A great summary again, Dr. Brands. My first professor on the Secession Crisis (1819-1861 was the periodization for the class) was taught by an older Kentucky gentleman professor. He spoke as an old border state fellow (with that languid beautiful Shelby Foote like accent. Splashed with a hint of hill billy...) understanding all of the issues involved as the nation raced towards war. As it was my first schooling in the South, I simply had no understanding of any perspective other than the righteousness of ending slavery, and war being the only answer.
What gets ignored is the searing hatred of the northeastern abolitionists towards the southerner (and frankly, everyone other than themselves). The hatred was (is?) between the two groups permeated in every facet- the issue of slavery, seemed a useful cudgel. Why would Garrison et al have so openly rejected the idea of financial compensation to end slavery? Certainly, more Americans (including freed slaves) would have lived in that scenario. The hatred was paramount.
The problem of the modern academy is this painting of any serious discussion of the union dissolution as the national tragedy it was is now considered "Lost Cause." As if any historians who identify some amount of unnecessary "northern aggression" or suggesting we do not wage a Khmer Rouge campaign on southern identity is somehow endorsing "Birth of a Nation."
Instead, the academy could be showing what Dr. Brands is highlighting the statesmanship of Messers Clay and Webster. we either celebrate inane "unheard voices" on unimportant topics, or we simply paint the modern (and politically expedient) sensibilities onto the nineteenth century with all the skill of a toddler finger painting.
My Kentucky professor was no Lost Causer. The tragic heroes were Clay and Webster. Those who joke/postulate about a Union dissolution for clicks/ratings are recklessly playing with matches knee-deep in a liquid on the floor we pray is not flammable. Continue to pray for our "better angels."
"Peaceable secession!" he thundered. "Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish—I beg everybody's pardon—as to expect to see any such thing?" Absolutely true. Clay and Webster did not take our union and our internal peace for granted. Everytime I hear people talk about separatism and civil war my skin crawls. It is so irresponsible. Very good point to mention not all the separatists were Southern. Excellent, Dr. Brands!
Once again it is so good to read the important documents and statements that are at the heart of the this discussion. For all of the efforts the statesmen made to arrive at some compromises between the two moral positions of the supporters of slavery and those moderate abolitionists, a terrible conflict seemed inevitable. And even then, the war did not prevent sectionalism from growing and hate filled bitterness, not to say a racism that has become so much part of America's recent history. Professor Brands has gone into greater detail on this history of the pre-civil as he examined the thought and speeches of the era's titans of the Senate in the form of Senators Clay , Calhoun, and Webster. A work of his worth reading.
One cannot help thinking of the civil war over the last 20 years in Afghanistan and unforeseen outcomes. The present conditions in this country brings to the front that even with an initial peace agreement between the Taliban and the U.S. acting as proxy for the defeated Afghan government, horrible conditions remain. Tribal loyalties can still divide the country, various terrorist groups from the chaos are active and the Taliban struggle to erect a stable government. The U.S. and Afghan civil wars did end, but unresolved problems presented dangers in both countries. With Afghanistan however, divisions opened the new Islamic Emirate to outside pressures particularly Pakistan. If secession had occurred, would America have been so lucky?
A great summary again, Dr. Brands. My first professor on the Secession Crisis (1819-1861 was the periodization for the class) was taught by an older Kentucky gentleman professor. He spoke as an old border state fellow (with that languid beautiful Shelby Foote like accent. Splashed with a hint of hill billy...) understanding all of the issues involved as the nation raced towards war. As it was my first schooling in the South, I simply had no understanding of any perspective other than the righteousness of ending slavery, and war being the only answer.
What gets ignored is the searing hatred of the northeastern abolitionists towards the southerner (and frankly, everyone other than themselves). The hatred was (is?) between the two groups permeated in every facet- the issue of slavery, seemed a useful cudgel. Why would Garrison et al have so openly rejected the idea of financial compensation to end slavery? Certainly, more Americans (including freed slaves) would have lived in that scenario. The hatred was paramount.
The problem of the modern academy is this painting of any serious discussion of the union dissolution as the national tragedy it was is now considered "Lost Cause." As if any historians who identify some amount of unnecessary "northern aggression" or suggesting we do not wage a Khmer Rouge campaign on southern identity is somehow endorsing "Birth of a Nation."
Instead, the academy could be showing what Dr. Brands is highlighting the statesmanship of Messers Clay and Webster. we either celebrate inane "unheard voices" on unimportant topics, or we simply paint the modern (and politically expedient) sensibilities onto the nineteenth century with all the skill of a toddler finger painting.
My Kentucky professor was no Lost Causer. The tragic heroes were Clay and Webster. Those who joke/postulate about a Union dissolution for clicks/ratings are recklessly playing with matches knee-deep in a liquid on the floor we pray is not flammable. Continue to pray for our "better angels."
"Peaceable secession!" he thundered. "Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish—I beg everybody's pardon—as to expect to see any such thing?" Absolutely true. Clay and Webster did not take our union and our internal peace for granted. Everytime I hear people talk about separatism and civil war my skin crawls. It is so irresponsible. Very good point to mention not all the separatists were Southern. Excellent, Dr. Brands!
Once again it is so good to read the important documents and statements that are at the heart of the this discussion. For all of the efforts the statesmen made to arrive at some compromises between the two moral positions of the supporters of slavery and those moderate abolitionists, a terrible conflict seemed inevitable. And even then, the war did not prevent sectionalism from growing and hate filled bitterness, not to say a racism that has become so much part of America's recent history. Professor Brands has gone into greater detail on this history of the pre-civil as he examined the thought and speeches of the era's titans of the Senate in the form of Senators Clay , Calhoun, and Webster. A work of his worth reading.
One cannot help thinking of the civil war over the last 20 years in Afghanistan and unforeseen outcomes. The present conditions in this country brings to the front that even with an initial peace agreement between the Taliban and the U.S. acting as proxy for the defeated Afghan government, horrible conditions remain. Tribal loyalties can still divide the country, various terrorist groups from the chaos are active and the Taliban struggle to erect a stable government. The U.S. and Afghan civil wars did end, but unresolved problems presented dangers in both countries. With Afghanistan however, divisions opened the new Islamic Emirate to outside pressures particularly Pakistan. If secession had occurred, would America have been so lucky?