I grew up in the north with a “traditional” education about the civil war.
I understand the position of states rights, and as I got older and give it two seconds of thought, it was pretty clear that owning a slave was an expensive proposition. I think the part of our education that was lacking significantly was the part where students were taught to “think about slavery” aside from the slave trader stories and the exchange of slaves for the production of rum.
From my own family, I have one side who were dedicated Vermont civil war vets. The story coming down from that side tells us that they were loyal union citizens who wanted to perserve the union and fight against slavery. This comes from family folk history.
Of course, they were pretty simple folk and they did what they were told, and believed in their “patriotic” duty. I am sure they stood across the field with men with whom they had much more in common—poor, farmers, doing what they were told.
The other side of my family was industrialists. They made hundreds of thousands of dollars selling arms and blankets from their mills in Holyoke MA and their armories in New Haven. I can assure you, their treatment of their own immigrant factory workers was only this much (holding my fingers about 1/16th of an inch apart) better than slaves. In fact, after 16 hours of work, my forefathers probably did not a give a $hit their people got fed. Slave owners did.
So, my perspective on the civil war from a familial side differs greatly from the average northerner. My family grew up having access to a portion of an estate that was pretty significant in the 1870’s. I still own 3.5 acres of that estate—five generations removed.
My grandparents (born in the 1890s) were the first of their families to go to college—certainly the sign of an “upper crust” family. By the time my parents came around, the money was gone but not the upper class snobbery. My mom still shows signs of it once in a while as she slides into dementia as she approaches 90 years old.
The lesson of the civil war to me, as I approach my late fifties, is that there was a group of northern industrialists who made a ton of money off from the civil war, sending my fathers ancestors south to fight for something they did not feel THAT strongly about.
The older, more politically savvy member of my generation looks at the southern part of this just as cynically. I believe that the average southern counterpart of my father’s family was doing what they were told, they saw the potential economic collapse of their “system” and they probably had some fear of having to “compete” with the lower class “negro”, whom they considered an inferior race.
On the aristocratic side—more along the lines of my John Parker Lindsay character (Gun maker and inventor)—you saw the economnic class of the south (the slaveholders) fearing for the loss of their fortunes.
As it has been since the dawn of man, the fight was over one side wanting what the other side had.
I think the “fight to free the slaves” was a good rallying cry as the battles went on and the thought process of the front line men turned to, “Why the hell am I 1,500 miles from home shooting up some guy and burning his home.” It gave the Union “moral cover.”
In the end, my great, great, great grandfather JPL settled down with his riches and lived off his investments and his large farm in Vermont. In the late 70’s his name, and his descendents names on my college application made me a legacy. I got into my college in three days from application to acceptance.
So, I benefited from my families profiteering from the civil war almost directly. It has been part of my family’s lore since I can remember.
But, bringing this back to the article in question, I understand the point about not everyone owning slaves. Anyone with a sixth grade education understands that owning slaves was a rich man’s game.
I understand the economics of the south and how they were used. I understand at the time slavery was a “norm.”
But the Congregationalist Yankee conservative nature of my moral upbringing just cannot conceive of anyone thinking it was OK to buy and sell another human. I probably would have been a disappointment to my forefathers. I can see myself being an abolitionist. In fact, I see myself as one now—longing for the yoke of slavery to the state being lifted from my shoulders.
Long post, but that’s how I came to my thinking on the civil war.
One of my primary arguments. It was an ex post facto rationalization for sending men to stop other men from gaining Independence. Just such an occurrence as was predicted in Anti-Federalist paper # 29.
Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.
.
.
But the Congregationalist Yankee conservative nature of my moral upbringing just cannot conceive of anyone thinking it was OK to buy and sell another human.
But would you buy their freedom? If I recall properly, a slave cost about $7,000 dollars. Those people who bought them spent that money when the industry was legal, and billions of dollars of saved wealth was invested into this industry, and then stripped from them with no compensation when it was made illegal. Those loses were not suffered equally, but borne completely by people who had done nothing illegal at the time.
I suppose it was a lot easier to rob them and kill them than it was to pay them, because the moral diversion of "Slavery is now Bad" can always be used to cover up the murder and robbery thus justified.
Long post, but that’s how I came to my thinking on the civil war.
Much insight can be discerned in your thoughts on the subject. Not something you've considered lightly.
My thinking is another borrow from Lincoln. When it comes to a war of principles, "One war at a time."
The first principle of this nation is that there is a God given right to separate from a larger Union. That ought to be the primary focus of discussion rather than Slavery, which was condoned by the Union until a group of them tried to escape.