MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000
Editorial from the Albany Herald, Albany, Georgia
"Civil War Misconceptions Set Straight"
by Royce Shingleton


The war for Southern independence fascinates Americans because it has
such unusual human interest and drama and a tremendous range of characters and controversies. Let's look at commonly held assumptions about the era:

Abe Lincoln was an abolitionist. No -- Lincoln was antislavery in that he was against the extension of slavery into the territories. This way, all new states coming into the Union would be free, and free sentiment would eventually prevail in Congress to end slavery. So slavery had to be contained.

The main purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to free the slaves. Wrong -- the Proclamation actually allowed the minority of Southerners who were slave holders to retain their slaves if Southerners laid down their arms. The document applied only to those states still resisting the Union on Jan.1, 1863. It did not apply to the border states or to areas in the Confederacy held by Union troops --where he could he wouldn't and where he would he couldn't. Lincoln, a master of the techniques of propaganda who calculated every move for political effect, issued the Proclamation to gain the high moral ground and reduce the chances of British and French intervention on the side of the South.

It was unconstitutional to secede. Sorry -- the Constitution is silent on that point. The question had vexed the nation for decades, and New England had threatened to secede during the War of 1812. Lincoln's predecessor, James Buchanan, did not think he had the constitutional power to prevent secession, so did not act against the seven states already seceded by the time of Lincoln's inauguration. Only the outcome of the war answered that question.

The war was over slavery because only slave states seceded. Negative -- four slave states - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware -- did not secede..

This contention is easily turned on its head by pointing out that the war was not about slavery because not all slave states seceded.

The central theme of the Lincoln-Douglas debates was abolition. Wrong again -- the debates centered on popular sovereignty, a position favored by Douglas but opposed by Lincoln. This concept would allow people in the western territories to decide for themselves the issue of slavery, as provided for in the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

The majority of Northerners were abolitionists. Do not pass go -- only a small but vocal minority were abolitionists. When northern enthusiasm for the war faded in 1863 -- partly because of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Union passed a draft act to supplement volunteers, a horrific draft riot took place in New York City that turned anti-black. The mob killed at least 30 blacks, and the remaining blacks fled the city. Troops had to be sent from the battlefield at Gettysburg to stop the carnage. Minor riots occurred elsewhere in the North.

There could have been no war without slavery. Not borne out ---there had already been near war in the early 1830s when South Carolina nullified the U.S. tariff. President Andrew Jackson was readying troops for invasion of the state when a lower tariff was passed by congress (Compromise of 1833). In 1861 Lincoln would not compromise on secession.

Southerners had committed treason. Not so -- after the war, northern judicial opinion rejected this premise, and Jefferson Davis was released prison for not providing adequate care for inmates in the overcrowded facility and his trial was by military court martial.

The Republican party was abolitionist. Wrong again -- it was against the extension of slavery (anti-slavery), pro-business and altogether northern -which taken together meant anti-South. The party was, however, backed by abolitionists.

Only blacks have ancestors who were slaves. Not at all -- if whites could trace their ancestry back to ancient times, it would not be unusual to find a slave heritage.

There could never be a compromise regarding slavery. Incorrect --there had been several at the national level beginning with the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Then it was a North-South agreement to end importation of slaves from abroad, made illegal in 1808. Later ones were the Compromise of 1820, Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Compromise of 1850.

A single cause can explain the war. Wrong -- good historians view mono-causation with suspicion. Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the Union, but he also intended to ensure continuation of the northern economic domination of the South -- Southerners owed Northern creditors $200 million -and as an afterthought to use the slavery issue. The war was fought for constitutional, economic and moral reasons, in that order of importance.

Many people accept the above misconceptions about the war for Southern independence because the facts do not support their agenda of a cultural war against the southern heritage, and they therefore persist in attacking the battle flag. The Confederate battle emblem prominently displayed in South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi might remind some people of slavery, but to others the banner symbolizes resistance to U.S. tyranny. Accordingly, it is no surprise that Native-Americans of what is now Oklahoma – earlier sent into internal exile along the infamous Trail of Tears - fought for the South.
=======
Dr. Royce Shingleton is professor of history at Darton College, where he has served since 1977. A native of North Carolina, he received his Ph.D. from Florida State University. He has won numerous awards for his writing and teaching and has published 50 articles and book reviews. Dr. Shingleton and his wife, Ruth, have two sons, Royce,Jr. and Justin.