<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Refreshing
Review: Adult American's are often heard to say that "the Civil War was not about slavery; it was about states' rights." This statement (and ones similar to it) betray two poor assumptions the speakers make: that they were first told that slavery was the cause, but view that as juvenile because they were juvenile when they first heard it; that the answer must be one or the other. Both of these assumptions are false. There is no reason that what is commonly said is necessarily false, or to think that there was only a single cause of the Civil War. Dew makes an error in this book in claiming to answer the question "what was the singular cause of the Civil War." Although any attempt to answer this question will inevitably be wrong there is no reason to dismiss the rest of the work as wrong. What Dew does manage to do is show that the issues of slavery and states' rights were intertwined. Why would Southerner's have cared about whether or not the Federal Government had the authority to abolish slavery if slavery was not immensely important? The answer, of course, is that they would not have. Dew examines the speeches of Deep Southerners sent to Western and Border states to convince their legislative bodies secede to show exactly why slavery was such an emotional issue for Deep Southerners. The answer is racism; and more specifically, fear of emancipation under any terms. The three common points made in the speeches of all fifty-two secessionist commissioners were: white supremacy (and the fear of being made equal); a race war in the South; and the genetic (and, obviously, sexual) mingling of the two races. An interesting point that Dew makes in his introduction and his conclusion is that many of the major powers of the CSA retracted their racist statements immediately after the war. It was them -- Davis, Stephens, and many of the secessionist commissioners -- that began to perpetuate the myth of "states' rights." It is as if they realized that there only escape from shame was to become martyrs for an honorable cause -- and that slavery was not it. Finally, Dew's work is simply a short and refreshing look at an ignored aspect of the five months between Lincoln's election and the attack on Ft. Sumter. These hundred pages are very much worth your time. I look forward to reading more of Dew in the future, and I am certain that, after reading Apostles of Disunion, you will too.
Rating:
Summary: Refreshing
Review: Adult American's are often heard to say that "the Civil War was not about slavery; it was about states' rights." This statement (and ones similar to it) betray two poor assumptions the speakers make: that they were first told that slavery was the cause, but view that as juvenile because they were juvenile when they first heard it; that the answer must be one or the other. Both of these assumptions are false. There is no reason that what is commonly said is necessarily false, or to think that there was only a single cause of the Civil War. Dew makes an error in this book in claiming to answer the question "what was the singular cause of the Civil War." Although any attempt to answer this question will inevitably be wrong there is no reason to dismiss the rest of the work as wrong. What Dew does manage to do is show that the issues of slavery and states' rights were intertwined. Why would Southerner's have cared about whether or not the Federal Government had the authority to abolish slavery if slavery was not immensely important? The answer, of course, is that they would not have. Dew examines the speeches of Deep Southerners sent to Western and Border states to convince their legislative bodies secede to show exactly why slavery was such an emotional issue for Deep Southerners. The answer is racism; and more specifically, fear of emancipation under any terms. The three common points made in the speeches of all fifty-two secessionist commissioners were: white supremacy (and the fear of being made equal); a race war in the South; and the genetic (and, obviously, sexual) mingling of the two races. An interesting point that Dew makes in his introduction and his conclusion is that many of the major powers of the CSA retracted their racist statements immediately after the war. It was them -- Davis, Stephens, and many of the secessionist commissioners -- that began to perpetuate the myth of "states' rights." It is as if they realized that there only escape from shame was to become martyrs for an honorable cause -- and that slavery was not it. Finally, Dew's work is simply a short and refreshing look at an ignored aspect of the five months between Lincoln's election and the attack on Ft. Sumter. These hundred pages are very much worth your time. I look forward to reading more of Dew in the future, and I am certain that, after reading Apostles of Disunion, you will too.
Rating: 
Summary: Dew asks the wrong question
Review: At the purely historical, factual level, this little work is useful inasmuch as it informs the reader of a little known aspect of pre-war political life. I suppose in the hothouse atmosphere of the politically correct academy the race card as it is now understood is a pretty good path to publication. Dew posits that slavery was the proximate cause of the so-called Civil War and uses the words and deeds of the secession commissioners to prove his point. Here is the logical inconsistency. No serious student of the War of Southern Independence can doubt that slavery and Southern perceptions of Northern fanaticism were the proximate causes of secession. The more interesting and difficult question is whether slavery caused the War. By mixing his analysis, Dew makes the bare assertion, but he offers nothing to prove it. This writer believes that the evidence is conclusive that the United States could never have mobilized its populace simply to defeat "Slavery," and, in fact, never addressed slavery except as a cynical military expediency now revered as the emancipation proclamation. It helped that the "emancipated" contrabands enlisted in the US army kept Northern white boys from being drafted. Southern secession was ideological and that ideology was white supremacy; there is no reason to try to gloss over that. Northern war-making was not ideological - the true abolitionists could not have elected anyone to office - but rather pecuniary. A seceded, free-trade South would have crippled the US economy and deprived the US government of three-quarters of its tariff revenue. It is here that you find the causes of war.
Rating: 
Summary: Chain of causality
Review: Dew's _Apostles of Disunion_ is one of several recent books to assert that slavery, not states' rights, was the cause of the Civil War. His train of reasoning runs as follows: According to Southern secession commissioners, the men appointed by states which had seceded to convince other slaveholding states to join them in a new confederation, the primary reason for secession was the fear that a Republican president would abolish slavery and place "the Negro" on an equal plane with White citizens. Thus, the maintenance of slavery and race-based oppression were the public reasons behind the secession movement, and secession marked the start of the Civil War. If this were the only evidence that supported Dew's case, and if Dew's were the only book to come to this conclusion, it would be fairly thin gruel. But there is plenty of other evidence to confirm the point. Before the war, President Buchanan had rejected Kansas's petition to abolish slavery, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision mandated governmental support of slavery even in states which had determined to reject this "peculiar institution." Both of these decisions were clear violations of the doctrine of states' rights, yet slaveowning Southerners cheered. The problems came with the possibility that future states, given a free choice (and a Republican presidency), would not embrace slavery -- and might even endorse social and political equality for Black Americans. _Apostles of Disunion_ is refreshingly concise, direct and accessible; the book can be read in less than an hour, but its impact is impossible to shake. Dew has found a remarkable series of documents in the letters and speeches of secession commissioners. Even more disturbing, the commissioners' arguments for secession in December 1860 and January 1861 closely resemble Southern anti-civil-rights rhetoric over a century later. Dew reminds us, once again, how much has changed in race relations over the past forty years, and how little had changed before that.
Rating:
Summary: Chain of causality
Review: Dew's _Apostles of Disunion_ is one of several recent books to assert that slavery, not states' rights, was the cause of the Civil War. His train of reasoning runs as follows: According to Southern secession commissioners, the men appointed by states which had seceded to convince other slaveholding states to join them in a new confederation, the primary reason for secession was the fear that a Republican president would abolish slavery and place "the Negro" on an equal plane with White citizens. Thus, the maintenance of slavery and race-based oppression were the public reasons behind the secession movement, and secession marked the start of the Civil War. If this were the only evidence that supported Dew's case, and if Dew's were the only book to come to this conclusion, it would be fairly thin gruel. But there is plenty of other evidence to confirm the point. Before the war, President Buchanan had rejected Kansas's petition to abolish slavery, and the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision mandated governmental support of slavery even in states which had determined to reject this "peculiar institution." Both of these decisions were clear violations of the doctrine of states' rights, yet slaveowning Southerners cheered. The problems came with the possibility that future states, given a free choice (and a Republican presidency), would not embrace slavery -- and might even endorse social and political equality for Black Americans. _Apostles of Disunion_ is refreshingly concise, direct and accessible; the book can be read in less than an hour, but its impact is impossible to shake. Dew has found a remarkable series of documents in the letters and speeches of secession commissioners. Even more disturbing, the commissioners' arguments for secession in December 1860 and January 1861 closely resemble Southern anti-civil-rights rhetoric over a century later. Dew reminds us, once again, how much has changed in race relations over the past forty years, and how little had changed before that.
Rating:
Summary: The Civil War was about slavery
Review: The Civil war may not technically be about slavery. The South leftm the Union and Lincoln was detrermined to reunite the country. However, the question must be asked, "why did the South seek the radical course of secession in the first place?" This book makes it clear that the reason was slavery. For well over a century, the Confederate cause has been justified as one of states rights. We must ask, however, "the right to do what?" Clearly, the South was most concerned about the right to hold other human beings in bondage. Most histories of the Civil War and biographies of Lincoln refer to the Southern rhetoric of "Black Republicanism" during the campaign of 1860 and the months immediately following Lincoln's election. Thus, it was never a secret that the reason many of the Southern states left the Union was because of their concern over the issue of slavery. In truth, slavery could not have been abolished without an amendment to the Constitution but, its spread into newly admitted states and into the territories was a hotly debated and compromised issue for decades preceding the war. In this book, Dew removes any doubt as to why the South left the Union. Commissioners from five states toured the South, made speeches, and wrote letters and documnets to convince the remaining Southern states to leave the Union. The most passionately espoused reason was slavery. Despite post war efforts to posit other reasons, the primary source material that Dew has uncovered makes clear the real Southern motive for secession. Dew is a Southerner (albeit he now teaches at Williams College in MA) whose ancestors fought for the Southern cause. Nonetheless, he cites material that, at the time, was not for public consumption but was only for the audience to which it was directed, i.e., arguments for secession directed officials of other Southern states. Dew makes this original source material available to the public and the falacious arguments which have been advanced for secession (states rights, tariffs, etc.) must fall.
Rating:
Summary: Incomplete account
Review: This book, once again, walks down the road well traveled. The fact is, the North would have done the same thing if they were in the South's position. As Jefferson once said about the South and slavery "I fear we have a wolf by the ears and are afraid to let go". Also, the South could have brought northern abolistionism to a screeching halt by threatening to free a third or a half of its slaves on the condition that they immediately immigrate north! The northerners didn't want them, they just wanted them to be free and a problem for Southerners (even though they sold them to the South in the first place). Also, I allege that if McCormick hadn't invented the harvester, there would have been more slavery up north. For example, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1797, but this only helped the processing of already picked cotton. Who was going to pick it? Unfortunately for the South, the first mechanical cotton picker wasn't invented until 1944 by International Harvester! Save for McCormack's early invention, you'd probably have slaves in Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois harvesting corn! And of course, the North only 'got religion' AFTER they made a fortune going to Africa and bringing the poor slaves back here to sell in the first place. Also, one must'nt forget the massacre in Haiti when the slaves rebelled as this was very much on the mind of every Southerner, and Nat Turners massecres didn't help this fade either.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Will Out
Review: Why did the southern states attempt to secede from the Union in 1860-'61? Confederate apologists constantly insist it was all a question of the Constitution. The Northern states were violating the Southern states rights to do something or another, and the South had no choice except secession in order to preserve 'Constitutional' govt. Union supporters insist that this isn't so. So what really happened? Prof. Charles Dew cuts right to the heart of things by quoting the arguments made in 1861 by supporters of secession. Seven states passed secession ordinances in 1860 and '61, and four of them sent representatives to other slave states, explaining the reasons why they too should secede. So what was the Southern cause? Surprise, surprise. It was WHITE SUPREMACY. The South needed to secede before the North amended the Constitution. In the nightmare world of the disunionists, the "Black Republicans," as the South invariably called them, were bent on seeing a South simultaneously: drenched in blood when the slaves rose in revolt; drenched in equality, as whites and blacks lived together withouth a master race; and drenched in miscegnation, as the races became one. Of course, it was logically impossible for all these things to happen at the same time, but logic was not the South's strong point. Neither was honesty. As Dew makes clear, disunionists started lying about why they'd pushed secession as soon as they lost. Dew notes he was indoctrinated during his Florida youth with the story that "the South had seceded for one reason and one reason only: states' rights;" Dew also quotes contemporary neo-Confederates trying to deny the truth that the South was trying to preserve White Supremacy and Slavery. Their sucessors keep it up: Art Chance maintains "No serious student of the War of Southern Independence can doubt that slavery and Southern perceptions of Northern fanaticism were the proximate causes of secession." Chance then tries to change the subject to 'why did the North resist Southern Aggression?' (Answer: we were fed up with being pushed around by the South). 'A reader from USA' sets up a fantasy about the Founding Fathers, citing a book titled FORCED FOUNDERS (go look at the reviews; they say the Virginian Founders were motivated by anti-slavery). 'tabsaw' says the book "walks down the road well traveled," without giving titles of any of the other books making this argument. Still, we progress. Not even the apologists for slavery reviewing this book have the nerve to deny that preserving Slavery and White Supremacy was the South's reason for secession. Once we get that established, we'll be able to go on to more interesting issues.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Will Out
Review: Why did the southern states attempt to secede from the Union in 1860-'61? Confederate apologists constantly insist it was all a question of the Constitution. The Northern states were violating the Southern states rights to do something or another, and the South had no choice except secession in order to preserve 'Constitutional' govt. Union supporters insist that this isn't so. So what really happened? Prof. Charles Dew cuts right to the heart of things by quoting the arguments made in 1861 by supporters of secession. Seven states passed secession ordinances in 1860 and '61, and four of them sent representatives to other slave states, explaining the reasons why they too should secede. So what was the Southern cause? Surprise, surprise. It was WHITE SUPREMACY. The South needed to secede before the North amended the Constitution. In the nightmare world of the disunionists, the "Black Republicans," as the South invariably called them, were bent on seeing a South simultaneously: drenched in blood when the slaves rose in revolt; drenched in equality, as whites and blacks lived together withouth a master race; and drenched in miscegnation, as the races became one. Of course, it was logically impossible for all these things to happen at the same time, but logic was not the South's strong point. Neither was honesty. As Dew makes clear, disunionists started lying about why they'd pushed secession as soon as they lost. Dew notes he was indoctrinated during his Florida youth with the story that "the South had seceded for one reason and one reason only: states' rights;" Dew also quotes contemporary neo-Confederates trying to deny the truth that the South was trying to preserve White Supremacy and Slavery. Their sucessors keep it up: Art Chance maintains "No serious student of the War of Southern Independence can doubt that slavery and Southern perceptions of Northern fanaticism were the proximate causes of secession." Chance then tries to change the subject to 'why did the North resist Southern Aggression?' (Answer: we were fed up with being pushed around by the South). 'A reader from USA' sets up a fantasy about the Founding Fathers, citing a book titled FORCED FOUNDERS (go look at the reviews; they say the Virginian Founders were motivated by anti-slavery). 'tabsaw' says the book "walks down the road well traveled," without giving titles of any of the other books making this argument. Still, we progress. Not even the apologists for slavery reviewing this book have the nerve to deny that preserving Slavery and White Supremacy was the South's reason for secession. Once we get that established, we'll be able to go on to more interesting issues.
<< 1 >>
| 
