Everything you wanted from an 1860
December 1, 2010 9:49 PM Subscribe
The Long Recall is a daily news aggregator chronicling the buildup to the U.S. Civil War. The daily posts are "digests of the news and commentary that an intelligent American might have had accessible 150 years ago."
The New York Times is doing something like this, albeit much broader. I'm thinking these two projects will complement each other really well if they can both keep it going.
This is IMHO the best entry on that Disunion blog so far.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:43 PM on December 1, 2010
This is IMHO the best entry on that Disunion blog so far.
posted by saturday_morning at 10:43 PM on December 1, 2010
Who will play y2karl?
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:45 PM on December 1, 2010
posted by uncanny hengeman at 10:45 PM on December 1, 2010
This might also be a useful bookmark to have to hand the next time someone argues that the American Civil War was fought over states' rights instead of slavery. Forearmed!
posted by spoobnooble at 3:33 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by spoobnooble at 3:33 AM on December 2, 2010
This might also be a useful bookmark to have to hand the next time someone argues that the American Civil War was fought over states' rights instead of slavery. Forearmed!
Because it's impossible that a complex historical event like the civil war had more than one singular cause.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. (source)
Oh and great find thanks for posting.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:29 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
Because it's impossible that a complex historical event like the civil war had more than one singular cause.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. (source)
Oh and great find thanks for posting.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:29 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is cool. Thanks for the post. MP
posted by MarshallPoe at 6:41 AM on December 2, 2010
posted by MarshallPoe at 6:41 AM on December 2, 2010
No, AElfwine - that's the objective in the North's waging the Civil war. The South waged it because they knew that slavery was all but over with the election of a Republican, and the only way to put a stop to abolition was to violently separate from the Union. It's in every article of confederation.
In short - the North was going to abolish slavery, and didn't see a reason to wage a war over it. Just pass a few laws, and ease the process along. What they would not abide was the destruction of the country by slaveholders - they saw it as the will of the people being shoved back in their face, a mortal insult to democracy and to the United States.
Right up until the Emancipation Proclamation, there was a lot of debate in the North on how, when and whether slavery should be abolished - remember, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware were fighting for the Union.
The south wasn't conflicted at all. They were fighting to keep their slaves, and to keep the system of white supremacy that allowed slaveholding.
I find it irritating that the Confederate apologists use the North's political process in ending slavery, a process the South should have been a part of instead of resorting to armed rebellion, as evidence that it wasn't "about" slavery.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:43 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
In short - the North was going to abolish slavery, and didn't see a reason to wage a war over it. Just pass a few laws, and ease the process along. What they would not abide was the destruction of the country by slaveholders - they saw it as the will of the people being shoved back in their face, a mortal insult to democracy and to the United States.
Right up until the Emancipation Proclamation, there was a lot of debate in the North on how, when and whether slavery should be abolished - remember, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware were fighting for the Union.
The south wasn't conflicted at all. They were fighting to keep their slaves, and to keep the system of white supremacy that allowed slaveholding.
I find it irritating that the Confederate apologists use the North's political process in ending slavery, a process the South should have been a part of instead of resorting to armed rebellion, as evidence that it wasn't "about" slavery.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:43 AM on December 2, 2010 [3 favorites]
as evidence that it wasn't "about" slavery.
I never said it wasn't about slavery. I merely posited that a complex event like the civil war can not be said to have one single cause. My point to quote Lincoln wasn't to make an argument that slavery had nothing to do with it but rather to point out that once the war began the slavery issue took a back seat to preserving the union. Thanks for implying that I'm a "Confederate apologist" thereby also implying that I am an apologist for slavery.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2010
I never said it wasn't about slavery. I merely posited that a complex event like the civil war can not be said to have one single cause. My point to quote Lincoln wasn't to make an argument that slavery had nothing to do with it but rather to point out that once the war began the slavery issue took a back seat to preserving the union. Thanks for implying that I'm a "Confederate apologist" thereby also implying that I am an apologist for slavery.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:32 AM on December 2, 2010
My point to quote Lincoln wasn't to make an argument that slavery had nothing to do with it but rather to point out that once the war began the slavery issue took a back seat to preserving the union.
If you hadn't included the quote from the original post you took exception to, I could almost believe that.
Thanks for implying that I'm a "Confederate apologist" thereby also implying that I am an apologist for slavery.
You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. "State's Rights" has always, always been bullshit... it's a fabrication and a fig-leaf for slavery. Without the question of slavery, there would have been no war, period, the end.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:58 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you hadn't included the quote from the original post you took exception to, I could almost believe that.
Thanks for implying that I'm a "Confederate apologist" thereby also implying that I am an apologist for slavery.
You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. "State's Rights" has always, always been bullshit... it's a fabrication and a fig-leaf for slavery. Without the question of slavery, there would have been no war, period, the end.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:58 AM on December 2, 2010 [1 favorite]
"State's Rights" has always, always been bullshit... it's a fabrication and a fig-leaf for slavery. Without the question of slavery, there would have been no war, period, the end.
I agree that without the slavery issue the civil war could probably have been avoided. I disagree, though, that states rights is "bullshit" as it and slavery were part and parcel of the same issue. If by "bullshit" you mean it isn't a justification for the enslavement of other human beings I agree wholeheartedly.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:28 AM on December 2, 2010
« Older It's really loud (the Shop-Vac not the song) | "Chattanooga is a young and thriving city and... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I posted this example of the concept a while back, and as pointed out in the comments, Brett Holman, an Australian military historian based in Melbourne, has an aggregator for the Second World War.
Those are pretty good, but this looks like a particularly careful and well-executed historical post-blog. Well found, lalex.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 10:13 PM on December 1, 2010 [2 favorites]