Erik,
Thanks for the response. Upon reflection, I realized that using the phrase “correcting popular myths” did not work as well as I would have liked in conveying my sense of the book. Had I said “challenged” or “rebutted” popular “views,” I think the sense of my post would have been clearer.
One need only read the book jacket to discover that author H.W. Crocker’s approach to the war favors the Lost Cause proposition. That’s why no one hoping to learn the facts of the Civil War should rely on this book alone. (Incidentally, I feel the same way about reading Thomas DiLorenzo’s recent book on Hamilton and expecting to get a full picture of his merits and demerits.)
Still, Crocker does make some valid points that burst the bubble of those who would espouse an overly simplistic view of the Civil War. We should know, for instance, that many people on both sides of the fight were ambivalent about slavery, that the war’s initial aim was not the eradication of that evil practice, and that “total war” strategies employed to bring Southern states to heel diminish to some extent the righteousness of the Northern states’ cause.
Your quote reminds us that some (perhaps many or most) within the Confederate leadership espoused slavery as a positive good. This does not mean that most or all of those charged with fighting for the Confederacy shared that view. The evidence suggests that loyalty to a home state, as in the case of Lee, played a more important role in many instances.
I’m sure our friends on the left would be quick to remind us that a vice president doesn’t necessarily reflect the common views of his constituents. (Mr. Cheney’s fans can apply the same principle to FDR’s loopy V.P., Henry Wallace.) So Stephens’ statement is one more fact one should sift among others before deciding what to make of the Civil War.
I’m an Ohioan by birth, and so my public-school history classes taught me about fellow Buckeyes Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. I have no dog in the fight of promoting the Lost Cause. But I do appreciate efforts to combat sloppy overgeneralization about this sad chapter in our nation’s history.
Thanks again for caring enough about this issue to respond to the earlier, somewhat muddled post.
