Propositions and Implications
One of the more troubling aspects of Civil War history lies in going beyond the tales of battles and leaders and tightly-focused military studies to ask broader and more probing questions about issues of causes and motivations. Such queries are sensitive in part because some people see a characterization of motivation or cause as passing judgment on one’s own ancestors and perhaps on oneself. There’s something deeply personal about these queries, and simply to explore the topic is a risky proposition. Nevertheless, we make moral judgments all the time about the past, whether we admit it or not.
I find challenging the following propositions about the American Civil War:
“Both sides fought for what they believed in.”
“There was racism in the North as well as in the South.”
“Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves.”
All three of these statements are grounded upon a factual basis. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss their implications (and we do). If we posed similar propositions about a more recent conflict, would we draw the same implications?
“Both American and German soldiers fought for what they believed in during World War II.”
“There was antisemitism in the United States as well as in Nazi Germany.”
“Most German soldiers did not take part in the Holocaust.”
One can raise these questions without necessarily equating the Confederacy with Nazi Germany (and I would not). Moreover, one should be able to raise these questions without being labelled a Yankee apologist who renders the Civil War in simple and stark moral contrasts of Union good, Confederate bad, Union pure, Confederate sullied. In fact, for someone to raise that objection is an intellectually feeble evasion of the import of the exercise. Simply questioning the motivation of the questioner (an all too frequent practice in such discussions, which are full of “you, too” fingerpointing) is an admission that one does not want to answer the question. I’d ask, why not?
I raise these issues to ask whether there are the meaningful differences between these two sets of propositions, what they might be, and the implications one draws from that discussion. We owe it to ourselves to engage in that sort of discussion every once in a while rather than simply rehash the same old controversies.
Kevin wrote:
Hi Brooks, — Great post! I respond to it over at Civil War Memory.
Posted on 06-Feb-07 at 7:01 am | Permalink
Brooks D. Simpson wrote:
Thanks, Kevin. I appreciated your thoughtful response.
Posted on 06-Feb-07 at 2:31 pm | Permalink
Will Keene wrote:
Is there a general difference in reaction based on ones regional affiliation (southerner vs northerner)? For example, Kevin states that we look at World War II with “a broad moral assumption that we (Allies) were right and they were wrong.” I agree with him; but I look at the Civil War with the same assumption.
Posted on 07-Feb-07 at 12:33 am | Permalink
matthew mckeon wrote:
The problem with using the “Nazi analogy”
is that since the Nazis were the utter epitome of evil, it actually poisons discussion instead of facilitating it.
Posted on 07-Feb-07 at 11:53 am | Permalink
Brooks D. Simpson wrote:
Matt– There are those who feel that slavery was fairly bad, and the sole employment of the term Nazi in my example was to give a time period. I find the unwillingness of Americans to confront their past squarely poisonous as well.
Posted on 07-Feb-07 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
matthew mckeon wrote:
Dear Brooks,
I imagine everyone feels slavery is bad, and everyone thinks the Nazis were bad. Are they the same bad thing? Nazi Germany had a race based ideology, and the Confederacy had a race based ideology. Was it the same ideology? I agree with the idea that gallery of Confederate military heroes does NOT excuse that the “Cause” was a bad one, I just think the Nazi analogy is a poor one.
The average Confederate soldier may have not owned a slave, but he probably wished he did, and slaveowners were admired and owning slaves a sign of status. Certainly he wasn’t an abolitionist. Maintaining slavery required a certain degree of cruelty and oppression, and Southern leadership started the war to maintain slavery. I just think this isn’t the same as murdering millions of people.
As far as being unwilling to confront their past squarely being especially poisonous, its a poison most societies drink on a regular basis.
Posted on 07-Feb-07 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
Blog 4 History: American History & Civil War History » Putting History on Trial and Other Moral Options… wrote:
[...] There is a post on Civil Warriors that I found through Civil War Memory that sparked my interest. I have been for the past 4-5 weeks in the throws of my first fulltime teaching experience at high school. I am teaching U.S. History B which in this district takes us from WWII to the present. [...]
Posted on 07-Feb-07 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
Brooks D. Simpson wrote:
The real question is how would one answer the challenge offered by comparing the propositions. Would saying that slavery does not equal the Holocaust handle it? I don’t think so, especially as the observation that many non-slaveholding Confederates would have been happy to own a slave (or anticipated doing so in their future) would appear to make them more complicit in linking the Confederacy to slavery.
I don’t offer the two sets of statements because I think them simple or parallel: I offer them to spark a discussion about the inadequacy of offering those three statements about the Confederacy as a way to evade taking an honest look at the past.
Posted on 07-Feb-07 at 9:31 pm | Permalink
Terry Walbert wrote:
All these statements are true but only in a general sense. Each could be a departure point for further thought. Here are my responses.
“Both sides fought for what they believed in.”
Exactly what things did they believe in? And who were “they?”
“There was racism in the North as well as in the South.”
How did racism manifest itself in both sections, and in the West?
“Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves.”
What were their attitudes toward slavery, blacks, large slaveowners, small slaveowners. Why did they fight?
“Both American and German soldiers fought for what they believed in during World War II.”
What did American and German soldiers think they were fighting for?
“There was antisemitism in the United States as well as in Nazi Germany.”
How did it manifest itself in the United States and Germany, both before and after 1933?
“Most German soldiers did not take part in the Holocaust.”
Who did, how, and why? What was American, British, Russian, and German policy toward enemy civilians, and how did it influence soldiers’ behavior?
My point is that what seem moral explanations can lead us to get into the details. Then we are in a position to make moral judgements based on knowledge.
Posted on 13-Feb-07 at 7:48 pm | Permalink