Electrolite: More on

December 31, 2002

More on claims that slavery wasn’t the cause of the Civil War: Neel Krishnaswami directs us to the Mississippi Declaration of Secession, January 9, 1861:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Sam Heldman remembers being told in fifth grade, “One of the questions on tomorrow’s test will be ‘What was the cause of the civil war?’ And if you answer ‘Slavery,’ that is wrong and you will get no points.”

Can’t imagine why it’s still such a divisive issue. I mean, lying to people for generations always works. [02:18 PM]

Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on More on:

Christopher Hatton ::: (view all by) ::: January 01, 2003, 01:16 AM:

For a sec there I misparsed the first line of this item, assuming that a) it was in headline language, and b) there was a typo in the first word...completely understandable, I'm sure you'll agree. It stopped making sense after the colon though, so then I parsed it correctly.

Kevin Marks ::: (view all by) ::: January 02, 2003, 03:39 AM:

I've been reading Paul Johnson's History of the American People
He claims that had it not been for Clay's peacemaking compromises (admitting Missouri & Maine as states simultaneously to preserve the Senate deadlock in 1821) the war would have happened 40 yeras earlier, with the South led by Jackson, and the South would have successfully seceded with British support, leading to 3 Anglosphere american nations racing West instead of two.

Steve Cohen ::: (view all by) ::: January 03, 2003, 07:43 AM:

A young co-worker whom I've always thought of as a "legend in his own mind" cemented that impression for me once at lunch when somehow the conversation drifted onto the causes of the civil war (pretty odd for this high-tech bunch). This guy simply announced "it wasn't slavery, it was states' rights" in a totally definitive manner that was wholly inappropriate to the bull session atmosphere that preceded it. A total conversation stopper. As if historians have not been debating this point for close to 150 years. This guy KNEW. Guess he must have gone to the same schools as Sam Heldman.