[lit-ideas] Re: Beard's The Rise of American Civilization
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:27:22 -0500
Last comments. Economic motives did drive the Civil War, absolutely
definitely. But, slavery drove the Southern economy. It was an agricultural,
slave based economy. Without slaves, there was no economy. It would be like
the North being threatened with losing its factories. It's also why the North,
which was so much more powerful, took so long to win (plus they had inferior
generals; my husband is a Civil War buff), because the South was fighting for
its way of life. The North was merely fighting for a cause, to keep the Union
together. Whether keeping the Union together was worth it is another question.
BTW, I think you started this thread over the New Orleans thing, states rights
to government disaster relief. You said NO wasn't entitled, the states had to
do it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/8/2006 1:58:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Beard's The Rise of American Civilization
I checked through my library and discovered that the last book I read that
treats the Civil War with some thoroughness was Charles and Mary Beard?s The
Rise of American Civilization, 1930. I read it in 2000 because it is
considered something of a classic and I encountered reference to it in some
book or review I had read. Beard was a very good writer and a clever thinker,
but he wasn?t highly respected by his peers because of his politics:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbeardC.htm
It strikes me as a bit ironic that I seem to be presenting something of a
Marxist interpretation of the Civil War and those whom I would normally
consider . . . closer to Marx than I am are arguing with me. I?m not
complaining ? just finding it ironic.
To suggest that Northerners were willing to go to war to free the slaves
presents the North in a nobler light than I think justifiable. There was the
abolition movement to be sure, but it was never large enough to influence
politics in a major way. I suppose I was convinced by Beard that economic
motives were driving both the North and the South. The North had a good thing
going and didn?t want to lose it. The South felt it was being economically
squeezed beyond endurance.
Lincoln was a president who was resolved to do the right thing as he saw it,
and he saw pretty clearly, no matter what.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
