During the last week Tony Horwitz and Ta-Nehisi Coates offered their opinions on whether the Civil War was worth it … or, as some would put it, whether it was a “good war.”
These arguments tell us much more about the perspective and the values of the person presenting the argument than anything else. Yes, I believe secession and war represent a failure of the American system of government to resolve certain problems. However, I’ll add that when I hear that it failed “to resolve certain problems,” implicit in that phrasing is that the resolution would have brought an end to slavery. What if American whites had decided to resolve their problems in the first half of the nineteenth century by retaining slavery in a way that most people found acceptable? Would that represent a triumph of democracy? For whom?
What happened between 1861 and 1865 came at great cost to many Americans. So did what happened between 1619 and 1860, especially to the enslaved. Yet one of the ugly truths of American history is that much of the nation’s early strength was erected on the foundations provided by slave labor. And please spare me the discussions about peaceful emancipation: after all, the British Empire had no problem proclaiming its moral purity on the issue after 1833 while it continued to import the products of enslaved labor … and there were those who advocated intervention in the conflict to protect that flow of raw materials that was so essential to British industrialization. Do a little more reading before you tell me all about peaceful emancipation.
I think it’s a mistake to engage in the simple-minded balance sheet discussions that weighs 640,000 … or 750,000 … or whatever number we decide was the war’s toll in human deaths … in exchange for the emancipation of some four million African Americans, especially as the people who engage in this discussion were not asked to pay those prices. But let’s humor some folks. If slavery persisted beyond 1865, one would add those born into slavery after 1865 to one’s balance sheet. One could also argue that one does not discuss the generations never born as a result of the war’s slaughter. It all depends on who you believe is paying the price … although it astonishes me that people continue to forget that a good number of those who died in the American Civil War died not to destroy slavery, but to preserve it, and many people gave their lives for other reasons. So let’s be careful when we throw around numbers and confuse intent with result.
Let’s also not forget what the war wrought … and what it did not wrought. No one likes to talk about Reconstruction, of course, and how it represents another failure of the American promise (or, as Eric Foner calls it, “an unfinished revolution”).
Was it worth it? You tell me. Is it a shame that we have to ask that question? Yes.
You know the story … the film ends, and, as the credits roll, you start to get up, check to make sure no one spilled an ICEE or popcorn on you, and step over that sticky thing as you make your way out of the theater. No one reads credits, right? And just try doing in on television, where the credits race past at amazing speed, sometimes sharing the screen with a promotion for what’s coming next.
So here are the credits from Saving Lincoln (2013). See how many people you know and how many times their name appears. Warning: the list is populated by many names you should recognize. If nothing else, you’ll become more adept at using the scroll function.
Some of you may already know that Connie Chastain is an artist as well as a writer. Let’s see some of her recent work: Continue reading
Then follow Paula Dean, y’all.
If only Miss Alabama understood as much …
(h/t Robert R. Mackey)
You’ve never seen the battle quite this way before.
I especially like the role played by the college history professor.
(h/t John Podhoretz)
On June 18, 1863, Ulysses S. Grant relieved John A. McClernand of command of the Thirteenth Corps outside of Vicksburg, Mississippi, for violating army procedures. The incident in question involved McClernand decision to bypass headquarters to circulate in the press a congratulatory letter to his men for their actions during the Vicksburg campaign that appeared to cast aspersions at the other corps under Grant’s command.
You can read Grant’s letter here.
Once upon a time it seemed that the dominant mode of online communication about history was the newsgroup/discussion group/chat room format. That was the case at the turn of the century (gee, I like using that phrase). Blogs had yet to make their presence known and web pages were still in their infancy.
I admit that I am not surprised that Bill Reilly of the Georgia Civil War Commission has yet to return to the comments section to answer the questions I posed to him. It’as safe to say, however, the at least some members of the commission are aware of what’s been said about their work over the past several days … including a decision by someone who administers the commission’s Facebook page to delete a link to Andy Hall’s fine discussion of Clark Lee, a person the commission features as a black Confederate soldier. With a little digging, you can find a link to Kevin Levin’s initial report of the commission’s activities.
The members of the commission are appointed by Georgia’s governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the Georgia house of representatives. We’ve already highlighted their qualifications, and wondered about the absence of any historians from the state’s fine universities and other historical organizations.
Fortunately, there are other ways to make your voice heard. Here’s a link to the office of Georgia governor Nathan Deal. Here’s a link to contact the lieutenant governor, Casey Cagle. Want to sent a letter to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution? Sure.
I think the fine people of Georgia, their elected leaders, and the state’s most important newspaper deserve to hear what folks think of the performance of the Georgia Civil War Commission. People here say that it’s important what the public learns about American history. Here’s a chance to make good on that concern in a case where a commission established by the state discharges its responsibilities as it has.