Dec
23
History for Dummies
December 23, 2008 | 7 Comments
In the comments thread bemoaning the historical illiteracy of Americans, inspired by a poll showing that 25% of Americans deem Cheney to be the worst VP in history, a few fellow conservatives seem intent on imparting their own historical knowledge – or lack thereof.
3 yrs into the war, when France was about to ally with the South to help them win(which would’ve happened) Lincoln freaked out and did the Emancipation Proclomation to assert a moral highground to keep France out of it. Thats the root of what happened.
No, that’s even remotely close. First of all, if there was a nation that the Union was largely concerned about entering the conflict, it was Great Britain. But concerns over international entry into the conflict was not what spurred Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Believe it or not he thought it was the right things to do. He also perceived some useful military value in granting emancipation. It is true that it served as a useful propaganda tool once issued, but this was a side effect, and not the principle motivating factor. Lincoln waited for a union victory in order to issue the Proclamation because he didn’t want to be perceived as doing it out of weakness. By the way, he issued the order less than two years after the conflict began.
The North was full of slaves as well, just not as many since agriculture wasn’t what it was in the South. Companies located in the North did alot of the slave trade as well. Aside from that, there were plenty of southern slaves(that were treated well) who fought willingly with the South against the North.
It is true that slavery persisted in the north longer than most people realize, but it was essentially extinct there by the beginning of the civil war. And while I’m sure there are some instances of slaves loyally sticking by their masters, it was not exactly a common phenomenon.
Anyone who thinks Lincoln said at the beginning: “Look, the South has slaves and that is wrong we are going to war with them and go through all the disease and Killing to ‘end slavery’” is absolutely out of their minds. The Civil War was about Money, power and “states rights”, ever since that war the Feds have grown in power.
This makes me weep. Lincoln fought the war because he correctly understood that secession was illegal. And why did the south secede? Because of high tariffs? Uh huh. I suppose it was just coincidence that the southern states all decided to quit the union after the election of anti-slavery man. Sure. All just a lovely coincidence,
Just because years into it they changed the narrative, and its true the net effect of the war did eventually end slavery, but that is not what the War was about and the South was already well on its way to ending it peacefully.
This is what is known as historical revisionism, and it demonstrates the intellectual vacuousness of the “history is written by the winners” narrative. The south was no closer to emancipating their slaves in 1860 than Planned Parenthood is to admitting the folly of abortion today. It’s as though nobody is remotely familiar with the Mexican-American War, manifest destiny, and the drive to acquire more possessions to the south. The expansion of slavery was a very large factor behind all of these events.
And I really tire of the “narrative” that states that the south was being treated harshly by the north prior to the onset of the war. The south had won every major political battle during the 1850s. They got repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the awful Dred Scott decision, and held most of the seats of power within the federal government. Though Pierce and Buchanan were northerners, they completely kow-towed to the slave interests. The confederate states essentially threw a hissy fit because someone opposed to slavery finally won the presidency. Some example of tyranny that.
Conservatives don’t do well to defend the cause of the confederacy. This an element of especially paleo-conservative thinking that frankly repulses me. There is nothing conservative about a rebellion based on absolutely nothing more than not liking the President. There is nothing conservative about the doctrine of nullification, an idea which would render the federal government powerless. Sure, we like our localism, but that’s the idea of local government taken to a ridiculous extreme.
PS- Captain Ed is right on in his post, which is a good one.
Comments
7 Comments so far
Conservatives don’t do well to defend the cause of the confederacy. This an element of especially paleo-conservative thinking that frankly repulses me. There is nothing conservative about a rebellion based on absolutely nothing more than not liking the President. There is nothing conservative about the doctrine of nullification, an idea which would render the federal government powerless. Sure, we like our localism, but that’s the idea of local government taken to a ridiculous extreme.
Well said, as usual!
Thank you, Paul.
While I don’t think Cheney has been a bad VP, I’m not surprised to see a percentage of the ignorant general population has reached that conclusion. Consider the constant bleating of the media decrying this administration with false claims of all sorts of malfeasance. If people go eight straight years without hearing a positive word about the man it isn’t likely many will have a decent opinion of him.
As far as historical ignorance it starts with the schools. As they add crap to the curriculum something gets lost. History is often the victim.
I could live with people declaring Cheney a bad VP (though I’d disagree with that), but it’s the “worst VP ever” argument that I find ridiculous, especially when you have a murderer and traitor (all in one package) on the list.
As far as historical ignorance it starts with the schools. As they add crap to the curriculum something gets lost. History is often the victim.
Yep.
It is interesting to know how events in the distant past have parallels to what we have going on. For example, did you know of the link between the American Civil War and Mumbai’s rise to industrial age. There was a cotton bubble going on at that time in Mumbai. Right now it is real estate and credit bubble.
Cheney aside, I do think the linked article was greatly unfair to John Calhoun.
Granted, many of the charges against Calhoun’s legacy are reasonable. No doubt he defended slavery at great lengths. And because he was so effective in advocating the causes in which he believed, it is a big negative.
But there is also a lengthy list of positive contributions. He was an influential vice president when it otherwise was a powerless position. Also Calhoun is one of the few Americans who literally defined the role of statesmanship within our very different form of government. The SC legislature would shuffle him off to or back from Washington literally on a “where he’s needed most basis.” If only such a notion still existed today!!
Finally, though they often reside on the losing side of history, it is men like John Calhoun (and the even more under-appreciated George Mason) who kind of lost the battles but often won the wars….meaning they helped shape the decentralized, uniquely American mentality rooted in localism and defined rights/limits upon which this country thrived for over 150 years. Sadly, no more.
Calhoun deserves way better than to be lumped on a list with Burr or Agnew.
All I gotta say is…
welcome to my world as a history teacher….
That vacuous drivel isn’t even worth a comment…. nor do I think it was worth a post.