Jonathan David Morris's column here on the Free Liberal does a great service to our readers.
However, his column does illustrate why we at the Free Liberal use the term "Transcend Politics" on our masthead. What we're really saying, IMO, is that there's not just 2 sides to any story...there are myriad sides.
JDM points out that so many of us were essentially propogandized about Lincoln. He did lots and lots of nasty things, and he wasn't motivated by ending slavery at the outset of the Civil War. The history books overlook that, and that's quite tragic, IMO.
Yet, JDM suggests we should learn the revisionist, Southern perspective, too. Sure we should. But is THAT the truth, and what we learned about Lincoln and the North NOT the truth?
Nope.
So, we have two competing half truths in the 2 schools of thought. Would learning both advance our understanding of the Civil War? I suggest No, it wouldn't.
Southern revisionists claim that the South was within their rights to secede, regardless of their motive...continuing slavery, ending Northern-led tariffs on their agricultural products, or whatever they chose. Perhaps "they" did have the power to secede, but I suggest that's not the most salient question. To me, the question is, who is "they"?
The plantation-based states of the Deep South seceded first. They started the Civil War, firing on the disputed Union Ft. Sumter. Those states were majority slave. Can any serious person say that, had the slaves had a vote, that they would have voted to secede? I've certainly not found any who would have the audacity to suggest that.
And let us not forget that the question about the "peculiar institution" was subject of debate for over 60 years. At the Constitutional Convention, abolition was considered, but rejected. Is it, on balance, fair to say that the Southern elites saw the writing on the walls with the election of Lincoln and the ascendence of the Republican Party, and decided that it was in their interests to end the debate by employing the "secession option" as a ploy to maintain slavery? I'd suggest Yes.
So, what we have here is a failure to communicate. A vast array of facts are marshalled and assembled to support a point of view. Advocates tend to idolize their guys and demonize the other guys. But the world is not filled with idols and demons. Instead, it's filled with mortals, people who make mistakes and do things that are at best conflicted.
Was it a Civil War, a War of Northern Aggression, or a War of Southern Elite Insurrection? To me, it was the latter, waged in a heinous way by Lincoln and his generals.
But, of course, I'm sure there are still yet OTHER ways to view that most unfortunate period in US history.
-Robert Capozzi