Posted under Globalism & Interventionism & Sovereignty and Secession & States Rights & The South
Unemployment is still terrible, but there’s still plenty of work in historical revisionism. Here’s the latest on the ongoing reinterpretation of the War Between the States, or the Civil War, I mean, The War to Free the Slaves. Courtesy of the Huffington Post:
Issued 150 years ago this week, President Abraham Lincoln’s initial proclamation that he would free the South’s slaves is enjoying a public showcase to match its increased profile among scholars.
Lincoln released his lesser-known preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on Sept. 22, 1862 – 100 days before the final version. The first of the two documents has gained importance among historians as a turning point in the Civil War because of a change in thinking over the past 50 years.
Not that long ago, historians would explain the conflict in terms of clashing economic interests, States’ Rights, and different views of the Constitution. They acknowledged that slavery was an issue, but was not Lincoln’s or the North’s primary motivation. Historians would point to Lincoln’s own statement that if he could keep the South in the Union with slavery, he would do so. Historians would also refer to Congress’ July 22, 1861 “Joint Resolution on the War,” that proclaimed:
Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.
Then there was the Corwin Amendment, which Lincoln supported, that would deprive Congress of the power to “abolish or interfere” with slavery. That effort to keep the South in the Union failed, however.
Apparently, the people who lived and fought and wrote history during and the decades after the WBTS didn’t know what they were doing.
So why do court historians scholars now say that slavery was central to the war? Here’s what the Huffington Post article says about that:
Slavery and its abolition were once treated by historians as minor parts of the story behind the Civil War, but that began to change after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, said historian Edward Ayers, president of the University of Richmond. Since then, the steps that led to emancipation have been recognized for their importance – with the Sept. 22 proclamation being a prime example.
“All our thinking about this has undergone remarkable recasting over the last 50 years,” Ayers said. “People begin now with slavery as the fundamental fact and emancipation and less with union as being the sole focus of attention.”
So, it was the Civil Rights Revolution that caused this “remarkable recasting” of the cause of the WBTS. And as regular readers of this blog are aware, DC promoted that cultural and political revolution to advance its aggressive foreign policy: By repackaging DC as the great liberator of blacks in the 19th century and the present day, DC was able to counter the USSR’s “African Socialism” initiative during the Cold War.
And of course, all who serve the Empire today, from Pentagon employees to court historians, continue to peddle the myth: Bush took oil-rich Iraq in the name of “liberating” that lucky country.
Bottom line: The Civil War was the first war in history NOT about power or money, but doing good deeds for others. Guess that’s what makes America “exceptional.”
roho on 22 Sep 2012 at 10:31 pm #
Like the USSR sending tanks into Hungary, “Saint Lincoln” simply wished to preserve the Union.(More is better.)
HarrisonBergeron2 on 23 Sep 2012 at 1:56 pm #
roho,
The Soviets only wanted to save Hungary from reactionary elements fomenting terror. They, too, went to war to do good deeds for others.
aware on 23 Sep 2012 at 3:40 pm #
As long as Lincoln was “freeing” slaves in areas he didn’t control, I just wonder why he didn’t go ahead and free the serfs in Russia too. A greater piece of hypocrisy than the “Emancipation Proclamation” would be difficult to find, even in the world of hypocrisy known as politics.
Weaver on 23 Sep 2012 at 3:56 pm #
To endure, we’ve got to write our own history for up-and-coming activists. Since we care about WBTS more than most other groups, we’ve got a good chance at our version becoming dominant.
Not that I’m an expert on the war, but the Peloponnesian War was fairly ideological: Democracy vs. Oligarchy. I’d reply to any neocon who says WBTS is a “first” with that war.
WBTS did bring about a revolution: the return of total war. And a larger percentage died in the war than any other America’s yet partaken in. Perhaps the neocons will break that record before America is broken for good though.
Weaver on 23 Sep 2012 at 4:04 pm #
When I say “our version of the war”, I don’t mean to imply it’s false. I doubt lying about history is ever worthwhile.
Regardless it is a competition of “versions”, even if one belongs in the fantasy section.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 23 Sep 2012 at 8:12 pm #
Aware–good to see you here…hope you will come back. I haven’t been doing my AmSpec rounds as often…
aware on 24 Sep 2012 at 9:53 am #
C. Bowen, it was Red Phillips that turned me on to this site. I have much in common with the Paleos because of their ties back to the Old Right. I still post at AmSpec for the rat killing(neocons, whom I hate intensely for being the Imperial Statists they are) but it has become a pale shadow of what it was when people like James Bovard and Florence King wrote for it. Now it is almost unbearable in its Obama Derangement and endless Romney boosting.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 24 Sep 2012 at 1:35 pm #
aware,
Welcome aboard! Like Stephen in Braveheart, you’ve come to the right place.
RonL on 25 Sep 2012 at 4:41 am #
Ironically, one the major proponents of the economic reasons for the war was Karl Marx. Then again, Karl is downright reactionary for the New Left.
Fr. John+ on 25 Sep 2012 at 1:49 pm #
I would suggest a visit to Occidental Dissent, where historical analyses of the Carribean, and slavery, and mechanization, and how ‘free’ vs. ‘slave’ societies either failed- or succeded, as necessary corrective to the ‘court historian’ view of History.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com
Dave K on 26 Sep 2012 at 4:25 am #
Why is the first Emancipation Proclamation so seldom spoken of? This was Lord Dunmore’s edict in colonial Virginia which promised freedom to Virginia’s slaves if they escaped and sided with Britain at the time of the American revolution. It was one of the grievances against the King listed in the Declaration of Independence (inciting domestic rebellions). Isn’t it funny how the issue of slavery can be played either way? Do Lincoln supporters see the contradiction here?