That’s good. The mechanics of the battles are not too important in the grand scheme of understanding American history.
I re-read Lincoln’s first inaugural address. In it he states that if the South goes to war the ony reason would be their opposition to not extending slavery into the recently added territories. Lincoln states that he is not inclined nor did he think he had the Constitutional power to end slavery in the southern states.
That slavery was not the only cause of the war is rather different from claiming that it was just a side issue.
Having attended high school in Texas about a decade ago (man, I feel old), the civil war was very much taught as a states’ rights issue and the role of slavery in the war was very much downplayed to being a “side issue,” if that. I do think there was a definite motivation to make the South look more sympathetic that underlay that decision. However, I also think people can be too quick to paint the northern states as beacons of anti-racist equality, as that’s not the reality, either. IMO, that’s less of an egregious misrepresentation that downplaying slavery in the civil war, but it still is one of some degree.
The Slaves were freed before the war ended. It was a strategic move by Lincoln design to foment more internal strife in the South. Technically, he only freed the slaves in the South. Once the war was over, it was not going to fly politically to leave a few states with slavery in the ‘North’. Even as such there were slaves for another 3 years or so in about Union states that had not already abolished it pre-war.
As for the technology, there were actually quite a few things. The big one was the Cotton Gin, you may have heard of it. It is often painted as a cause of the war because it made cotton production on a large scale possible. Since the post-ag production increase, they needed to increase acreage and cotton output. The Industrial Revolution was getting rolling and while the immediate impact of the Cotton Gin was to increase slavery, it led to many mid-1800s technologies that were available before the war. The McCormick Reaper, the steel plow, practical threshing machines and grain drills were all invented well before the start of the Civil War.
I wonder when people will start teaching that the American Revolution was in (very small) part caused by concerns about the abolition of slavery in England in 1772 and the coming abolition of slavery in the US had it remained part of the British Empire. See Thomas Jefferson’s writings: he was outraged because the British governor of Virginia had proposed to free the slaves.
Of course, since we won that one, it’s forgotten, unlike how bad the South was.
The cotton gin doesn’t pick cotton- humans did before- and for long after the civil war (share cropping) threshing machines and the McCormick reaper were used on the Great Plains- where slave labor was not widespread (or Econ practical) before the war. The plains never used plantation agriculture
An important purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to create a “moral cause” for the war. Even so - it was not a universally popular idea. (Which is one of the reasons Lincoln used exec order- he was by no means she it would pass in congress) Many northerners feared freed African Americans would steal their jobs- esp immigrants. (Which provided the main cheap labor force in factories in the north) And in point of fact- it didn’t free anyone. It applies only to states that had seceded- which of course weren’t going to obey a federal mandate. As pointed out- Lincoln carefully did NOT free slaves in border states - keeping those in the union was too important
^A main purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation directly to the war effort. Lincoln wanted to remove a source of labor that supported the Confederate states’ military/economic engine.
True- and he certainly would have thought a slave uprising (demanding freedom) would have been great. But he was also sending a message to the south- when the war was over, no more “compromise” (which had been major political tactic of much of the antebellum era). After all- “a house divided against itself cannot stand”. Like I said - history is complicated. Lots of layers
It’s nice to see a state taking a stand for truth and against PC. Too many students get the lollypop version of history which is almost always nuanced, and in the cae of the civil war written by the winners. If you look at the AP History curriculum it is amazing what is emphasised and de-emphasised.
Is the definition of species in there? 'Cause that’s the one that annoys me the most, especially since it purports to be unambiguous truth. (For anyone not sure what I’m talking about, your high school biology class lied to you. There is no rigorous definition of “species.”)
Regardless, it’s my understanding that the Civil War started when the Union refused to leave a fort in South Carolina and the Confederacy attacked it. Given that, the secession could be called a “side issue.” Correct? Wikipedia exists, people who are interested can learn enough about it. I’m not too worried about how exactly things are labeled.
Side issue? Tell us how the Confederacy attacks US troops at Fort Sumter without secession.
To me, saying slavery was a side issue is as offensive as whoever said concentration camps were a detail in WW2. In both cases, if you look at the total number of issues, dates, events, yes you can say it’s a side issue among the mass of other issues. If you think morally and, frankly, historically (ie., in terms of significance), clearly both statements are inaccurate and offensive. I’m not African American so I’m not sure I can say this, but to me classifying slavery as a side issue is as unacceptable as denying the importance of the concentration system in WW2 (and in WW2 concentration camps were arguably more of a side issue, considering no one considered them when joining the fight, with all the later controversy it caused.)
The difference is that Texas gets to decide what everyone else is taught except for California. Therefore, there should be a huge grass roots movement of parents accross the country to refuse Texas-based history books, plus votes in all other states senates about this. Grassroot campaign + state senate votes should have an effect on the publishing industry, at least.
Isn’t this an issue because Texas is one of the biggest buyers of school text books, and that these books may end up in other states’ curriculum?
Without secession there is no war- because there are no confederate states and therefore no one to go to war with. It would have been a rebellion (like Nat Turner’s in the colonial era or the Whiskey Rebellion in the Federal period). In fact- the southern states were betting on the fact that the North wouldn’t have “the stomach” for an actual fight. That was why they refused to allow President Lincoln to re supply the troops at Ft Sumpter (which they had allowed to remain in Federal control after SC seceded) by firing on the fort.
"Regardless, it’s my understanding that the Civil War started when the Union refused to leave a fort in South Carolina and the Confederacy attacked it. Given that, the secession could be called a “side issue.” Correct? "
You scare me.
Sidebar: the issue of racism is not limited to the south. This Washington post article is eye opening http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/28/the-most-racist-places-in-america-according-to-google/?postshare=6301436721291626
Pretty much everyone at the time of the civil war was racist. Being against slavery was totally different from even contemplating such a thing as equality between races (although the reconstruction senates etc. were remarkably mixed).
Nowadays, we’ve come a long way, yet I agree that neither the South nor the North have collective bragging rights on that account.
That also makes the Texas lawmakers’ decision so jawdropping because there’s a difference between saying there were many causes to the Civil War, and considering slavery as a side issue. Only people who are uneducated or ideologically blind can’t see that. But, well, portraying themselves/Texas lawmakers as either uneducated or ideologically blind is their problem not ours, if they even see it as a problem at all since presumably their constituency think it’s great. So all is okay with Texas and if not there’ll be a vote there soon to change things.
The point is that one State decided a key issue from the Civil War era (slavery) is a side issue because it’s inconvenient to their worldview, which is their right, and the parents’ right in this state to take to task or not.
However, people who live outside of Texas never voted to have such a view in their textbooks and I don’t think, North or South, that most families want that view taught to their children.
It’s, of course, especially glaring after South Carolina courageously accepted to see the confederate flag for what it’s come to symbolize for most, regardless of personal/cultural associations to it.
I agree there is racism everywhere. But there was a special kind of dehumanization in the Jim Crow laws. Plenty of Archie Bunkers in NY didn’t want to live next door to blacks or have their daughters date them - but they still felt they had every right to sit wherever they wanted to on the darn bus or use the same restrooms or lunch counters.
That may be true for urban areas in NY, but less so for the rural areas.