[Sherman Logan]

“Revisionism” is a very interesting concept. It implies, at least, that there is an absolute historical truth that an attempt is being made to revise, generally for political gain.

As Bro points out, attempts to revise the actual history started even before the end of the war and continued after it. The most obvious example is the attempt to claim that secession wasn’t really about slavery, which of course flies in the face of all the actual evidence from 1860 and 1861. The genesis of the Lost Cause movement, attempts to make the southern cause more acceptable in a time when defense of slavery just no longer was acceptable.

Meanwhile, on the victors’ side there was a general consensus that the War had been an attempt by evil men to destroy the United States. By the later 19th century this started to fall apart, and up through the 1950s I think it is reasonable to claim that these was a basic consensus on the War:

The War was caused by secession, which was at root caused by a desire to protect and eventually expand slavery, though many other factors were also involved. Southerners fought honorably and bravely for their freedom but were nevertheless defeated. No harm, no foul.

Since the 60s I think there have been two main strands of revisionist history.

Strand 1: Lost Cause stuff revived. Secession and war had nothing at all to do with slavery. Secession was about States’ Rights (specific rights of the States being violated somehow never specified) and tariffs. Union war aims were ignoble and mercenary, while those of the CSA were the defense of freedom. Ahem.

Proponents tend to be conservatives, though I could debate their right to that honorable title.

Strand 2: Secession was ONLY about slavery. Slaves largely freed themselves. The CSA was mostly not defeated by Union armies, it fell apart internally due to the resistance of slaves and others. They agree with Strand 1 that Union war aims were mercenary and ignoble.

Proponents tend to be liberals or socialists, which is why they can find nothing honorable or noble in the actions of either side. Except of course for the supposed passive resistance of the slaves.

Personally, I think the early 20th century consensus was reasonably close to the truth. Though both of the revisionist strands have important truths to add to our understanding of the period.

Just my take.

Revisionism is meaningless except with reference to what it is revising.

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan, post #384, reviewing one classical theory: "The War was caused by secession, which was at root caused by a desire to protect and eventually expand slavery, though many other factors were also involved.
Southerners fought honorably and bravely for their freedom but were nevertheless defeated.
No harm, no foul."

A simple review of historical facts shows us that:

1. Mercantilist trade tariffs did not cause Civil War.
   
2. Fugitive slave laws or Dred Scott did not cause Civil War
   
3. Slavery in the territories did not cause Civil War.
   
4. John Brown did not cause Civil War.
   
5. Secession itself did not cause Civil War.
   
6. Formation of the Confederacy by itself did not cause Civil War.

All of those things happened, and still there was no war -- indeed in his Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861), Lincoln told Secessionists that they could not have a war, unless they themselves started it.

And so, that is what Jefferson Davis & Co. immediately did (March 3) -- ordering preparations for a military assault on Fort Sumter, an act of war as clear as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Three weeks after Fort Sumter, the Confederacy "sealed the deal" by formally declaring war on the United States.

So, "what caused the war" must be traced back into the minds & motivations of Davis & others who urged & supported his actions.
Therefore we must ask: why in April of 1861, does Davis want to start a war with the United States?
Here are my answers:

1. Davis has decades of experience with what were called "Dough-faced" Northerners, such as outgoing President James Buchanan, who Davis believes could be easily bullied & pushed around.
   Davis' experience showed that Northerners were so frightened of war they will quickly back-down after a simple show of Southern manly bravado.

2. Virginia -- and along with it North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas (aka: "Upper South") -- have all refused the Deep South's pleas to join it in Secession.
   One reason is that Virginia's Constitution-ratifying signing statement says Virginia cannot secede until there has been some act of "oppression" or "injury" which can amount to a material breach of contract.
   And up until April, 1861, the Union has been studiously careful to provide the Upper South with no legitimate excuses for declaring secession.
   But Davis knows that Virginians will consider any act of war, regardless of who starts it as adequate to satisfy their need for a material breach of contract to declare secession.

3. War with the United States will be their glorious Second War of Independence, and like the Founders' Revolutionary War, it will establish beyond question the fact & legitimacy of Confederate government, at least in their own eyes.

4. War will force all slave states -- even the Border States (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) -- to chose sides, a choice which Davis & Co. fully expect will be in their favor.
   Indeed, Lincoln himself said that if Border States seceded, the Union would be lost.

5. War will also force foreign countries like Britain & France to take notice of the Confederacy, and in due time, recognize its military successes.

Of course, Davis was warned at the time that starting war would not end well, and we have to give him some credit for understanding the gravity of his actions.
Therefore we must assume that he considered his reasons compelling enough to overcome any & all objections, no matter how dire.

Sherman Logan: "Revisionism is meaningless except with reference to what it is revising."

Granted, the world is chock full of revisionists who wish to modify the past in order to make themselves look good.

Indeed, I would call Global Warming alarmists not only historical-revisionists -- in modifying past climate data to make the present seem warmer by comparison -- but future-revisionists, who wish us to believe that without their nostrum of insane socialism, the earth will explode in a great ball of fire, goodness gracious! ;-)

Anyway, the historical facts in this case are clear, and while it's entirely understandable that our Lost-Causer FRiends wish us to think better of their ancestors' leaders, the truth is, they really can't do it without distorting & ignoring what actually happened.

That's revisionism.