Don't Accept "Junky" History

Several weeks ago, after the Kennel-Charles lecture annually hosted by EMHS, Mrs. Roth invited James Juhnke, a former professor of history at Bethel College, to speak about the United States and the nation’s equilibrium of war and peace. Juhnke noted America’s lack of hesitation when committing to war with its enemies and elaborated on the different ways American culture values war. Throughout his discourse on war and peace, he provided the government class with several examples of wars that should have been avoided entirely and conflicts that could have been resolved before violence erupted. Juhnke frequently stressed the American Civil War as one conflict that qualified as a ridiculous war fought with unsubstantial motives. He held the Civil War leaders in poor regards, stating that they “couldn’t end slavery without a war.”

By that point I wanted to start pounding my forehead on the surface of my desk. What was this man saying?!?! Juhnke had just portrayed the American Civil War as a war fought solely over the issue of slavery.

Framing the Civil War as a struggle to abolish slavery or condemning the South for trying to preserve slavery isn’t an intelligent or respectable way to interpret U.S.history. While slavery served as a major factor in the War Between the States that hardly encompasses the numerous causes for the Civil War.

The North and South, separated by the famous Mason-Dixon Line, fell under the authority of the same federal government and national leaders, but were distinguished by cultural, economic, and political differences. Economically, the South sustained its population with the plantation system while the North maintained their economy with smaller farms, industry, and mining. The cultural differentiation between the North and the South originated from many sources. The North hosted thousands and thousands of new immigrants from Europe, but few immigrants ever settled in the Southern states. Therefore, the North possessed a rapidly expanding population and a people of notable diversity. The North and South struggled with conflicting views over states’ rights and the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. As the North and the South developed two separate identities, the South discovered that the North’s growing population would achieve complete control of the federal government. The South sought a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, hoping that would prevent the federal government from abusing the states’ rights. However, after Lincoln, a Northern candidate who failed obtain a single electoral vote from below the Mason Dixon Line and received the endorsements of many Northern politicians, won the election of 1860, the South pursued secession.

When a historian commits himself to sweeping statements such as Juhnke’s inaccurate example, he begins dealing in absolutes. Juhnke’s implications of the Civil War fought solely over the rights of slavery forced all the Southern fighters into the same corner, a place marked by racism, greed, and immorality. Of course some individuals fought to preserve slavery in the South, but not every man marched to war against his fellow countryman to deny the slaves their rights. Over two-thirds of Southerners never owned slaves or participated in the slave trade. My ancestor, a cavalryman in General Stuart’s 6^th Virginia Calvary Regiment never owned a slave, but fought to prevent an invasion of the Northern armies. The revered General Robert E. Lee, a native Virginian, rejected an offer from Lincoln to lead the Northern army against the South. Although he had discouraged Virginia’s secession from the
Union, Lee sided with his home state and swore his allegiance to protecting his home and people. General Lee, along with the majority of Southerners suffered great hardships to prevent atrocities like Sherman’s March to the Sea and the devastation of Southern properties, a vital source of livelihood. I highly doubt the Southerners were concerned with slaves’ rights when their homes, traditions, and family were faced with devastation.

The subject of the American Civil War’s origins is a topic worthy of a doctorial thesis, and I truly cannot give the issue justice in such a brief editorial. I encourage you to research the Civil War, but don’t foolishly accept the “slave war” parallels that unprofessional historians promote. The Civil War is the perfect conflict to study and research, as most of the fighting happened only a few miles from our homes here in the Shenandoah Valley.

-Kyle Smith, Co-Editor

Comments

[Ellen Brodersen]

very well written article -losing power/control and being misunderstood continues to be a driving force in many wars. It goes clear back to when we were children and the older child would tease the younger - until the younger would strike out and the one aggrieved would claim such innocence - telling the world it was the others fault for being so sensitive

[Dustin Crummett]

*sigh*

Haven't we already been over this?

////

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically...Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails...They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal...

Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made 'one star to differ from another star in glory.'

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders 'is become the chief of the corner' -- the real 'corner-stone' -- in our new edifice. [Applause.]"

////

Those words are from a speech given by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, on March 21, 1861. The text can be found here:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html

That was a pretty long excerpt, so let me repeat:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."

Not "slavery is one factor among many," but "slavery, and the supposed inferiority of non-whites, is the cornerstone of our government." The Confederacy was treason against the lawful United States government in defense of slavery.

Yes, not all Confederates were evil--not all Germans were evil, either, but that doesn't mean the Nazis weren't the bad guys. (And before anybody calls Godwin's Law, I think that's an entirely fair comparison.)

And I think I'm safe in assuming that the above post is from Eric, not Eric's mom.

[Dustin Crummett]

And, by the way, I seem to remember stories of local Mennonites receiving leniency from Union troops by producing papers showing that they voted against secession. So a lot of times you were in fact quite safe, as long as you hadn't voted for rebellion in the first place. Committing treason and supporting armed insurrection does have consequences, you know.

There's also this:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/rbc/rbpe/rbpe18/rbpe187/18701000/001dr.jpg

You'll note the first line: "Your soil has been invaded by your Abolition foes..." If the most incendiary adjective the Confederate recruiters could apply to the Northerners was "Abolitionist," then I think that tells us something about the motivations of the average Confederate soldier and citizen.

[Ellen]

Actually the response was from Eric's Mom - I have enjoyed reading the editorials and responses. There are some very good writers and thinkers.

I am on the board of a magazine called "Spectrum" and I have told some of my fellow board members about your on-line paper - which they have also enjoyed. The link to the on-line location of Spectrum is below. Threre are some good discussion threads.

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/

Ellen

[Dustin Crummett]

Not a safe assumption, then--sorry. Spectrum looks interesting; I'll have to check it out some more sometime.