Thanks very much! The H-Net review for Varon's book is here:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=23428. Seems very helpful
vis-à-vis my question indeed! Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Hardwick, Kevin - hardwikr
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:17 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] The Peculiar Institution's End Without The
Intervention Of The Civil War
The question of the importance of sustaining the union has been ably
analyzed by Liz Varon, in her excellent book DISUNION! THE COMING OF THE
AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, 1789-1859 (University of North Carolina Press, 2010). I
have to confess I read the book for my own research purposes, and so focused
much more on the early sections than on the later. But its superbly done,
and is very much on point for exploring the central importance of union in
the rhetoric of American politics prior to the Civil War.
___________________________
Kevin R. Hardwick
Associate Professor
Department of History, MSC 8001
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807
________________________________________
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Stephan Schwartz
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 1:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Peculiar Institution's End Without The Intervention Of The
Civil War
Ron Roisen's point is a very important one: Why did the North care so much
about preserving the Union? The answer, I think, is that geopolitically war
would have been inevitable in any case, and that this was understood by
enough people to shape the Northern position. Competition for the West would
have created inevitable and chronic conflict draining both nations, and the
drive of black people to escape to the North would have done the same. And
there would have come a day when there was a black uprising, as happened in
South Africa, and the North could not have stood idly by. As the world moved
into the industrialized form it took after the Civil War anyway the South
would have become an increasingly bizarre and distorted national entity in
constant conflict internally and externally. A pariah state, and a bleeding
sore along the long border between North and South, wherever that fell.
-- Stephan
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Ron Roizen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> With apologies for the drift off-topic:
>
> The question that I've never seen a good answer for is why the North
> cared so very much about maintaining the Union. Why not simply rid
> itself of a troublesome South in the same way the South was attempting
> to rid itself of a troublesome North? The spirit of the U.S.
> Constitution was federalist, to be sure, but nothing in the
> Constitution specifically forbade secession.
> Nations like to stay big in order to stave off foreign threats, but it
> doesn't seem likely that this factor played much of a role in
> prompting the Civil War. Anyhow, the North and the South might have
> collaborated in fighting off, for example, a European foe. "A house
> divided itself" is a nice metaphor but little more. The land mass or
> the North American continent certainly could have provided room for
> four nations instead of only three. The Union might have had concerns
> that issues relating to western expansion and settlement would grow
> more and more unfriendly and contentious once the North and the South
became two independent nations.
> But those conflicts might have been addressed as they arose and
> resolved with compromises or tradeoffs that did not require war. The
> Union seems to have felt that the wholeness of the nation, comprising
> both South and North, was some sort of sacred promise or bond. But
> I've never seen much discussion of how this belief was constructed or
> its history-of-ideas origins. Slavery and abolition were of course
> hot issues, but abolition didn't become a war objective for the North
> until well into the war with the Emancipation Proclamation. It just
> seems so much easier, at the outset, for the North to have bid the
> South ado and leave it at that. Yet, and of course, the North fought
> with such passion and determination that the idea of union must have
> had a much stronger grasp on its soul than I've managed to understand.
>
> Efforts by Listmates to educate me a little on this point would be
> more than welcome.
>
> Ron Roizen
> Wallace, Idaho
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the
> instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
--
*Stephan A. Schwartz
Senior Samueli Fellow for Brain, Mind and Healing
email:
[log in to unmask]
Personal Website:
stephanaschwartz.com
Schwartzreport:
schwartzreport.net
Schwartzreport Column:*
*explorejournal.com/content/schwartz*
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
