Thursday, October 9, 2014

Debunking a Few Civil War Myths

Prior to our introduction to Mr. Stewart's amazing lectures, many of us believed (and falsely learned) things about the Civil War that simply are not true. Let's debunk some of these common myths surrounding the Civil War and its effects on America.

1. The Emancipation Proclamation Freed all Slaves in America. 
      While the Emancipation Proclamation was a push towards abolition in America, it did not "free" the slaves. When President Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address, the "nation' was still very much split into the Northern Union and the Southern Confederacy. There were, however, four border states who had not taken real sides in the conflict but were technically part of the Union. These four states were still very much up for grabs and could tip the balance of the war. Lincoln made sure that these states (in which slavery was legal and prominent) remained part of the Union. He therefore said that all slaves held in states that were "in rebellion against the United States" were freed (about 3 million; they would have to wait for liberation). This left about 1 million legal slaves in the four border states and many more technically illegal slaves in the South. The Emancipation Proclamation, although it was a big step towards abolition, did not free the slaves in a physical manner.

2. White Southerners who didn't own slaves were against Southern secession. 
      There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part many Southerners agreed with secession in order to protect their freedoms and lifestyles from Northern, federalist standards and laws. Southerns enjoyed their stable and simple lifestyle without rules and tariffs that only benefited the North. When looking through an economic lens, abolishing slavery (as proposed by many Northerners) would lead to wide scale economic depression and cause the global markets to crash...Southerners simply did not want this to happen.

3. Abraham Lincoln went to war against the South in order to free the slaves.
     Mr. Stewart addressed this myth at the beginning if the unit and made it clear that this was not Lincoln's justification for war. Although Lincoln shared an abolitionist view towards slavery, he could not permit himself to tackle the issue head on because the North would lose much of it borderline support and could not fuel a war with this issue. Lincoln instead justified the war cause by expressing his, and the United State's desire to keep the nation together at all costs, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

4. The Flag did not actually look like this.
This version of the flag was only used by the Army of Tennessee.



The Official Confederate flag was modified three times:
1. The "Stars and Bars" (1861-1863)
First flag of the Confederate States of America

2. The "Stainless Banner" (1863-1856)
Second flag of the Confederate States of America

3. The "Blood Stained Banner" (1865)
Third flag of the Confederate States of America

*I will keep adding to this post if I find any more common popular myths.*

3 comments:

  1. I was looking through this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_19223_6-civil-war-myths-everyone-believes-that-are-total-b.s._p2.html and I thought it was interesting that one myth they "debunked" was that the South ever had a chance of winning the war. According to this article, they never had any chance. This is different from what we talked about in class today, where the South had a real shot (or the best shot they would ever have) at the end of 1862. cracked.com isn't the most trustworthy source, but I thought this was interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Analisa, I think something really interesting in the article you found is that the person writing it is not trying to sugarcoat anything, not trying to be politically correct. (Granted, he's not swearing or making any racist/extremely awful remarks.) Something that drew my attention was his comment, "When the threat of foreign intervention cropped up, Lincoln threw ambassadors like John Quincy Adams' son at the Europeans while the Confederates had nothing to offer but peach cobbler and the overuse of "y'all." In short, the South never stood a chance against the Union politically, militarily or diplomatically." Clearly the writer has done his research and therefore knows what he's talking about, but he is very opinionated (as seen by what you mentioned) and states his opinions outright. Thanks for sharing this article. It's refreshing and definitely eye-opening.

      Delete
  2. For sure history is a set of opinions. I suppose it would depend on what you believed would be the outcome of any different set of hypotheticals.

    If you look at the optional articles in the readings folder you will find even more interpretations!

    ReplyDelete