that finally came in 1861.

And in a time before mechanized, motorized agricultural equipment became widespread and standard, the South's abhorrent system of slavery provided the only kind of economic balance to the industrial facilities of the North. In an era before sales taxes and income taxes, taxes on exports and property taxes were the primary support of the system of government. Abolishing slavery would have cut significant revenue for the slave states, both in terms of property taxes on slaves and on the sharply diminished value of agricultural land AND in terms of exported products, since production would have also collapsed.

So yes, slavery was a factor underlying most of the issues over which the "Civil War" was fought. But it wasn't the sole issue - as should be obvious from (if nothing else) the fact that when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, it specifically applied only to those states which had seceded. The "anti-slavery" North was perfectly content to leave Northern and Border State slaves in bondage until it got around to passing the 13th Amendment several years later.

The reason the Confederacy seceeded was because many powerful and politically connected southern men demanded that all new states be admitted as slave states (even though that was a wildly unpopular stance in the entire country).

They rejected ALL compromise, even the compromise to let the new states themselves vote on whether to be a slave state or free state.

When it became obvious that they weren't going to get their way, they put three presidential candidates up for election, thereby ensuring that the northern states' candidate, Lincoln, would win.

Lincoln's victory allowed those powerful southern men to convince the state governments that the newly elected president would abolish slavery (which Lincoln said he wouldn't do and had no intention of doing). That fear drove the governments to vote for secession, even though most citizens didn't want to seceed nor did many politicians. Most of the secession votes were barely passed; nevertheless, they did pass in several states and the rest is history.

That's the reason why the Civil War is about slavery.

And to think @23 learned all that from his/her grade school textbook!

@20: I think you nailed it.

Nuke em.

I like how Civil War revisionism is news to people from the north and I love how it's trotted out every few years to show how backward the south is.

If you went to a diverse school in, say, Texas, and used state-mandated books, you often had the teacher veer off the curriculum. We learned the code words and the dog whistle for exams, sure enough, but the remainder of the topic was discussed in a manner more appropriate to the history.

You also learn little tidbits like how Texas' other dog in the fight was that they felt the federal government wasn't doing enough against the indians.

"You've got to be taught to hate."

Right-wingers and other racist scum are very, very good teachers. They dress their little kids in KKK sheets, then they teach shit like this in schools and drag their kids to "tea party" rallies, telling them that they are the shock-troops of patriotism.

"I tell you once. I tell you twice. What I tell you three times is true." -- Lewis Carroll

"Revolt in 2100" by Robert Heinlein.

Click on my profile picture or name to see what I think of right-wingers and other people like them.

Ta-Nehisi Coates and his commenters (esp. Andy Hall and Cynic) at the Atlantic Monthly have been doing terrific work on Civil War history and remembrance of the Civil War in American culture, with a particular focus on how the South remembers the Civil War. If you're not reading his blog already, you might want to check it out. Also just about the most thoughtful comments sections on the Internet.

http://www.theatlantic.com/ta-nehisi-coa…

There's just a ton of material; you can lose yourself for hours. A kind person at San Diego State created a collection of Civil War links, so that you don't have to wade through other discussions:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~packman/tnc.h…

@21, oooh yeah, I forgot about that! Rather inconsistent:)

@23, strategically impossible to let the South secede and be done with it. Then a competing nation looking to expand into the exact same territory would have been right there on the North's southern border (two very long and vulnerable borders then to the north and to the south). War would have been inevitable and likely constant as they battled to expand westward. The South had even more need to expand than the North. Was the Civil War a better choice in terms of lives lost and overall cost? Doubt it. But it did put a cap on the conflict, and I think there are an awful lot of African Americans who don't have any problem with the outcome.

Yugoslavia was partitioned because of distinct cultural/ethnic groups that simply could not get along with each other, and were going to commit genocide based on those differences, with the effects likely to spill out into the surrounding countries, potentially destabilizing much of Europe. As much as Northerners and Southerners can seem like foreigners to each other, it is essentially the same "culture." Oh yeah, and the whole Civil War took place 150 years ago, not a couple decades ago.

Well, if nothing else, reading these comments shows why people have such a poor opinion of shit-kickers, and why those feelings are valid.

It's kind of fun, in a very perverse way, to read the pathetic logic-chopping written by right-wing apologists and liars. It reminds me of how and why I rejoined the Human Race, morphing into a Liberal-with-a-Capital-L.

The civil war was about slavery, period.

When the Confederate Army captured black men during the war, they immediately enslaved them (or massacred them). Not just soldiers; they enslaved any black men they encountered who were masterless. Gen. Lee himself was an ardent enslaver of black Union troops, and Official White Southern Hero Nathan Bedford Forrest led his troops in the infamous Fort Pillow massacre of black troops, who were shot to pieces as they surrendered and begged for mercy.

One of the great myths of Confederate history is how honorable they were. Here's what Confederate honor looks like:

"the poor, deluded negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hand scream for mercy, but were ordered to their feet and then shot down."

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that slavery was a secondary concern to Lincoln and to the Federal cause, generally. The primary purpose was to preserve the Union. However, harnessing the abolitionist sentiments in the north was useful in making the case for what many in the north considered an imperialist war.

However, the cause of the Confederacy--at least among the elites--was absolutely the preservation of the institution of slavery and the economic and social system built upon it. State sovereignty was merely a means to that end.

In other words, the causes of abolition and state sovereignty are really just the ways that both sides have whitewashed a war over economics and territory into one of liberation.

At least, that's what I learned in high school...in Georgia.

When I was in 6th grade, I went to Colonial Heights, VA for a semester as an exchange student. It was the year they taught VA history. In the text books, were silhouette drawings of happy slave children skipping w/ picnic baskets. We were taught that the slaves did not want to be free and it was implied they were incapable of functioning as free people. Colonial Heights was at the time an all-white town, the only Blacks in town being day workers who drove across the bridge from Petersburg. Thank God, my liberal British grandfather drove down from NYC to visit and set the record straight for me.

What @28 said.

You Northerners are so clueless that you don't recognize the code words embedded in Southern speech.

Which is why they take you to the cleaners every time.

In Eastern North Carolina, in the '80s, I went along on my son's school's field trip to a still working antebellum tobacco plantation where the word "slave" was never spoken. They were "the workers" "the laborers" or "the people." Their owners were "the farmers" or "the family" and the household slaves were "servants." The "slave quarters" were "the workers houses" and the manse "the main house." One ignorant of our history could easily have been left unaware that anything involuntary had ever occurred there.

@28, I went to a high school in Texas, and all I remember of my state history curriculum was being told by a guy to sidle up next to that big tall guy from Georgia over there and whisper the words "William Tecumseh Sherman". That boy beat the living crap out of me.

I went to school in Northern NJ and we too were taught that the Civil War was primarily about state's rights and how slavery only played a part later in the war. Our history teacher was not a southerner, but somewhere along the line the lie infected either one of the textbooks or our teacher and then infected us kids. For a time I did actually believe that it was a war about states rights.

What @38 said. I think that to say that "The Civil War was about slavery" implies a moral imperative in the North, when they were driven more by economic self-interest.

If slavery were the issue, Lincoln would have issued the Emancipation Proclamation at the very beginning of the war.

@3&4 Working my way through it right now. So depressing, but so eye-opening. Couple that with Zinn's A People's History of the United States and I think you have the start to an actual fact-based curriculum.

@41 Oh, that one's great, too. I read the Loewen book about 5 years ago, and just pulled it out to re-read. Best part: The first thanksgiving...less turkey, more cannibalism...ugh.

Face it, if we had nukes, we would have nuked the South back then.

Not only was slavery the cause of the war, but it's a major reason the South is still a shithole. Most people's wealth was tied up in slaves in the Antebellum South, and those who didn't own slaves (apart from moralfags) were poor people. When all the slaves were freed, the wealth of those states went into thin air.

@40,
The north wasn't driven by economic self-interest, they initially fought because they didn't recognize the Confederacy's legitimacy and were merely defending what they saw as their property (forts and supply depots located in the secessionist states).

Lincoln was against freeing the slaves. He didn't free them early on because he still hoped and wanted the southern states to peaceably return to the Union. The only reason the Emancipation Proclamation was issued was to keep foreign powers, namely England and France, from recognizing the Confederacy and joining the war on their side. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the secessionist states, not any of the Union states. It essentially was a declaration to the world that the Union was against slavery and the Confederacy was in favor of it. After that, no world power would ally itself with a slave nation. The Proclamation was a political move, nothing more. All the real slavery abolishment came during reconstruction.

It's surprising how bitter some people in the south remain about the Civil War even today.

@46 Since the war ended a century and a half ago, you'd think that they'd actually be bitter about something else, wouldn't you?

@45 there is some truth in that... but still, the south would not have seceded if it thought it could keep slavery legal in the union. the north may not have been the knight in shining armor, altruistic and benevolent..... with some moral imperative. but slavery was still the primary reasons.

upon examination, most every label points back to slavery.

@40 saying it was about slavery doesn't imply there was a moral imperative. furthermore, even if the north only cared about economic interests, why would the north risk breaking the union over the slavery issue?

@34 i risk sounding like a broken record: if the north's primary concern was keeping the union, why was there a risk of the union breaking? perhaps because the south might secede? and why would the south south want to secede? slavery?

you write, "In other words, the causes of abolition and state sovereignty are really just the ways that both sides have whitewashed a war over economics and territory into one of liberation." a civil war was not necessary if the economy and territory were the only concerns. these are only issues if there is a reason economy and territory are threatened. what threatened the economy and territory was due to the issue of slavery. otherwise, you'd have to be able to explain why the south wanted to secede AND why the north wouldn't just give into southern demands all without using the actual point of division: slavery. i'm not sure that can be done. accurately, at least.

If you know a little bit about the Civil War, you know it was about slavery.

If you've read some books on the subject, you know there were a variety of factors: state's rights, socio-economic issues, national defense, etc.

If you're an expert on the Civil War and have spent extensive time studying it, you know it was about slavery.

19/Urgutha Forka: The Union was not the aggressor... The Confederacy was. They started the war, they fired the first shots, they made the first invasions.

Yes, the Confederacy did fire the first shots, but those shots were against a Union-held fort in Confederate territory (or territory that the Confederacy had declared was theirs.) Lincoln could have chosen to withdraw union forces from Fort Sumter (as well as a few other Union-held forts in the Confederacy) but he did not. Had Lincoln done so, I'm not aware of facts supporting a contention that the Confederacy wanted to invade the Union anyway or would have invaded the Union with the intent of conquering it. (I'm not sure what you mean by the Confederacy "made the first invasions." Are you referring to Fort Sumter?)

Slavery was wrong. It was terribly inhuman and, yes, it was one of the rights -- if not the primary right -- the Confederacy wanted under the "states' rights" banner. But it wasn't as if Southerners wanted every state under a "Confederacy Union." In contrast, it was the North under Lincoln which wanted every state under the Union. I don't see how one can argue that North was not the fundamental aggressor.

Most of us feel great that the United States are still united, and that the Civil War ended up resulting in the end of slavery. But I think we fail to truly grasp the horrific cost of what was essentially a war of choice, not necessity. We are aghast at the number of U.S. lives lost in Irag & Afghanistan, or in Vietnam, yet there were almost as many American deaths in the Civil War than in World War II, World War I, Vietnam and Korea combined. And, when one considers the much smaller population of the U.S. in the 1860s, the percentage of the population killed in the Civil War is far larger than any other war and it becomes obvious what a incredible slaughter this was, a slaughter that did not need to happen.

@23 claims:

A civil war is a fight for control of the government of a country, between the government in power (whether duly elected, a military dictatorship, monarchy, or whatever) and insurgent forces who want to overthrow that government. That's not what the Southern states did - they withdrew to form their own government and were prepared to leave the northern states alone.

Incorrect. Webster's defines "civil war" as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" and dates that usage to the 15th century.

"Civil war" is commonly used to refer to secessionary movements (see the Chechens, Sudanese, Kurds, etc.).

As Wikipedia notes, "The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies."

Roma, please point out the provision in the United States Constitution that permitted the Southern states to secede and declare their territory to be that of another nation.

Sounds like you'd have been comfortable with the United States government surrendering all of its Air Force and Army bases in Alaska to Governor Sarah Palin (after all, she was a supporter of the Alaska Independence Party which has as its principal goal seceding from the Union).

And if the United States didn't surrender those facilities and the Alaska National Guard attacked them, I suppose they would be justified in doing so, and the Americans would be the aggressors for defending their military installations.

Please, please, get help. Get help now!

Roma @50,

Crap. For some reason I can't expand your post. All I can read up to is "...would have invaded the Union." Stupid internet explorer.

Anyway, sure, Lincoln could have withdrawn troops and essentially given legitimacy to Confederate independence, but I think his point was a good one. The U.S. had built the forts, the U.S. owned them, the Confederacy had no rights to them, and besides, the Confederacy didn't legally exist as an independent nation anyway (in the eyes of the Union). So the Union was simply maintaining its property and the Confederacy was attacking U.S. government installations.

As for invasions, again, sure, the Confederacy wouldn't have invaded if the Union had simply allowed them to exist as an independent nation, but then there wouldn't have been a civil war at all then (at least, not for a while... I think war was sort of inevitable as soon as secession started).

I guess if you don't count the taking of Fort Sumter as an invasion by the Confederacy then yes, the North invaded first (either by blockading Confederate ports or at Manassas).

kk, actually, you're the one who's misinformed; Roma is correct. There wasn't a "provision allowing them to secede," but there certainly wasn't anything saying they couldn't. That was added after the war.

@48 re "...what threatened the economy and territory was due to the issue of slavery. "

I don't disagree with that at all...in fact I specifically said that the Confederacy was fighting to keep slavery.

My point was just that the traditional narrative of "North=liberators=good/South=slaveholders=bad" is at best half right and certainly simplistic. The liberation of the slaves was a (happy) side-effect of the Union's war to maintain its territorial holdings.

Believe me, as a southerner myself, I find it very frustrating that Confederate apologists even exist 150 years after the fact, and especially that they so frequently use a superficially nuanced view of the Civil War as cover for their absurd revisionism. But that doesn't mean that Civil War isn't, in fact, very complex.

@56: Article IV, Section 3 regarding the admission of new states and the absence of any corresponding provision relating to secession of states is generally understood to be a denial of that right. And Article I, Section 10 expressly denies the states the right to enter into confederations or compacts with other states, which does seem to make the formation of the Confederate States of America a bit of a problem, don't you think?

56/Fifty-Two-Eighty, thanks...that's always been my understanding.

Plus even if the Constitution had specifically forbidden recession the question should be: was "preserving the Union" worth that incredible slaughter of human lives? I think most of us see it as acceptable because we're so far removed from it and the Civil War has also been romanticized to some extent. But can you imagine if we were watching scenes on TV of the incredible carnage at Antietam/Sharpsburg, where approximately 23,000 men were slaughtered in one day of combat. Would we find it so acceptable then?

55/UF, sure, Lincoln could have withdrawn troops and essentially given legitimacy to Confederate independence, but I think his point was a good one. . . So the Union was simply maintaining its property and the Confederacy was attacking U.S. government installations.

And maintaining that property was worth the horrible slaughter that followed? I suspect Lincoln was actually hoping the South would attack one of the forts, giving him a reason to then attack the Confederacy.

As for invasions, again, sure, the Confederacy wouldn't have invaded if the Union had simply allowed them to exist as an independent nation, but then there wouldn't have been a civil war at all then (at least, not for a while... I think war was sort of inevitable as soon as secession started).

Yeah, there wouldn't have been a civil war at all. That's exactly what I think.(I don't see why you think it would have been inevitable?) The downside to no civil war at all, of course, would have been people trapped in slavery for more years, pehaps decades. But I think that slavery would eventually have been abolished anyway; I think that was clearly inevitable. But the upside -- a huge upside -- would have been no incredible slaughter of human beings.

@53: Yeah, it sure proves the superiority of the South that colleges down there have good basketball teams. You do realize that college isn't all about basketball, right? And you are also aware, are you not, that colleges don't just draw students from the local area?

@57 your point seems largely unnecessary in this post, then. this isn't a thread about whether or not there were many and/or complex issues surrounding the civil war. we are in a thread with the general topic at hand being, "was the civil war about slavery?" while your recent post is better (though no one is arguing there weren't complex underlying reasons), you still seem to be missing this point. (i would also suggest that those who deny the civil war was about slavery usually take your approach to say it was "more complex than that.")

you wrote, "In other words, the causes of abolition and state sovereignty are really just the ways that both sides have whitewashed a war over economics and territory into one of liberation." you changed "slavery" for "liberation" where no one is arguing the premise that the civil war was about liberation. then you say that since the civil war was not about "liberation" it must have been about economics and territory. you do this again in your recent post.

no. the civil war was about slavery. that's not all it was about, of course. it was complex. not everyone on the north was an abolitionist, and not everyone living in a confederate state was pro-slavery (i'm remembering the german/american group in texas that was run off to mexico after many were executed for being pro-union). it was also about the economy, territory, liberation, politics, wealth, etc....

the north may not have been liberators in your mind, since that wasn't its first and only intent. but the war was about slavery, and it just so happens the north was on the winning and right side of that one. current southerners? well, i don't believe most care at all about it that much, or identify with the confederacy, or call it the war of northern aggression. and those that do? who do they do it?

you also write, "There is a lot of evidence to suggest that slavery was a secondary concern to Lincoln and to the Federal cause, generally. The primary purpose was to preserve the Union.." This is the sort of thing that suggests the civil war wasn't about slavery. well, it was. sure, it was complex. but focusing on the complexity alone, while ignoring the obvious... that's strange to me.

roma, interesting. so you are saying the civil war was unnecessary since slavery would eventually be outlawed in the south, and that the north's choice to preserve the union and end slavery earlier was either unconstitutional or not worth the loss of lives that followed?

54/kk, Sounds like you'd have been comfortable with the United States government surrendering all of its Air Force and Army bases in Alaska to Governor Sarah Palin (after all, she was a supporter of the Alaska Independence Party which has as its principal goal seceding from the Union).

Surrender U.S. bases in Alaska to the Alaska Independence Party and . . . . SARAH PALIN? Are you crazy? If I was POTUS, I'd be willing to kill a million Americans in order to prevent Alaska -- and SARAH PALIN -- from seceding. And if tree-hugging liberals ever tried to create the separate country of Ecotopia out Washington, Oregon and northern California, I'd be willing to kill a million more Americans in order to prevent that from happening. Wait, on second though, maybe only 500,000 because tree-hugging liberals aren't SARAH PALIN.

Our schools are in a lot more trouble than I thought if people actually believe that under our Constitution states have a right to secede or even worse, as implied by 5280, that there is some Reconstruction amendment that was added to deny them that right. Holy shit.

@64: But surrendering military bases to the control of Jefferson Davis, that's cool? Must be nice being white.

@65 - it's all those Texan textbooks.

Seriously.

And, what's worse, they're on the Internet, so fucktards believe them.

@60, are you aware that slavery was widely practiced throughout the old South until the NINETEEN-FORTIES? So much for "would have been eliminated eventually". The prison labor system that persists in the South is closely related to slavery TO THIS DAY.

The CSA was a violent white supremacist state. Peaceful coexistence with the USA, one slave, one free, was not one of the options. The question of what to do with new states would not have been resolved with a few handshakes. The CSA needed to be put down, period. And they were.

63/in-frequent, yes, I'm saying that Lincoln's decision to go war against the Confederacy was not necessary. It was fundamentally a war of choice. What was the compelling necessity in preserving the union? It wasn't as if the northern states were going to cease to exist, gobbled up by Canada, if the Confederacy had been allowed to exist. It wasn't as if the Confederacy wanted to take over the North.

Were Southerners racist assholes for allowing slavery? Absolutely. Was preventing these racist assholes from having their own country worth the slaughter of over 600,000 young men (almost 2% of the population at that time)? Conventional wisdom says yes. I'm not so sure.

I'd like to thank my history teacher, a good old white boy from Alabama, whose parents marched at Selma, and who grew up to teach high school in a podunk Georgia town, where he ran through all the bullshit equivalences and waffling in the (Texas produced) textbook, and then closed the book and said, "There, I've now satisfied the state requirements, and if anybody asks you, you can tell them all the reasons for the Civil War according to your text. Now we're going to start the real unit, because if you think the Civil War wasn't about slavery, you're fooling yourselves. Here are your six supplemental texts. Tomorrow, I want a paper on the many social, economic, and cultural reasons why the South wanted to continue to be allowed to *own other people*. Spelling counts."

I can't name him here, because he's still teaching... but I'm grateful for him, all the same.

Roma @60,
The Civil War certainly had too much slaughter and suffering, no disagreement there. I wouldn't necessarily say it was worth all the slaughter, but it did bring about many desperately needed and permanent changes to the country, the abolishment of slavery being only one of those changes.

Remember, when the war started, almost nobody thought it would be bloody and grinding. Most people thought it would be over quickly. Some politician (I forget who) remarked at the beginning that "you'll be able to mop up all the spilt blood with a handkerchief."

It escalated somewhat slowly and unpredictably, and before anyone really realized it, thousands were dead and dying and there was no end in sight. It was a war that really got away from them and nobody wanted to throw in the towel.

As for being inevitable... well, the south's way of life was becoming obsolete and they were violently against giving it up (and I don't mean slavery, I mean their aristocracy and caste system). They used the slavery issue as a scapegoat, so to speak, as the final point on which they would refuse to budge. But if it hadn't been slavery, they'd have found another way to resist growing and evolving. They were angry at the north, in much the same way they are today. They see the north as slick and slimy opportunists with no morals. As carpetbaggers. The south was feeling encroached upon and they were itching to fight.
Perhaps its best the Civil War happened when it did, because if it had waited a few decades more, it could have looked more like WWI instead.

68/Fnarf: Peaceful coexistence with the USA, one slave, one free, was not one of the options.

That was not one of the options only because Lincoln did not accept it as one of the options.

71/UF, I realize that Lincoln (and others) didn't think there would be the massive slaughter that there was. But, after the first, say, 40,000 or 50,000 men had been killed, when it began to become clear that it would take far more than a handkerchief to mop up all the spilt blood of the dead and dying and maimed, Lincoln could've thrown in the towel. He didn't need to continue. It was a choice to initiate the war and a choice to continue it.

Perhaps its best the Civil War happened when it did, because if it had waited a few decades more, it could have looked more like WWI instead.

You could be right. I suppose an even bloodier war could have been the outcome if Lincoln had chosen to let the South secede. But I think it's equally, if not more, likely that wouldn't have been the case.

Roma,
Lincoln didn't choose to throw in the towel, but neither did Davis. Both men kept the war going.

It's a little simplistic to say that all those people died because Lincoln chose to fight a war that he could have avoided by letting the Confederacy have its way. The Confederacy was unwilling to let the Union have its way too. If the South can just up and disjoin the Union, why can't the Union just up and claim all those bases and forts as U.S. territory? The people living and working in them considered themselves Union, not Confederate. Can anyone just declare themselves a soveriegn nation and kick out their neighbors?

You could just as easily say that the Confederacy chose to fight the war, firing the first shots at Sumter, when they could have avoided it by letting the Union keep all their property.

Wars are terrible things that should only occur as a last resort. I think the secession of the southern states WAS the last resort. All kinds of compromise had been suggested but the south ignored it. They caused that war just as much as Lincoln and the Union did.

@Fnarf re: 68 - I've lived near the podunk Georgia town I mentioned above for over 20 years now. When I moved here from Michigan as a child, one of the things that was considered a selling point - I'll repeat that, a *selling point* - was that the town in question is considered the site of the last "real hanging", i.e. in the late 1960s, two black men were publicly hanged, at the courthouse, in broad daylight, with a picnic and the mayor and a proclamation and the whole shebang. There were (and, very occasionally, still are, god help us) other hangings, but people who are natives of this town still mourn that they can't have *official* hangings and "hanging picnics" anymore. One of my mother's coworkers still proudly shows off the photo of herself at the last "hanging picnic" as a teenager (which, combined with some books on local history, is how I know this isn't just some wild, racist, bizarre rumor). Needless to say, I feel a little sick whenever I pass the courthouse. The local KKK branch still gets together just outside of town. Not often - once a year or so - but said gatherings are neither wizened old men from another era nor young skinheads playing around.... they're people I pass at the grocery store, people I went to school with, people that fix my car, people that I've done work for. Anyone who thinks that the South's practices and attitudes would have just "died out" or "evolved" hasn't actually lived down here. It's alive, well, and utterly fucking terrifying.... and I'm a little white crip whom they have no particular "interest" in one way or another. I still lock all my doors and remind myself of my to-do list for getting the hell out of here.

UF, Lincoln didn't choose to throw in the towel, but neither did Davis. Both men kept the war going.

But there's a difference. If Lincoln chose to quit fighting, the Union North would have still existed; the Confederate South did not have designs on it. However, if Davis chose to quit fighting, the Confederate South would have ceased to exist.

You could just as easily say that the Confederacy chose to fight the war, firing the first shots at Sumter, when they could have avoided it by letting the Union keep all their property.

Why do you think that if the Confederates had made that choice, to not fire on Fort Sumter, they would have avoided war? Lincoln was going to do whatever he had to do to preserve the Union. He would have invaded the South whether the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter or not. Fort Sumter just gave him a good excuse ("Hey, the Rebs attacked us!")

Can anyone just declare themselves a soveriegn nation and kick out their neighbors?

Well, that's the question, isn't it? People in southern Sudan are going to be voting on January 9th about whether or not they want to secede from Sudan. Now, I don't know what Sudanese law says about this but assuming it forbids secession, and the southern Sudanese vote in favor of it, would the Sudanese government be perfectly entitled to brutally crush this attempted breakaway? If Kurds in Turkey decided to declare a state of their own, would the Turkish government be entitled to use whatever means necessary to crush them?

They caused that war just as much as Lincoln and the Union did.

If the South hadn't seceded then, yes, the war wouldn't have happened so they helped "cause" it in that sense. But I maintain there was no compelling need to keep the Union together. The secession by the South did not threaten the continued existence of the North.

If Lincoln chose to quit fighting, the Union North would have still existed... However, if Davis chose to quit fighting, the Confederate South would have ceased to exist.

That's all a matter of perspective though. I mean, are we the UNITED states, or just a collection of non-united states who cooperate only when it's useful? Lincoln saw us as united; unable to cleave apart. From Lincoln and the rest of the Union's perspective, not only was the Confederacy not a legitimate nation, but they were also trying to remove themselves from an irreducible union... like a person trying to detach an arm or leg; it can't be done. From Lincoln's perspective (and indeed he said as much), allowing the south to secede would have destroyed the Union, it would have ceased to exist.

@Roma,
Let me just say that I think your point is a really great one that most people don't even consider; that the Civil War wasn't exactly necessary (although that part is certainly debatable) and the loss of life was staggering. STAGGERING.

Many historians believe, and I agree with them, that if Lincoln had let them secede, they would have eventually asked to re-join the union at some point. I wonder how our country would look today if such an event had taken place?

However, when I say war was inevitable, I mean it was because both sides had so many fire-breathers (abolitionists on one side and pro-slavery types on the other). They were itching to fight; the whole John Brown incident could almost be considered the first shot of the war. They were itching to fight, AND, they both completely underestimated each other. That underestimation along with people's lack of respect for the brutality of modern warfare (modern for that time, that is) is what ended up with over half a million Americans dead.

@61

You are aware,
are you not,
that 99% of the roster
of the reigning national college football champion Alabama Crimson Tide
were from The South?

Are you not?

(58% from Old 'Bammy...)

http://www.alabamafansite.com/players.as…

If you don't extract your head from your ass
periodically
and let it get fresh air
it will gangrene.

(turn it up...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzbdY_rPt…

@80: I also notice that 80% of them are black. You know, those people you keep hating on. Face it, black Southerners are far less redneck than white Southerners.
Roll Tide, bitch.

77/UF, From Lincoln's perspective (and indeed he said as much), allowing the south to secede would have destroyed the Union, it would have ceased to exist.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. Of course it would have destroyed the Union as it had existed up to that point. The question I'm posing is: so what? It wouldn't have destroyed the North. The South had no intention of conquering the North or forcing the North to do its bidding. So what was the crucial need to preserve the North and South together? What was the crucial need that required sending young men to fight and die?

It wasn't as if everyone back then in the North was in favor of Lincoln's war. There were anti-war people in the North, people who likely viewed Lincoln as anti-Iraq-War people viewed Bush and anti-Vietnam War people viewed Johnson.

79/UF, thanks. I appreciate you understanding my point. I also appreciate the way you can debate something intelligently and respectfully.

You're exactly right; I think that that most people don't (or can't) step back and look at the Civil War from an anti-war perspective and ask: why was it absolutely necessary for Lincoln to go to war in order to preserve the Union? I think most people in the North just have this belief that the Union had to be preserved without being able to give any reasons why.

I never questioned Lincoln's decision until Bush's invasion of Iraq, when anti-war people called it a war of choice while Bush, the neocons and other pro-war people argued it was a war of necessity. I started to think about the Civil War (which I loved reading about as a kid; my senior class trip included a visit to Gettysburg, where I learned about the heroics of the 1st Minnesota) and began to ask: was that war truly a war of necessity or was it a war of choice? When I read about battles as a kid, I knew how horrific the slaughter was but it didn't really sink in and I think most people fail to grasp the scale of the carnage. As I said earlier, the 620,000 (mostly) men who died in it were two percent of the U.S. population. In comparison, two percent of today's population would be about 6 million people.

Many historians believe, and I agree with them, that if Lincoln had let them secede, they would have eventually asked to re-join the union at some point. I wonder how our country would look today if such an event had taken place?

I tend to agree with those historians. I don't think the Confederacy would have remained separate forever.

And you may be right that war was inevitable. It may very well be that if Lincoln had let the Confederacy be, a subsequent U.S./Union president would've gone to war against it anyway. Still, I would maintain that even that war would have been a war of choice. I can't see a reason why a separate Confederacy would have chosen to go to war against the U.S./Union (with the U.S./Union then needing to defend itself.)

Because the South surely never would have allied itself with England against the North, right Roma? The England against which we fought a war in 1812? Yours is undoubtedly the most ill-informed line of argument ever carried on in Slog. "Those peaceful Southern states, just content to go their own way." What do you suppose those peaceful Southern states would have done when their principal source of wealth started fleeing north across the border? Sat back on their porches in their rocking chairs with their shotguns on their laps and wished them well? Why do you think the Southern states were so pissed off in the first place? It was because the Northern states had stopped enforcing the provisions in the federal Constitution that required the Northern states to surrender up fugitive slaves. Try actually reading the Constitution or learning something--anything--some time.

85/kk: It was because the Northern states had stopped enforcing the provisions in the federal Constitution that required the Northern states to surrender up fugitive slaves.

If, according to your reasoning above, Lincoln was entitled (or required out of necessity) to go to war against the Confederacy because the Confederacy's secession from the Union violated provisions in the Constitution, then southern states (pre-Confederacy) would have been entitled (or required out of necessity) to go to war against those northern states which violated provisions in the Constitution.

It's entirely possible that the Confederacy, if Lincoln had let it be, would have ended up going to war against the U.S./Union due to unreturned slaves or some other issue. The problem with debating an obvious know-it-all like yourself is that you can't allow for the possibility that the Confederacy may have coexisted peacefully, if uneasily, with the U.S./Union, and eventually rejoined the U.S./Union without the horrendous loss of life the Civil War entailed.

86, as I said in my response to 5280, "[it's] always been my understanding" that there wasn't anything saying the southern states couldn't secede. The Constitution is not 100% clear on everything (contrary to what know-it-alls think.) If it was always 100% clear on everything, then you wouldn't have situations like the Supreme Court splitting 5-4, ruling that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections (overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations.)

But the additional point I made was: even if, for the sake of argument, the Constitution was 100% crystal-clear on forbidding secession, did secession by the Confederacy create a compelling need for Lincoln to go to war against it? I'm suggesting that it did not. Was preserving the Union worth the cost of killing an incredible 2 percent of the U.S. population (6 million people in today's terms) at the time? I'm suggesting that it was not.

@83 et seq:

I'm a fan of the principle of self-determination. If the people in a region want to be independent, they should be allowed to be independent.

If I were President and dealing with a hypothetical Alaskan Secession, I would try to work out a compromise with Alaska, allowing them their independence, but wanting to keep federal land and bases, or else wanting compensation for the federal money that went into them. It shouldn't be too hard to work out a compromise here, since the alternative is being crushed by the US Army...

But, this didn't happen for the Confederates. Why couldn't they just have come to an agreement for a two-state solution? Were both sides just too stubborn to settle for anything less than everything they wanted? Granted, there had been decades of politics trying to compromise on the slavery issue, and it didn't seem to work. I'm not sure what to do about the point 85 makes. If the North granted the South independence, what happens when slaves try to run away? I guess one option is to make the South responsible for guarding their border, and once they reach the border they're free in the Union (much like with Canada at the time).

But in any case, you're clearly correct that ending slavery does not justify fighting an unnecessary war.

@84: Yeah, blacks are more our allies than whites. Remember Hitler and Mussolini and Dick Cheney? THEY'RE white! And all those apartheid-supporting South Africans? THEY were white too!
See, I can throw out a few meaningless examples and recklessly extrapolate too.

BlackRose, thanks...I appreciate your comments. The way I see it, the Confederacy was willing to have a two-state solution. Not agreed-upon, of course, but two-states nonetheless. It was Lincoln (and his pro-war supporters in the North) who were unwilling to accept two states.

If the North granted the South independence, what happens when slaves try to run away? I guess one option is to make the South responsible for guarding their border, and once they reach the border they're free in the Union (much like with Canada at the time).

If independence for the Confederacy had been allowed, the Northern states likely would have continued their policy of not returning escaped slaves. Unless this became a massive problem for the Confederacy, I doubt it would have chosen to go to war against the U.S./Union over it.

But in any case, you're clearly correct that ending slavery does not justify fighting an unnecessary war.

Actually, I think that ending slavery would have been a much better -- certainly more moral -- justification for Lincoln going to war than preserving the Union. But Lincoln's reason (stated reason anyway) for going to war was to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Here's Lincoln, in a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

#82 "The South had no intention of conquering the North or forcing the North to do its bidding"

Not the case. The South wanted half of all the lands from the Louisiana Purchase, most of which were in North.

There's really no need to speculate about why some of the southern states attempted secession. Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas issued declarations which you can read here:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons…

Number one answer is slavery...Mississippi"s goes right to the point.

What the fuck is "moralfags"?

@93: On the seedier parts of the Intertubes, "fag" is just a suffix. As a demonstration, most of you are Seattlefags, but I'm a Chicagofag. SLOG's readership is a healthy mix of gayfags, straightfags, and bifags, judging by the comments I've read. And a moralfag (or whiteknight) is someone who is moralistic and genuinely tries to be a good person in a world gone nuts.

95, which section of the Force Bill is that you believe unequivocally states that a state, or group of states, could not secede? Or, instead of giving me the section, can you copy and paste the specific language in the Force Bill is that you believe unequivocally states that a state, or group of states, could not secede? Thanks.

What percentage of your hypothetical people get to make that determination? Not only did several counties vote not to secede, but they declared themselves separate from the Confederacy. What would you have done with people like them? In fact, there were enough unionists that every Confederate state except South Carolina supplied a regiment or at least a company of white soldiers to the Union army. Should those willing to hazard their lives for the union be forced to sacrifice that or give up their lands and move out of the region?

That's a good question and one there's no easy answer to. As I'm sure you remember, there were people in the British Empire's Thirteen Colonies -- the Loyalists, or Tories -- who did not want to declare independence from Great Britain. Historians apparently estimate they were 15-20% of the colonial population. Was it wrong, then, for the majority (as represented by colonial leaders) to declare independence from Great Britain since a sizeable minority didn't want it?

There were Serbs living in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia who wanted to remain part of Yugoslavia (or greater Serbia.) They didn't get their way. There were undoubtedly Czechs living in Slovakia who didn't want to split off from Czechoslovakia. They didn't get their way. Does that mean those separations were wrong because the majority got their way and the minority didn't?

92/Mike: #82 "The South had no intention of conquering the North or forcing the North to do its bidding"

Not the case. The South wanted half of all the lands from the Louisiana Purchase, most of which were in North.

Assuming it did, I wouldn't characterize a desire by the Confederacy for half of the lands from the Louisiana Purchase to be an intention of "conquering" the North (or forcing the North to do its bidding.) My point is: which entity wanted to dominate the other? It wasn't the Confederacy trying to dominate Massachusetts, Illinois, Ohio, etc. It was the Union which wanted to dominate South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, etc. . . . and was willing to kill fellow Americans in order to do it. (In the same way, the Thirteen Colonies didn't want to dominate Great Britain. They just wanted their independence. It was Great Britain which wanted to dominate the Thirteen Colonies.)

I'm not suggesting that if Lincoln had let the Confederacy be, that all would have been a perfect bed of roses between the US and the CSA. Based on what you mentioned, there likely would have been contention over land in the Louisiana Purchase (not to mention continued contention over slavery.) But it's entirely possible that could have been worked out by political means, instead of by people killing each other.

wow, who would think this would rile up so many all the way up here!

i’ll add this thought, imagine if Lincoln would’ve said "so long then, don’t let the door hit you..”

Today the South has the highest teen pregnancy, obesity, divorce rates. The lowest adult literacy rates, they use more energy per capita than the rest of the country. They pay the least into the federal tax system and are among the highest recipient in federal aid.

just thought ...

98, While I can see how people today can believe that a peaceful coexistence with the Confederacy was possible,

Yes, possible. No one can say that peaceful (or mostly peaceful) coexistence was certain. But that was never given a chance to play out because Lincoln chose to go to war against the Confederacy.

Further, when 50 Confederate cannons fired the first shots of the Civil War at 4:30 AM on April 12, 1861

Lincoln wanted that to happen. He wanted the Confederates to fire the first shot so he could point out that the Confederacy attacked the North, implying that the Confederacy was the aggressor. If I had been Lincoln with the same intent Lincoln had, to go to war against the Confederacy, no matter what the human cost, in order to preserve the Union. I would have wanted the same thing. I wouldn't have wanted to send my army into the South first, so history could record that I was the invader. I would have wanted a pretext. I would have purposefully kept forces at Fort Sumter and other forts in the South, hoping their presence would provoke the Confederates into firing on them.

From there, the Confederacy's foreign policy bears out the belief that they were ready to fight outside their borders to further the cause of slavery.

Outside its borders, perhaps. But not to the north. I would think there's little evidence to support an assertion that the Confederacy had plans to invade the existing northern states. It may be that, as Urqutha Forka suggested above, a civil war was inevitable, to be sparked by conflict over land in the Lousiana Purchase or some other issue. But I keep suggesting that it also may not have happened. One thing we know for sure is that Lincoln, by choosing to go to war against the Confederacy ensured that a civil war happened.

@Roma

Traitor.