There's also Anthony Trollope's travels in America. He went around the US during the Civil
War, talked with many people at all levels of society, and wrote about it for his British
readers. It's a fascinating book with lots of details about daily life in the USA. What ever
happened to lollipop vendors in the trains?
Anyway, in his book, you see that at the time, it was indeed seen as a war over the
principle of federation vs. confederation. Instead of "War between the States", it was a
"War over the Principle of the States." May a state manage itself, or must it do as the
federal government says? Specifically, may a state have slavery, or must it be abolished if
the federal government determines to do so?
The States' Rights issue became dormant (actually, it was disreputable) until the 60s, when
George Wallace (governor of Alabama) and others brought it up again. The GOP has since then
used it very effectively to undermine federal government (specifically, to abolish all sorts
of legislation that protects women, children, the environment, the workplace, Blacks,
Latinos, gays, etc.)
It's much easier for the wealthy to control a state legislature than Congress (state
legislatures are smaller, less sophisticated, poorly organized, less competition from other
lobbyists, cheaper to bribe, etc.), so they would rather move social issues to the state
legislatures, where they can pass subtle, complex laws that prevent those issues from
arising.
yrs, andreas www.andreas.com
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/252 - Release Date: 2/6/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
