05-23-2018 10:30:41 AM -0700
05-18-2018 12:27:15 PM -0700
05-17-2018 08:38:50 AM -0700
05-11-2018 07:34:04 AM -0700
05-09-2018 10:17:16 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

A New Way Of Looking At The Civil War

The Battle of Chickamauga

A century and a half after the Civil War, the debate continues to rage over the true causes of the war. The menace of slavery is an obvious answer, but it wasn't the sole cause. Many scholars argue that the fight over states' rights led to the war, while at the war's outset, Abraham Lincoln waged war to preserve the Union. And Shelby Foote tells the story of a Confederate soldier who, when an invading Union solder asked him why he was fighting, replied, "I'm fighting because you're down here!"

Historian and author Thomas Fleming recently published A Disease In The Public Mind: A New Understanding Of Why We Fought The Civil War, and the book details two compelling reasons for the war: New England's disdain for the Southern states - along with the ensuing all-or-nothing attitude of militant abolitionists, and Southern whites' fear of a race war were the nation to emancipate the slaves. Last month here at PJ Lifestyle, David Forsmark interviewed Fleming about his theories, and that interview compelled me to read the book.

The founding fathers left the question of slavery unsettled at the nation's outset. After the Revolutionary War, politicians from New England believed that they had inherited the mantle of leadership, since New England's native sons had first called for independence. However, Southerners like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rose to greater prominence in national politics, which infuriated the New Englanders, who resented the "slavocracy" they felt came about from Southern leadership.

This hatred for the South continued to fester, and as the abolitionist movement gained prominence, its leadership brimmed with seething hatred for Southerners in general. Fleming presents William Lloyd Garrison's reaction to a bloody slave revolt as a prime example of this attitude.

On October 19, 1831, he told one correspondent that he was pleased the "disturbances at the South still continue. The slaveholders are given over to destruction..."

Here was a signal revelation of the fundamental flaw in William Lloyd Garrison's character, a flaw that permeated the New England view of the rest of America: an almost total lack of empathy. Fellow Americans had just been exposed to an awful experience - a tragedy that dramatized in horrendous terms the problem of Southern slavery... The only emotion Garrison permitted himself was a thinly disguised gloating - and a call for sympathy for the slaves. No matter how much they deserved this emotion, was this the time to demand it?