Ken Burns recommends that Americans read South Carolina's Articles of Secession to get the real story on why the states went to war against each other.
"They do not mention states' rights. They mention slavery, slavery, slavery. And that we have to remember. It is much more complicated than that, but essentially the reason why we murdered each other -- more than 2 percent of our population, 750,000 Americans died; that's more than all the wars from the Revolution through Afghanistan combined -- was over essentially the issue of slavery.
4 comments:
I in no way justify or excuse slavery, however, I'm surprised Burns made such a statement. I don't argue SC's article of secession didn't reference states rights, but to make the statement that slavery was the sole reason for secession of all states is not correct. As an example, North Carolina and Georgia article's of secession reference the state's soveriegnty and other causes. While Georgia does mention their grievances being associated with slavery, it's related to the Feds violation of law, not their's. History can't be taken in sound bites as I would have thought someone as accomplished in producing historical film would understand. Slavery was the big issue, no doubt. But it wasn't the only one. For Burns to say the reason for the war "...was over essentially the issue of slavery" is not totally accurate and misleading. I would expect 'sound bite history' from those educated in public schools today, but not from a traditional history program. I don't think Burns has that background.
The South had been threatening (also New England) for 50 years, and came close in 1850. The last straw came as a series of chess moves ending with the failure of an attempted 1861compromise. Why fight in Kansas when they could take Cuba and Mexico with their own army, had France and Britain as allies. The South was a rich country, didn't need the North and had opportunities to expand Southward. The price of slaves was in a bubble and it made business sense to do it. The Confederacy was run by the cotton industry, but the South's legal geniuses made it all about the constitution, and the war was fought by Lincoln as a constitutional crisis. It should be remembered that the judicial supremacist usurpation of Taney in Dred Scott which got Lincoln involved asserting executive power, was never redressed, and in that regard the Court eventually prevailed over the
elected branches, proving so when it struck down civil rights in 1883, thereby avenging Taney. And there it stands today after a brief correction and with the addition of a secret branch of gvt in the intelligence agencies that protect today's slavery interests.
The historiography of the Dunning school was an apologia for slavery. WEB DuBois realized everything he had learned was wrong, hence a century later Eric Foner and Black History. But the Dunning school is still around. The principal adversaries were far too sophisticated to say they were fighting over slavery until 1862, and only then as military strategy. But with the end of hostilities in 1876,
the South got their compromise of neoslavery, and US territories were rid of the peculiar institution, which compromise has largely held up even after the civil rights movement.
For South Carolina and Virginia it was about slavery because they were slave exporters. For the Deep South it as about cotton. East Tennessee and West Virgina and numerous counties rebelled. The Confederacy collapsed from internal rebellion, desertion in the army, Jefferson Davis' gross incompetence. Despite losing the slave equity, it had been so wealthy that its economy took off with industrialization and forced labor under a Jim Crow poice state.
Post a Comment