The Southern Lie
Mar. 16th, 2013 07:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marjaerwinNo, the war was not about "states' rights," it was about slavery.
For decades the slaveholders in the South had sought to expand slavery into the West and impose slavery on the North.
If they had cared about "states' rights," they wouldn't have forced the Fugitive Slave Act and the Mexican War, and wouldn't have sent federal marshals to force Massachusetts to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act. If they had cared about "states' rights" they wouldn't have invaded Kansas in 1854 and neutral Kentucky in 1861. If they had cared about local autonomy they would not have invaded eastern Tennessee or western Virginia in 1861.
But they went to war for slavery, by their own admission. It's in the various articles of secession and the Cornerstone Speech.
Now it's easy to understand why Southern institutions push this lie, but it's harder to understand why the wider public has bought into the lie. I think it absolves the Southern politicians for the war, but just as importantly, it absolves their Northern counterparts for turning their backs on reconstruction, land reform, and civil rights for the freed victims of the slave system.
Inspired by the recent Salon excerpt from Tracy Thompson's The New Mind of the South
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war
And by James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=22520482
By the way, tomorrow is Saint Patrick's Day. Given the topic, let's remember that Saint Patrick was himself enslaved by Irish raiders for six years before escaping.
For decades the slaveholders in the South had sought to expand slavery into the West and impose slavery on the North.
If they had cared about "states' rights," they wouldn't have forced the Fugitive Slave Act and the Mexican War, and wouldn't have sent federal marshals to force Massachusetts to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act. If they had cared about "states' rights" they wouldn't have invaded Kansas in 1854 and neutral Kentucky in 1861. If they had cared about local autonomy they would not have invaded eastern Tennessee or western Virginia in 1861.
But they went to war for slavery, by their own admission. It's in the various articles of secession and the Cornerstone Speech.
Now it's easy to understand why Southern institutions push this lie, but it's harder to understand why the wider public has bought into the lie. I think it absolves the Southern politicians for the war, but just as importantly, it absolves their Northern counterparts for turning their backs on reconstruction, land reform, and civil rights for the freed victims of the slave system.
Inspired by the recent Salon excerpt from Tracy Thompson's The New Mind of the South
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war
And by James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=22520482
By the way, tomorrow is Saint Patrick's Day. Given the topic, let's remember that Saint Patrick was himself enslaved by Irish raiders for six years before escaping.
