In a message dated 2/9/2002 5:58:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Deanne Ferguson

Mills writes:

> The Civil War happened and it happened for a myriad of reasons.
> But no one wants to take the risk of thoroughly examining all those reasons
> and filtering through them  to see what was worthwhile and worth salvaging
> from BOTH sides of the conflict.

The Civil War and Reconstruction eras are not really my primary areas of
interest. I am really interested in and somewhat better equipped to deal with

the 17th Century. Having said that, I cannot imagine an era of history in the

U.S. - or Virginia - that has been more written about than the Civil War
period. Just go into any bookstore and compare the Civil War books to, say,
the Revolutionary War or the Great Depression. Maybe World War II has a
greater output, but it doesn't seem so to me.

You want both sides? I should think that the literature in the field is
filled with as many memoirs on one side as the other and as many popular
histories advocating each side as the other. In fact, there are probably lots

of histories that advocate no particular position being that they are
histories rather than political tracts. Politcal tracts on  these issues have

their place and there are plenty of those also. Anybody out there really
interested? Interested enough to do some work (includes students ;-))? How
about reading the primary source materials. There are plenty of newspaper
records, legislative debates and contemporary tracts available. The state
archives are full of diaries and letters and business records that bring out
the picture and fill it in with real life.

I'm sorry, but I think that anyone can find plenty of work to support their
slant on things, if that is what they are looking for. They can also find
plenty of work that provides food for thought. If they are really daring,
they can read what they don't agree with and try to get something from it.

In so far as I have one, my problem with Civil War history is something that
we were just discussing, not enough attention to the wide range of influences

on moral judgements in the period before the war. While there has been a fair

amount written about the economics and political influence, there has been a
certain glossing over of the actual operation of the institution of slavery
and the politcal and moral obfuscation that went on to try to maintain an
entire class of human beings in bondage. I think we have all heard pretty
loudly the squeals of indignation over Reconstruction - some of it justified.

An examination of the moral abdication by ordinary citizens of the South - as

well as of the thoughts of their few daring abolitionist fellow citizens -
has still not been popularly available. A careful examination of those such
as the delegates to the secession conventions who changed their positions in
the few months that we were discussing would also be really interesting. A
look at what was happening in their home counties, what was written by their
friends and families, all these seem fertile field for someone. Something
along the lines of _Hitler's Willing Executioners_ would fascinate me, but
even the suggestion will probably cause some to go screaming about the
outrage of comparing slaveholders and Nazis. I'm not speaking of slaveholders

and Nazis though. (Although I don't find a great deal to distinguish the two
groups morally). I'm interested in what was going on in the mind of the
average person or the average local politican in the South during the period.

The local burgher or county commissioner who went along with what he may have

known was wrong.

It is also some clear that the issue of slavery took a back seat to states
rights to some extent in the period immediately before the secsssion. But is
that because of the unfolding of events or as a result of a concious PR
campaign by economic interest bent on preserving slavery or both or neither?

I am not going to get into the supposed slant in schools. We live in a
country with a vibrant marketplace of ideas. If you can't get oranges in your

marketplace, go to another. It may be a different school, or a library, or a
book store, or increasingly the internet. It may involve parents actually
doing some of the work of directing their children to read - and think - for
themselves.

History is neither benign nor static. There is a price to pay for everything
and sometimes the price of learning includes being challenged by ideas with
you you don't agree.

Bill Russell

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html