Everyone should read Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative." Many people should read it twice. I read it once every ten or twelve years. If nothing else they'll figure out that the war was a lot more complex than Sumter - Gettysburg - Appomattox. (Grant's autobiography is a pretty good read too.)
Civil war analysis has a huge flaw. It is almost exclusively focused on the South. Why did the South fight. Was it slavery, or states rights or economic issues. This is debated endlessly.
The bigger question is why did the North fight. It wasn't slavery. Abolition was a minority position in the North and about half the abolitionists (including Lincoln) were gradualists. Letting the South go would have fulfilled the gradualists goal of removing slavery without having to deal with the freed slaves. Part of it was they had no idea how hard it was going to be. Lincoln's original call for troops was 75,000 for 3 months. (A point that needs to be thought about as we drift towards CW2.) It seems to be more "They can't do that". But why? People still said "The United States ARE." I have long though that the issue was not the South but the West. The Confederacy would have been a competitor for Western lands and resources. It could also have been a cats paw for British and French intrusion. However, British capital was hugely important in the West after the Union won.
4 comments:
Everyone should read Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative." Many people should read it twice. I read it once every ten or twelve years. If nothing else they'll figure out that the war was a lot more complex than Sumter - Gettysburg - Appomattox.
(Grant's autobiography is a pretty good read too.)
Agree with Sherm, that is a great book!
Sherm, it is a great book, as Old NFO says. I reviewed it in this post:
https://borepatch.blogspot.com/2008/10/shelby-foote-civil-war.html
Civil war analysis has a huge flaw. It is almost exclusively focused on the South. Why did the South fight. Was it slavery, or states rights or economic issues. This is debated endlessly.
The bigger question is why did the North fight. It wasn't slavery. Abolition was a minority position in the North and about half the abolitionists (including Lincoln) were gradualists. Letting the South go would have fulfilled the gradualists goal of removing slavery without having to deal with the freed slaves. Part of it was they had no idea how hard it was going to be. Lincoln's original call for troops was 75,000 for 3 months. (A point that needs to be thought about as we drift towards CW2.) It seems to be more "They can't do that". But why? People still said "The United States ARE." I have long though that the issue was not the South but the West. The Confederacy would have been a competitor for Western lands and resources. It could also have been a cats paw for British and French intrusion. However, British capital was hugely important in the West after the Union won.
Post a Comment