Revisionist history and the Civil War

I have noticed that in recent years, there is a substantial movement to reject some of the conventional interpretations of the Civil War in favor of an interpretation that is much more sympathetic to the south, and to slavery and much more critical of Lincoln's conduct of the civil war. For maximum effect though, the various proponents of this revisionism often resort to distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies. I will give some examples of that in this post.

One rather clear example is the claim that large numbers of blacks fought for the south in the civil war. Rather than get into the details of that lie, I will simply give a link to an article by a historian who demolishes that bit of misinformation very completely and neatly. Here is the link:

http://members.aol.com/neoconfeds/trclark.htm

Another theme of the revisionists is that the war was not caused by slavery but by a struggle over "States rights". This also is a lie and the best ammunition to set the record straight is the numerous official documents of the southern states that were produced at the time they seceeded. The southern leaders were concious enough of the need for a historical record, to set down in no uncertain terms the reasons why they left the union. I don't see how anyone can read those documents without understanding that slavery was the root cause of the war. It is true that the north did not immediately try to end slavery, but rather the southern rebellion was caused mostly by the Republican attitude towards slavery. In essence the leadership of the south wanted slavery to be not only tolerated but respected. They rebelled more out of the lack of respect towards slavery than any outright attempt to end it. It is true that very few whites owned slaves, but the slave owners controlled the state governments, so it did not really matter what the average southern citizen though about slavery.

An additional line of attack of these revisionists is an attack on the character of Abraham Lincoln. If their new interpretation is to be accepted, something must be done to counter the almost saint-like status of Lincoln. A recent example of this is a book by Thomas J. DiLorenzo about Lincoln. The title is "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln". DiLorenzo also has a web article which discusses a book by Dee Brown, that touches on Lincoln and his role in spurring the construction of the transcontinental railroad. It is interesting how in the warped interpretation of Brown and DiLorenzo, they attempt to smear Lincoln with the implication that Lincoln hoped to profit from inside information involving the railroad. Oddly they do not say in explicit terms, possibly because they may realize that their argument does not hold water. This is the text as it appears in the Internet article by DiLorenzo:

>>>>And "Abraham Lincoln, the future President evidently agreed with his debating partner that the route through Council Bluffs-Omaha and the South Pass was most practical. Lincoln acquired land interests at Council Bluffs" (emphasis added). A short time later, after the Chicago/New England/New York "men of power" propelled him into the White House, Lincoln began signing legislation giving these men millions of acres of public lands and other subsidies for their railroads<<<<<<

It is worth noting that DiLorenzo/Brown say that Lincoln acquired "land interests" in Council Bluffs, rather than using the simpler term "land". Why do they phrase it that way? The reason is that Lincoln did not acquire land in Council Bluffs. The only way that he acquired "land interests" in Council Bluffs is that someone owed him $3,000 and wanted to use 17 lots in Council Bluffs as security for the loan. That is substantially different from outright ownership of the lots, a difference that DiLorenzo/Brown do not make clear. Anyone wishing to profit from insider information to speculate in land would hardly use that type of "land interest" to do it. Lincoln could become a beneficial owner of the lots only if the debtor defaulted on the loan. A default would of course be much less likely if the value of the lots increased due to railroad construction. So it seems to me that the implication of improper conduct on Lincoln's part rests on a very slim thread indeed. The fact that DiLorenzo and Brown imply something improper without explaining all the details of the case is telling. Clearly the failure to explain all the details and the very indirect interest that Lincoln had in the land does not give confidence in the work of these two authors. This slippery type of distortion seems to be all too typical of Civil War revisionists.

The entire article by DiLorenzo can be found at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/delorenzo51.html

 

>>>>The very article you mentioned proves that States' rights was THE issue. It was the rights of the States - especially the new States - to have slavery if they wanted to.<<<<<

Previously you have claimed that slavery was not the issue. I am glad that you now see that it WAS the issue and that "state's rights" was just a euphemism for an ugly and immoral system.

 

Bob,

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Stick to the historical facts and I will be happy. Unfortunately, many of the revisionists want to manufacture their own facts also. For example, you are not entitled to claim, contrary to history, that thousands of blacks fought for the South. It didn't happen.

 

>>>>>>It is sad that some still believe the liberal yankee lies and are willingly ignorant. But that's your right . . until the Federales take THAT away, too.<<<<<

The historical facts surrounding the Civil War are neither liberal nor conservative. You should not distort the facts although you can have whatever opinion you want. I think it is clear that the southern apologists, in the present era, not only have their opinions but sometimes present information that is factually inaccurate. In other words, some of them lie.

 

>>>>>I am just scratching my head and wondering why you opt to be willfully ignorant. It just doesn't make sense.

Please don't attack me and call me a liar. I won't get angry, but I will get even. <<<<<

I think that on some issues at least, it can be objectively shown that I am not the one who is ignorant. You apparently don't understand, for example the use of the term "Black Republican" as it was used in the Civil War era. See my explanation in the General Baptist Discussion forum. You have a right to your opinion as to the cause of the Civil War, even if it does not square with the opinion of leading historians. But let me suggest that you are way out of line by using such insults as "federal scum" and phrases of that type. Also, as someone has noted, it is a little shocking for you to use a clear threat as in the text above. I believe you meant it more as an insult than as a threat, but even then it is not to your credit. It seems to me also that your whole attitude about the Civil war is remarkably insensitive to blacks and to the rights of blacks.