It was surprising to hear that the 'antebellum' years started (according to some) in 1789 and (from others) in 1812. Essentially, they are referring to the years prior to the Civil War. However, the Antebellum Era, while holding off the war temporarily, "was to nurture the development of American advances in social reform, technology, transportation, and national prosperity." (p. 4)
Because I have been doing genealogy for about 40 years, I have a very different view of what caused the Civil War. My father's relatives lived in Winn Parish, LA, and it was the only Louisiana parish to vote against entering the Civil War. They felt it was a 'rich man's war but a poor man's way to die.' I also argue with a comment on page 8: "Although most Southern farmers had small plots of land and may have only owned a few slaves, ..." Most Southern farmers did not have any slaves. Few of the people I've studied in the South were wealthy enough to have slaves. In Louisiana, the question was states rights, not slavery. They felt that they had the right to secede from the union. I have found that to be the reason most of my relatives in Virginia, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana fought in the war. Maybe I just had strange relatives, but I don't think so.
Abraham Lincoln, when the Union finally won a battle, decided to ennoble the cause by the Emancipation Proclamation. At that point, the war became a battle over slavery. I think some of your book is revisionist history. Now, books drum it into our heads that the Union fought to save slaves from their owners; this certainly ennobles the conflict. Certainly, there were people on both sides that were fighting over slavery, but the main reason on the South's side, according to my research was 'states rights.'
Just to be clear, I am not espousing the rightness of the South. I am saying that the South was enraged that the North was forcing them to remain in a Union that did not benefit them. I enjoy Hourly History books tremendously. I just felt that this one was a bit skewed. The information about the changes in transportation and the Industrial Revolution, as well as many other aspects of the Antebellum Period, were first class.
Because I have been doing genealogy for about 40 years, I have a very different view of what caused the Civil War. My father's relatives lived in Winn Parish, LA, and it was the only Louisiana parish to vote against entering the Civil War. They felt it was a 'rich man's war but a poor man's way to die.' I also argue with a comment on page 8: "Although most Southern farmers had small plots of land and may have only owned a few slaves, ..." Most Southern farmers did not have any slaves. Few of the people I've studied in the South were wealthy enough to have slaves. In Louisiana, the question was states rights, not slavery. They felt that they had the right to secede from the union. I have found that to be the reason most of my relatives in Virginia, Mississippi, Georgia, and Louisiana fought in the war. Maybe I just had strange relatives, but I don't think so.
Abraham Lincoln, when the Union finally won a battle, decided to ennoble the cause by the Emancipation Proclamation. At that point, the war became a battle over slavery. I think some of your book is revisionist history. Now, books drum it into our heads that the Union fought to save slaves from their owners; this certainly ennobles the conflict. Certainly, there were people on both sides that were fighting over slavery, but the main reason on the South's side, according to my research was 'states rights.'
Just to be clear, I am not espousing the rightness of the South. I am saying that the South was enraged that the North was forcing them to remain in a Union that did not benefit them. I enjoy Hourly History books tremendously. I just felt that this one was a bit skewed. The information about the changes in transportation and the Industrial Revolution, as well as many other aspects of the Antebellum Period, were first class.
