Myths?

The Washington Post has an article up about five myths about the Civil War.

Lordy, where to start?

Point 1:

Yes, slavery was THE issue; but it was more in the handling of the issue than the issue itself that causes this.

You have to remember why it's called Dixie.  From the Mason-Dixon line.  Then, oh never mind, new states south of that hard-agreed upon line would decide on their own; just like all new states.  Bloody Kansas, anyone?  Missouri was none too placid during this time and remained quite riled up for while after the war too.

The South felt like they were getting screwed by the North, and the North had more seats to shove their decisions down the southern throats.  The present state of Maine was created out of Massachusetts JUST to get two more abolitionist senate seats.

This dictatorial tone is why Texas and Florida left.  Texas, remembering the Alamo and why they fought to secede from Mexico, pretty much said, "Didn't we do this once already?"  Florida had barely stopped being part of Spain and was none to keen on returning to being ruled from afar.

What is clear is that South Carolina was spoiling to secede.  The civil war was their second serious attempt.

This being about states rights is about the state's right to decide for themselves what to do about slavery.  The WaPo article even mentions that Lincoln didn't get into it to end slavery at all; but to preserve the union.

Point 2:

Tariffs were certainly a reason!  The Tariff of 1828 is mentioned several texts as one of the preludes to the civil war.

By the way, WaPo, most of the text of this point in your article is about AFTER the war.  It weakens your point a tad.

Point 3:

The author has forgotten how antebellum americans viewed themselves.  Robert E. Lee called himself a Virginian, not an American.  That was common across the whole nation.  To most troops in the south, their "nation" that is their state called and they answered.

This is a point you'd think would come up in the soldier's letters back home about their hopes and dreams after the war, right?  Something along the lines of, "Sure hope to be rich and buy me some [censored] when we kick these damnyankee asses back to wherever."  But that doesn't come up much.  It's often difficult to tell the letters apart between North and South.  If owning slaves just happens to go with being rich in the south, "to own slaves" is not a primary motivator.

The dig about the Bush tax cuts is idiotic and out of place in this discussion.

Point 4:

While Lincoln certainly said he would keep slavery if that would keep the country together, his views on the topic were well known.  This is one point the author does a good job with!

Point 5:

Let's all ignore the cotton gin!  And the cotton picker.  And hundreds of other mechanizations of farm work.

Let's ignore how slavery died in Brazil all on it's own.

All of this bad history from someone who wrote a book claiming to right the wrongs our high school history teachers taught us.  'Tis sad.