It’s not difficult to agree and disagree with someone at the same time…well, much of the time it’s not difficult. General John Kelly’s recent remarks about the Civil War occurring because of “the lack of ability to compromise,” is, most assuredly, a naïve and simplistic explanation. I suppose it could be called ignorance, since Kelly was not born and raised in the South and would have read but not experienced the differences in the northern and southern cultures. That aside, however, I certainly agree with Kelly that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. Although Lincoln asked Lee to take command of the United States Army, Lee’s loyalty lay with his state. In this regard, I believe that to many men of that time, particularly military men and particularly men who had graduated from West Point, such as Lee, were more inclined to support the area from which they came as opposed to a nation that was still in its infancy.
Historians have immediately come out to castigate Kelly. I would ask the question of these supposed experts, “Were you there? Are you so certain of all of your facts that you can take this man to task?” Sure, we are convinced that the single cause of the war was slavery, that African Americans were considered, at worst, inhuman and at best, three-fifths of a human being, but unless we were living at the time, it’s darned difficult to know the exact truth. Personally, I admire writers and historians like Ron Chernow, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Carl Sandburg, Bruce Catton, and the many others who have written of the Civil War. Like anything else, however, it’s tough to write it if you can’t taste it or smell it or weren’t a part of it. A friend of mine was an infantry officer in Korea. He said that the two things people who have never experienced war would be lost to understand are the cacophony and the smell. “In battle, your ears are battered, and the smell is horrific,” he said. I have no frame of reference for that, therefore, I would be a fool if I was attempting to write about it as fact.
Bear with me here for a minute. Picture yourself on a sunny Sunday morning, July 21, 1861. You’re 12, maybe 13 years old. You’ve been to church with mother, father, your sister and baby brother. You’ve been rolling a hoop around the backyard as part of your play whey you spy mother and father loading a picnic basket into the wagon. “Where are you going?” you ask. “We thought we’d take you all down to Manassas to watch a bit of the war,” replies your father. Now, split yourself in two. Half of you is the 1861 person and half of you is the 1943 person standing by your farm somewhere near Prokhorovka, where the largest tank battle in the history of warfare is about to be launched. The 1861 you is probably going to respond, “How wonderful of you to think of taking us off to see the war,” while the 1943 part of you may well be thinking, if not saying, “Are you out of your freakin’ mind?” See the different mind sets that can occur in less than a hundred years? Fascinatin,’ ain’t it?
Sure, we all know that slavery was ‘the’ cause of the Civil War, but what about the fact that the Southern economy was in trouble. Other countries were climbing on the cotton bandwagon, and the South could no longer lay claim to “King Cotton” as their key to wealth and prosperity. The South was a one-crop economy while the North was growing its industrial economy and had s large financial sector looking for expansion. In addition, ten years prior to the conflict, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas all became states. Should they be slave states or not? Kansas initially was and was denied statehood, while the others, “free states,” were granted statehood immediately. This further tested the relationships between slave-holding states in the South and the abolitionist ‘yankee’s in the North. There is little difference in the breakdown of civil discourse between then and now. Those favoring slavery, for example, killed an abolitionist printer in a mob action in 1837. Anti-slavery groups would attack pro-slave people and groups and do the same damned thing. Can you say, “White supremacists versus leftist liberals?” or “Rights versus my rights only?” However, I must say that I don’t believe we are on our way to another Civil War…yet.
In researching, I came across a paragraph in Intellectual Take-Out that I found revealing: “Even before the Constitution was written, Samuel Johnson ironically asked, “How is it that the loudest yelps for liberty come from the drivers of Negroes?” By the 1850s the hypocrisy could no longer be ignored because of the sheer scope of slavery. The Census of 1860 shows there were some 4 million slaves in the South—compared to 78,000 in 1727 and 697,000 in 1790.” By these statements, if our Constitution reads that we are a nation conceived in liberty, how could slavery ever be allowed in the first place. When you come right down to it, the North and the South were really two different nations from the outset. The North was an industrial economy with a strong financial backing and an urge to expand. The South was an agrarian economy with little financial worth that was dependent on slave labor to make money. You might call “culture clash” a major cause of the Civil War. Hell, you can call it anything you wish. Suffice it to say, that two percent of the American population of that time were killed, more by disease than by bullets or artillery. The figure most often cited is 620,000, but some authorities say it might be as high as 700,000. It really doesn’t matter today as we look at civil unrest in this divided country of ours. I truly believe that we are a nation of so much good, that evil stands little chance of creating the type of violence we saw just over 160 years ago…Good God, I hope so!