![\"civil](\"https:\/\/hcsblogdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/03\/civil-war.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861\u20141865 was \u201cabout\u201d slavery or was \u201ccaused by\u201d slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.<\/p>\n
Two generations ago, the most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was \u201cabout\u201d economics and was \u201ccaused by\u201d economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.
\nI was much struck by Barbara Marthal\u2019s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody\u2019s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like \u201cabout slavery.\u201d Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern States. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? This was significant to people who knew that their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the States.<\/p>\n
It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure. Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington\u2019s sword as a talisman. In Brown\u2019s baggage was a constitution making him dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.<\/p>\n
It is significant that not one single slave joined Brown\u2019s attempted blow against slavery. It was entirely an affair of outsiders. Significant also is that six Northern rich men financed Brown and that some elements of the North celebrated him as a saint, an agent of God, ringing the church bells at his execution. Even more significantly, Brown was merely acting out the venomous hatred of Southerners that had characterized some parts of Northern society for many years previously.<\/p>\n
Could this relentless barrage of hatred directed by Northerners against their Southern fellow citizens have perhaps had something to do with the secession impulse? That was the opinion of Horatio Seymour, Democratic governor of New York. In a public address he pointed to the enormity of making war on Southern fellow citizens who had always been exceptionally loyal Americans, but who had been driven to secession by New England fanaticism.<\/p>\n
Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.<\/p>\n
Advocates of the \u201cslavery and nothing but slavery\u201d interpretation also like to mention a speech in which Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens is supposed to have said that white supremacy was the \u201ccornerstone\u201d of the Confederacy. The speech was ad hoc<\/em> and badly reported, but so what? White supremacy was also the cornerstone of the United States. A law of the first Congress established that only white people could be naturalized as citizens. Abraham Lincoln\u2019s Illinois forbade black people to enter the State and deprived those who were there of citizenship rights.<\/p>\n