[lit-ideas] Civil War -- and the philosophy of history

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 01:47:04 -0400 (EDT)
Sorry for the dull subject-line; I should re-read L. Helm's original post  
on the Civil War.

In any case, checking, in a rush, with wiki, I see that  in the "Civil War" 
entry there is a short section on 'causes of secession' and a  link to 
another entry, "Origins of the Civil War", from where I read:
 
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War) 

"As  a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its 
various and  multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it 
was 
disunion  itself that sparked the war."[1] States' rights and the tariff 
issue became  entangled in the slavery issue, and were intensified by it.[2] 
Other important  factors were party politics, abolitionism, Southern 
nationalism, Northern  nationalism, expansionism, sectionalism, economics and 
modernization in the  Antebellum period."
 
My knowledge of philosophy of history is primitive -- Grice never  engaged 
me there! But I recall some bibliography, say, by von Wright, and  others, 
on 'explanation' in history. Pretty complex. Hence the point about  
'philosophy of history', i.e. how philosophers conceptualise things like  
'causes' in 
history. I recall this reference to Carr's "Cleopatra's Nose". So,  in the 
case of the Civil War in the USA we seem to have a clear case of some  
controversy (what would life be without it?) about the alleged 'cause' of  this 
or that.
 
I wouldn't know if L. Helm agrees with the contents of the two links  in 
wiki referred above, and in what ways his original post is meant to  
contradict the main points in the "established" (if that is what it is) view  
about 
the causes ("why") of the Civil War --. I realise that L. Helm  is just as 
interested in HOW it was fought, and not just why.
 
The point in the wiki, "Origins" entry, about historians debating in  2011 
about this or that cause seem pretty elucidatory as to why philosophers  
find references to 'cause' in history complex. In general, 'cause' was  
restricted to explanations in _NATURAL_ sciences, rather than social sciences.  
In 
Social Sciences, the idea of agent's intentions seemed more relevant. Yet  
Grice, in "Actions and Events", points out that, in its original sense, 
"aitia",  in Greek -- i.e. cause -- was never meant as a physical process. 
Indeed, it is  in expressions like,
 
"a rebel without a cause"
 
where 'cause' is used in its original (and indeed, only) sense. A 'cause'  
is a cause to act. So, the main point would be to relate those complex  
causes, as alleged in the case of the Civil War, to the different agents  
involved. The "Origins" entry has a corollary with further bibliography,  where 
the main controversial item is the point about 'slavery'  getting minimised as 
counting as the main cause (or why). And so  on.

Cheers,
 
Speranza 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Civil War -- and the philosophy of history

Other related posts:
