John Keegan

[tombogan03884]

Just told one of the worlds most respected Historians he doesn't know what he's talking about  
John Keegan, a world respected historian and instructor at Britian's Sandhurst military academy has recently written a book "The American Civil War" as I read the opening chapters I was compelled to send the following comment.

Mr. Keegan,
Let me start by saying that with Max Hastings, and Barbara Tuchmann I find you to be one of the most readable historians of the 20th century.
However, (there's ALWAYS a "but" ) In reading "The American Civil War" I come to the conclusion that you do not truly understand Americans.
The reason you can not understand why "non slave owning whites" would fight so long and so hard for the Confederacy is because, even though you mention the "property rights issue, you fell into the politically correct trap of assuming that the war was fought over "slavery".
While it is true that the moral implications of racial equality were hotly debated as early as the Colonial era, (even women's rights were under debate during the Revolution, see the writings of Abigail Adams ) the "Slavery issue" was in fact only the most visable manifestation of the underlying conflict between those who supported the Jeffersonian principle of a weak central Government vesting power in the States, and those who advocated the Hamiltonian idea of a strong Federal Government.
In point of fact, while he may have abolished race based indenture Lincoln actually derailed the ideals the founding fathers had fought for, opening the way for such Federal usurpation's of power as today's health care debate.

[Hazcat]

Excellent letter!

[Pathfinder]

Indeed, excellent summation. I've always liked Keegan, too bad he went this route.

[tombogan03884]

Path,
While I wrote the comment , I also have to defend him to a certain extent, Keegan is steeped in the Anglo European tradition that political power comes from the top down. With out actually EXPERIENCING  our concept of government by consent of the governed it is hard , even for many of our own people to understand.

[Pathfinder]

Tom -

I know, although I do expect historians of all people to "get it" and not have such a major blind spot. I know better, it's a mild compulsion on my part. 

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Good letter. I would suggest that there was more going on than slavery or states rights and further suggest that states rights wasn't just a Southern thing (Northerners hated the fugitive Slave lawes and Dred Scott). My main problem with you're anylysis, which I largely agree with, is that you forget the issue of class. If you haven't read it, wade through the Dred Scott case, particulary Taney's opimion. Its 70 odd pages of rambling BS and bad history and worse legal reasoning. But its an object lesson in why judicial activism is a really bad idea. One of the things it did was nationalize slavery by saying I could buy a slave legally in Ga. and then move both of us to Ny. and still own him. because of 5A property rights This, quite rightly scared the crap out of Northern labor. Their fear was the same as ours over out sourcng to China and illegals. How do you compete with a slave? It pushed anti-slavery from bing just a moral issue to being a bread and butter issue, a perceived matter of economic survival, and harded Northern attitude speedy quick.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

 FQ, I had to write it in the comment section for his book at the A A Knopf website so I wanted to keep it short.
Otherwise I could have gotten into things like how the "Peculiar Institution" (a phrase he used a few times ) was introduced by not labor greedy Plantation owners, but by London slave dealers. I also did not explore the recognized dichotomy of Jeffersonian principles and Jefferson's slave ownership, or the cold fact that industrialization was, or soon would, make slavery economically unfeasible.
Truth is that had Jefferson been better at handling money, racially based slavery in America would probably have died with the revolution. Had he not always been in debt and needing to mortgage his slaves to stay solvent Jefferson could, if any one could, have influenced the debate enough to tip the balance against continuing the practice.

[fightingquaker13]

Understood Tom and I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I do think that is important to remember, since its ignored in a lot of history books, that the war was not just about slavery or even ideas. There was a lot of economic self interest at play as well on both sides.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Oh I can agree with that. The Southern planter was stuck with an economic and social system that losing it's profitability, while imposing burdens expected of a feudal Lord, and preventing him from maximizing production and profits. Mean while the Northern Abolitionist movement received support from labor starved Northern industrialists who saw in the freed slaves a source of man power that would speak English and work cheaper than the Immigrants who were not arriving in numbers sufficient to supply the demand.

I will add however that referring to the war as being "against slavery" was a decision taken during hearings in Congress, held to determine how they would describe the war and it's objectives in a simplified, easily expressed  way.

[PegLeg45]

Nice, Tom....very well put.
Some of the biggest debates I've had with others were concerning these issues.