THE HAMPTON ROADS PEACE CONERENCE

The war between the states was in the 19th century. Let sleeping dogs lie.

We don't need to stir up people's hearts to anger again over the issues that troubled our country over 140 years ago.

 

This is a history forum, yes. But it is also in the debate section, so therefore even people who disagree should be entitled to participate, else it would not be a debate, would it?

 

There are lessons to be learned from the War Between the States that can help us keep from making many of the same mistakes that were made during that time. It's very important to dig deeper into history than what is taught by Jr. High History teachers in the government schools.

 

There are lessons to be learned from the War Between the States that can help us keep from making many of the same mistakes that were made during that time. It's very important to dig deeper into history than what is taught by Jr. High History teachers in the government schools. </font>[/QUOTE]This may have some validity, unless one of those teachers happens to be a retired military officer with two graduate degrees who has also taught at the high school and graduate level in math and history.

One of the reasons I like teaching 7th and 8th grade is because there are great weaknesses in the public schools at that level. One of those weaknesses is that students are not taught to seek information from a variety of sources with divergent viewpoints. Both "sides" of an issue often do this. And, critical thinking is not a skill many of my students relate well to.

It is hard to convince them that not all .edus, .coms, .mils, .govs, and .orgs are created equal.

In the teaching of the Civil War, there are those who make out the South to be "Simon Legrees," and there are those who make the cause of the South glorious. In the cold light of history, neither side can stand. There are those who make Lincoln out to be a plaster saint, in the mode of Robert Frost's 7-volume biography and Raymond Massey's portrayal of Lincoln on screen. These are also distortions. Anyone who thinks he has a simple and comprehensive read on Lincoln or his motivations, is just plain wrong. In the opaque nature of his counsel, Lincoln in a weird sort of way, resembles Ronald Reagan, whose real inner circle, according to most of his confidants, was himself alone.

Again, the problem with many in the camp of Confederate fans is the same problem that those in the other camp have--a refusal to examine all sources. When discussing the secession question, which had been first brought up (rather timidly) by the mainly Federalist Hartford Convention in the waning days of the War of 1812, it is not mentioned that there were British agents involved in organizing the convention, and who were present at it. Nor is the Hartford Convention frequently enough given the credit for hammering the last dozen or so nails in the coffin of the Federalist Party.

The Hampton Roads peace conference happened too late in the game to change anything. It was the 4th quarter and the South was behind by 14 touchdowns.

The greatest tragedy for the South was the assassination of Lincoln. Tyrant or not, he intended to kiss and make up with the South on a quick basis--the radicals in his own party wanted the South humiliated and crushed. Booth's bullet gave them the green light to do so.

Another aspect that is not often taught (outside my classes, where, by the way, I don't use the assigned text, since it oversimplifies things in favor of the "St. Abraham" view) is the similarity between the overreaction fever of both North and South in 1861 to that of the European powers in their lurch and fall into world war in 1914.

Nor, do students often hear that (in 1832) only quick-footed action by Andrew Jackson's political rival Henry Clay of Kentucky, averted Andrew Jackson marching an army into South Carolina to hang (among others) John C. Calhoun.

I certainly look forward to discussion with those who are willing to look at all sides of an issue. However, realize, that if one of my 11th graders had turned in a term paper with sources from only one point of view, they would have been required to re-do the paper.

 

Slavery was not the only issue between North and South, but it was the emotional issue, the overriding issue, and the catalytical issue. Like abortion and Gay Rights today, it was impossible to be civil in diagreement over it.

The belated Hampton Roads conference took place after Lee was forced into static defense, after the disaster of The Crater, after the burning of Atlanta, the devastation of Georgia, and Hood's pointless sacrifice of his army at Nashville. There was still some blood to be shed, but the great slaughters were over. Hampton Roads, late as it was, would not have averted the costly conflict.

As far as secession goes, I fail to see how anyone can find secession in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the articles of confederation, the Constitution is written in the name of "we the people," not, as Patrick Henry would have preferred, "we the states."

The Articles start off with explicit sovereignty to the states:

Conversely, the preamble mentions ONLY the people as the promulgators of the Constitution.

That does not sound like permission to dissolve what they are bound to support!

[ January 11, 2006, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Major B ]

 

You're right, SFIC, but some of us just haven't gotten over it, we just lick our wounds and go on.