Reader comment of the day: The ultimate meaning of the Civil War

Here’s a thoughtful summary of our Civil War discussion, from Jprewel. I am not quite sure why, but I think it is significant that he has skin in the game right now. I suspect it gives a certain seriousness to his thinking.

From what I can tell we all agree on the foolishness, indeed, selfishness of the idea of secession in 1860-61. It was a fantastic miscalculation on the part of a class of plutocrats in southern society that represented ‘entrenched greed’ and lacked moral hygiene. While slavery in ancient times was unexceptional it did not contain the extreme ‘racial’ element that became dominant in its American version. Additionally, by the mid-nineteenth century slavery was considered in western civilization a moral turpitude and was exceptionally obsolete. The rabid defense of slavery in the south was clearly out of step with the mainstream of western society.

However, we must remember that not all southerners were moral reprobates; indeed, many despised the ‘peculiar institution’ (Lee) but did not know how to disassemble it without vast and unpredictable repercussions in society. Equally, we must remember that not all northerners were models of morale rectitude regarding slavery (Sherman) and demonstrated contempt for people of color that would often later on be directed towards Native Americans.

Unfortunately, most people rather easily judge history by their own contemporary standards (presentism) rather than being sensitive to the context of the period. With a smug superiority we rail against southerners for their stalwart defense of slavery in 1861-1865 and yet choose not to condemn with equal vigor the founders who found it politically expedient to incorporate human bondage into our founding document. This is the great hypocrisy of American history.