Me vs. the Civil War

I'll be honest. I may have two history degrees under my belt, and I do really enjoy military history. But, I really don't like Civil War history (I dislike it as passionately as many people love it). Yes, it's important... I don't want to make it seem like it isn't.

But, the last time I really had to learn Civil War history was in 8th grade (I was a TA for the only other class that covered it, and given that I was grading, I don't count that- nor do I count projects for graduate school that were Civil War related). How do you make it through college as a history major without taking a class that covers the Civil War? Simple. My college required students to take 1 of 3 classes from "Group A": Colonial/ Revolutionary, 19th Century (Civil War), and Europe and the World in the 20th Century. I love World War II history, so I naturally chose the last option. I ended up eventually taking the Colonial/ Revolutionary class as well.

I think what bothers me the most about it are the fanatics (oh, I know... there are WWII fanatics as well, I just don't come in contact with them as much). With an issue as divisive as the Civil War is, everyone has a very specific idea of what the Civil War was about. Do you have any idea what I would give for 2 people to agree about what the Civil War was about? Let's look at how World War I was explained to me (oh thank you Dr. Berry): NIPA. Also known as Nationalism, Imperialism, Population Growth, Alliances.

World War II isn't much different... after World War I is over, the armistice creates a world which blames Germany for pretty much causing the war and forces Germany to pay reparations that can't possibly be paid off. Add to this a worldwide depression and other issues, plus some charismatic leaders with ideas of how to pull countries out of these awful situations (no matter how dark and dastardly) and you get World War II. Oh sure, I've simplified it, and I'm sure you can simplify the Civil War to this extent, but how many people are going to agree on that? You've got the South which is often so desperate to point out that the Civil War wasn't about slavery (I'll bite my tongue here), and then you've got the North so desperate to point out that they were pro-abolition (again, no comments), and both sides trying to point out inconsistencies with the other's argument.

What inspired this stream of consciousness about the Civil War was two articles posted by AASLH's Twitter feed. One was the New York Times, and one was an article from AASLH's magazine. The New York Times article made me sad about living in the South (something I typically am proud of, despite the history). Holding a Secession Ball? Having a mock- swearing in of Jefferson Davis? The words running through my mind are words that I wouldn't dream of speaking out loud (or typing here for everyone to see). It was bad enough holding a Centennial event at a segregated hotel. Folks, it's been 50 years, let's prove that we've learned something for the Sesquicentennial. Don't romanticize this. Tell both sides of the story. Think about how different communities might feel about these events. Yeah, it's going to take some effort. It's going to require thinking. But if I'm going to be dragged into learning more about the Civil War during the Sesquicentennial for my job, you need to step it up too for your events. Don't embarrass us all.