Thanks for an interesting discussion piece. This reminds me of a factoid: that some Confederates predicted that the USA would peacefully permit secession. I read about a Confederate (James Chesnut Jr?) predicting that he would be able to mop up all the blood that would be spilled with his handkerchief. Rather horrifying to imagine the size of the handkerchief needed and the volume of blood spilt.
I understand where you're coming from, Kevin, regarding this being the wrong question. If we look at the question, though, what it's asking in reality is why didn't Lincoln ignore his oath of office and his constitutional duty, and why didn't he usurp Congressional authority? Lincoln had no authority to allow states to secede. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit states, therefore Congress has the authority to release states from the Union, not the President. The President is charged with executing the laws, including the laws that make states part of the United States. Had Lincoln not resisted secession he would have been derelict in his duty. The answer, then, as to why Lincoln did not allow the states of the confederacy to leave the United States is Lincoln had integrity.
Like I said, I think people pose the question for any number of reasons, but what you provided in your comment is exactly the point I was trying to raise. The question of what Lincoln *should* have done makes little sense without understanding the relevant context.
Was "peaceful separation" even possible? Lincoln's platform was restricting slavery to where it already existed. Both he and the slaveholders were clear that this would in due course make slavery uneconomic. The slaveholders demanded the right to extend slavery anywhere in the Territories and the yet-to-be-conquered West. The North generally wanted the same lands for free settlement. Therefore "peace" with the Confederacy would surely have been followed by wars over possession of the new western lands.
I'm confused. Are you faulting Beschloss for even tweeting this, or are you faulting the people who responded? If its the former, then I don't see an issue here. Beschloss is free to post whatever he wants whenever he wants in whatever context he wants. I'm sniffing an undercurrent of resentment on your part because of his popularity and the fact that people know who he is.
If it's the latter, again, I don't see your problem. Most people in this country do not delve into history as deeply as those of us do who think they should. It's in the nature of the beast. Most people who say they like history approach it from a narrative perspective, i.e., they want an interesting story. It's up to the historian to weave analytic thought into the narrative, while making it something someone wants to read. Many academic historians have accomplished this (see Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, James, McPherson, Jill Lepore, David Brion Davis, just to name a few) not to the reader to know (or care to learn) what the analysis and the historiography are.
I'm sure you'll disagree with everything I've said here, and say that wasn't your point, yet then why concern yourself with what the commentators say? If you want to get a detailed analysis of what Union meant to the average American in the 1860s and Lincoln's thoughts on the subject, then get a copy of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. If you want to open a discussion up among the average person who may or may not be historically literate to your satisfaction, , then go where those people are.
You're not sniffing; you're attempting mind-reading - with the usual success of such efforts.
Pretty clearly, Kevin Levin is using a public statement to open a discussion, as he often does. No reason not to patcipate in such discusion courteously and honestly.
I've read Kevin's blog for several years now, and while I have an immense respect for Kevin and his work, he also holds a clear bias against popular history and popular historians. I wasn't "mind reading" a few weeks ago when Kevin posted a completely unfair attack on David McCullough based on a speech McCullough gave over 20 years ago. Look over the years at his writing on other popular outlets and you will find the same bias. No historian is above criticism, not should they be, but it's one thing to criticize the work and quite another to criticize the messenger.
Hi Rob. I very much appreciate your interest in my work and the time it takes to share your thoughts, but with all due respect, this comment is absurd. I've maintained a blog for 15+ years; I've written for popular magazines; and I like to think that my two books have broad appeal. I don't even have a PhD in history. I don't know how anyone could believe that I am hostile to "popular historians."
Absurdity, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder. I have read your blog very carefully over the years and I stand by my comment. Your comments on Shelby Foote, Ken Burns, American Heritage magazine, and McCullough, are proofs of my point. I like your writing and I like your blog, but I would still bet that a person reading over it for the first time would agree with me.
So I guess you missed any number of posts on my blog, twitter, etc. where I defend Ken Burns from those who believe his Civil War documentary no longer has any value. I stand by my critiques of Shelby Foote. If that counts as an attack on popular historians than I am guilty as charged.
No, I am not faulting Beschloss for his tweet beyond suggesting that it was a missed opportunity to refocus the discussion. As I stated in the tweet, I think many of the responses reflect that the question has little to do with history and everything to do with our own grievances.
"If you want to open a discussion up among the average person who may or may not be historically literate to your satisfaction, , then go where those people are."
I assume that most of the readers of this newsletter are 'average people.'
I hope this helps and thanks for taking the time to comment.
I think about this question almost every day because I'm working on two projects that address it (in fact, one of them involves illustrated envelopes and I have a copy of that one above tacked to the corkboard above my desk.)
What I find is that the conversation on the ground is still defined by neo-Confed accusations of, "well, the 'north' didn't start the war trying to end slavery so it couldn't have been about slavery." That leaves folks wondering, "then what *did* the north fight for?" Preserving the Union is just too much of a platitude/abstraction that lacks actual material substance for people on the ground.
Part of this is our own fault. Even us non-neo-Confederates spend a bulk of our time thinking and talking about why the secessionists did what they did. (At times I feel like we focus so exclusively on Aleck Stephens' speech that it is the only thing we mention when talking about the onset of secession and war.) It takes up all the oxygen in the room.
Honestly, even people I work with can't articulate what it was that motivated loyal Americans.
So I wonder... Do I have a blind spot on this? I admit, I spend all my time explaining secessionists, too. Besides Gary Gallagher, what public intellectual/historian museum/site is adequately engaging audiences in the tangible, material, emotional, and ideological motivators for loyal Americans?
Thanks for the comment, Chris. I agree that this is often the context in which the question emerges. It also comes up in this context. See John Harwood's recent tweet comparing how southern senators voted for Marshall and Jackson. https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1512179173338529804
This leads people in a moment of frustration to say things like, "Lincoln should have allowed the South to go." It's a statement made in frustration, but like I suggested in the post, it tells us nothing about Lincoln or the state of the country in 1861. What about 4 million African Americans and Southern Unionists?
I completely agree that we haven't done a good enough job of explaining the complicated question of why large numbers of white Southerners supported secession, why tens of thousands volunteered to fight early in the war, and why many fought as long as they did.
As for a museum that does a pretty good job of explaining the motivations of loyal Americans I would suggest checking out the Kenosha Civil War Museum in Wisconsin.
I'm working on the "why vast majorities of white southerners supported it" for another project.
Thanks for the tip on Wisconsin.
So what I'm getting from all this is that the rhetorical question that Beschloss et. al., ask isn't really about 1861 secessionists, but an exacerbated lament that we have to deal with their spiritual descendants today. What would we be like if we didn't have to deal with *them* if they had been allowed to just go away. Valid frustration, as you say, but terrible historical thinking... as you also say!
Exactly. As I just tried to explain to someone on twitter, vent all you want about the South today, but let's be clear that it has little to do with what Lincoln chose to do and why.
One of the reasons I am so interested in this issue is that I am finding it difficult to pin Robert Gould Shaw down on how he framed Union. His parents were much more explicit about the importance they attached to preserving the Union because they were so committed to ending slavery and destroying the slaveholding class. As you have pointed out, it's a complicated question.
Right. The complication I am seeing in some of my sources is that in general, loyal Americans recognized that slavery motivated secessionists to break up the union and for the bulk of them, that's enough to turn them against slavery even if they're not enlisting to abolish the institution. They can see slavery as a tangible danger to the union even if they hadn't particularly been abolitionists before 1860, and they can hold the same position while not really caring for Black people. It's not necessarily about Black people to them, it's about what it's all doing to the Union. When the war opens, they're absolutely fine attacking the thing they see as having motivated secession.
Shaw's parents were deeply committed abolitionists so the only reconstructed/reunited nation worth fighting for was one in which slavery no longer existed.
For RGS it was often much more personal and self serving. His views definitely evolved as the war progressed. The slaveholding oligarchs forced this war on the loyal citizenry and it was up to men like Shaw to once and for all put an end to this threat so that they could get on with their lives. At the same time neither Shaw nor his parents had much of any direct contact with African Americans. This changed dramatically for Shaw at places like Harper's Ferry and especially in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862, where he had almost daily contact with escaped slaves.
"The slaveholding oligarchs forced this war on the loyal citizenry and it was up to men like Shaw to once and for all put an end to this threat so that they could get on with their lives."
Exactly. You put it so much better than I did.
Also... the use of "oligarchs" has so much resonance today, doesn't it?
Thanks for an interesting discussion piece. This reminds me of a factoid: that some Confederates predicted that the USA would peacefully permit secession. I read about a Confederate (James Chesnut Jr?) predicting that he would be able to mop up all the blood that would be spilled with his handkerchief. Rather horrifying to imagine the size of the handkerchief needed and the volume of blood spilt.
Of course, famously quoted in Ken Burns's Civil War documentary.
I understand where you're coming from, Kevin, regarding this being the wrong question. If we look at the question, though, what it's asking in reality is why didn't Lincoln ignore his oath of office and his constitutional duty, and why didn't he usurp Congressional authority? Lincoln had no authority to allow states to secede. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to admit states, therefore Congress has the authority to release states from the Union, not the President. The President is charged with executing the laws, including the laws that make states part of the United States. Had Lincoln not resisted secession he would have been derelict in his duty. The answer, then, as to why Lincoln did not allow the states of the confederacy to leave the United States is Lincoln had integrity.
Like I said, I think people pose the question for any number of reasons, but what you provided in your comment is exactly the point I was trying to raise. The question of what Lincoln *should* have done makes little sense without understanding the relevant context.
Was "peaceful separation" even possible? Lincoln's platform was restricting slavery to where it already existed. Both he and the slaveholders were clear that this would in due course make slavery uneconomic. The slaveholders demanded the right to extend slavery anywhere in the Territories and the yet-to-be-conquered West. The North generally wanted the same lands for free settlement. Therefore "peace" with the Confederacy would surely have been followed by wars over possession of the new western lands.
Kevin,
I'm confused. Are you faulting Beschloss for even tweeting this, or are you faulting the people who responded? If its the former, then I don't see an issue here. Beschloss is free to post whatever he wants whenever he wants in whatever context he wants. I'm sniffing an undercurrent of resentment on your part because of his popularity and the fact that people know who he is.
If it's the latter, again, I don't see your problem. Most people in this country do not delve into history as deeply as those of us do who think they should. It's in the nature of the beast. Most people who say they like history approach it from a narrative perspective, i.e., they want an interesting story. It's up to the historian to weave analytic thought into the narrative, while making it something someone wants to read. Many academic historians have accomplished this (see Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, James, McPherson, Jill Lepore, David Brion Davis, just to name a few) not to the reader to know (or care to learn) what the analysis and the historiography are.
I'm sure you'll disagree with everything I've said here, and say that wasn't your point, yet then why concern yourself with what the commentators say? If you want to get a detailed analysis of what Union meant to the average American in the 1860s and Lincoln's thoughts on the subject, then get a copy of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. If you want to open a discussion up among the average person who may or may not be historically literate to your satisfaction, , then go where those people are.
Best
Rob
You're not sniffing; you're attempting mind-reading - with the usual success of such efforts.
Pretty clearly, Kevin Levin is using a public statement to open a discussion, as he often does. No reason not to patcipate in such discusion courteously and honestly.
I've read Kevin's blog for several years now, and while I have an immense respect for Kevin and his work, he also holds a clear bias against popular history and popular historians. I wasn't "mind reading" a few weeks ago when Kevin posted a completely unfair attack on David McCullough based on a speech McCullough gave over 20 years ago. Look over the years at his writing on other popular outlets and you will find the same bias. No historian is above criticism, not should they be, but it's one thing to criticize the work and quite another to criticize the messenger.
Best
Rob
What you're sniffing is a different opinion from yours. No evil intent is required.
Hi Rob. I very much appreciate your interest in my work and the time it takes to share your thoughts, but with all due respect, this comment is absurd. I've maintained a blog for 15+ years; I've written for popular magazines; and I like to think that my two books have broad appeal. I don't even have a PhD in history. I don't know how anyone could believe that I am hostile to "popular historians."
Kevin,
Absurdity, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder. I have read your blog very carefully over the years and I stand by my comment. Your comments on Shelby Foote, Ken Burns, American Heritage magazine, and McCullough, are proofs of my point. I like your writing and I like your blog, but I would still bet that a person reading over it for the first time would agree with me.
Best
Rob
So I guess you missed any number of posts on my blog, twitter, etc. where I defend Ken Burns from those who believe his Civil War documentary no longer has any value. I stand by my critiques of Shelby Foote. If that counts as an attack on popular historians than I am guilty as charged.
Honestly, this charge is just downright silly.
No, I am not faulting Beschloss for his tweet beyond suggesting that it was a missed opportunity to refocus the discussion. As I stated in the tweet, I think many of the responses reflect that the question has little to do with history and everything to do with our own grievances.
"If you want to open a discussion up among the average person who may or may not be historically literate to your satisfaction, , then go where those people are."
I assume that most of the readers of this newsletter are 'average people.'
I hope this helps and thanks for taking the time to comment.
"as those of us who do think they should.": Sorry.
Bravo. Nicely written.
Thank you.
I think about this question almost every day because I'm working on two projects that address it (in fact, one of them involves illustrated envelopes and I have a copy of that one above tacked to the corkboard above my desk.)
What I find is that the conversation on the ground is still defined by neo-Confed accusations of, "well, the 'north' didn't start the war trying to end slavery so it couldn't have been about slavery." That leaves folks wondering, "then what *did* the north fight for?" Preserving the Union is just too much of a platitude/abstraction that lacks actual material substance for people on the ground.
Part of this is our own fault. Even us non-neo-Confederates spend a bulk of our time thinking and talking about why the secessionists did what they did. (At times I feel like we focus so exclusively on Aleck Stephens' speech that it is the only thing we mention when talking about the onset of secession and war.) It takes up all the oxygen in the room.
Honestly, even people I work with can't articulate what it was that motivated loyal Americans.
So I wonder... Do I have a blind spot on this? I admit, I spend all my time explaining secessionists, too. Besides Gary Gallagher, what public intellectual/historian museum/site is adequately engaging audiences in the tangible, material, emotional, and ideological motivators for loyal Americans?
Thanks for the comment, Chris. I agree that this is often the context in which the question emerges. It also comes up in this context. See John Harwood's recent tweet comparing how southern senators voted for Marshall and Jackson. https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1512179173338529804
This leads people in a moment of frustration to say things like, "Lincoln should have allowed the South to go." It's a statement made in frustration, but like I suggested in the post, it tells us nothing about Lincoln or the state of the country in 1861. What about 4 million African Americans and Southern Unionists?
I completely agree that we haven't done a good enough job of explaining the complicated question of why large numbers of white Southerners supported secession, why tens of thousands volunteered to fight early in the war, and why many fought as long as they did.
As for a museum that does a pretty good job of explaining the motivations of loyal Americans I would suggest checking out the Kenosha Civil War Museum in Wisconsin.
I'm working on the "why vast majorities of white southerners supported it" for another project.
Thanks for the tip on Wisconsin.
So what I'm getting from all this is that the rhetorical question that Beschloss et. al., ask isn't really about 1861 secessionists, but an exacerbated lament that we have to deal with their spiritual descendants today. What would we be like if we didn't have to deal with *them* if they had been allowed to just go away. Valid frustration, as you say, but terrible historical thinking... as you also say!
Exactly. As I just tried to explain to someone on twitter, vent all you want about the South today, but let's be clear that it has little to do with what Lincoln chose to do and why.
One of the reasons I am so interested in this issue is that I am finding it difficult to pin Robert Gould Shaw down on how he framed Union. His parents were much more explicit about the importance they attached to preserving the Union because they were so committed to ending slavery and destroying the slaveholding class. As you have pointed out, it's a complicated question.
Right. The complication I am seeing in some of my sources is that in general, loyal Americans recognized that slavery motivated secessionists to break up the union and for the bulk of them, that's enough to turn them against slavery even if they're not enlisting to abolish the institution. They can see slavery as a tangible danger to the union even if they hadn't particularly been abolitionists before 1860, and they can hold the same position while not really caring for Black people. It's not necessarily about Black people to them, it's about what it's all doing to the Union. When the war opens, they're absolutely fine attacking the thing they see as having motivated secession.
Is that what you're seeing in Shaw's parents?
Shaw's parents were deeply committed abolitionists so the only reconstructed/reunited nation worth fighting for was one in which slavery no longer existed.
For RGS it was often much more personal and self serving. His views definitely evolved as the war progressed. The slaveholding oligarchs forced this war on the loyal citizenry and it was up to men like Shaw to once and for all put an end to this threat so that they could get on with their lives. At the same time neither Shaw nor his parents had much of any direct contact with African Americans. This changed dramatically for Shaw at places like Harper's Ferry and especially in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862, where he had almost daily contact with escaped slaves.
"The slaveholding oligarchs forced this war on the loyal citizenry and it was up to men like Shaw to once and for all put an end to this threat so that they could get on with their lives."
Exactly. You put it so much better than I did.
Also... the use of "oligarchs" has so much resonance today, doesn't it?