Two sides to history, or more

Centralia, Missouri
May 29, 2016 9:27am CST
This weekend has me thinking about history and wars. See I grew up in the North. I was taught that the American civil war was over slavery. Granted this was year ago, so maybe I simply didn't get it all, or remember it all. Hubby grew up in the south. He was taught that while slavery was a focused on issue, the REAL reason had more to do with a federal government telling state governments what to do. They wanted to remain independent, and the government remain a loose amalgamation that did...well not really sure what, facilitated trade maybe. I now wonder if we really were taught different. To me, while I abhore slavery or even the thought of "owning someone", it makes more sense to me what hubby was taught. That's an issue bigger than one issue. Your thoughts? You see history being interpreted two ways depending on who did the interpreting?
15 people like this
15 responses
@Daljinder (19767)
• India
29 May 16
I do feel that one who interprets the history and writes it adds his or her own personal opinion into the mix. The writings reflect this. It's difficult to say what actually happened.
4 people like this
@thesids (22455)
• Bhubaneswar, India
29 May 16
I was definitely born sometime... decades back... No misinterpretations and it actually happened
4 people like this
@Dramista (548)
30 May 16
@thesids WOW you must me be really really old :P
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
@thesids hahaha, and I thought you were a nice hallucination!
@Susan2015 (18291)
• United States
29 May 16
I understood it to be about what you said about it.
4 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
slavery? or states rights one being slavery?
1 person likes this
@Susan2015 (18291)
• United States
30 May 16
@Jessicalynnt I thought I remembered it about slavery too. Part of that would be the states doing what they want and not what the government wanted.
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
@Susan2015 yeah it was local gov, ie state, vs federal. they wanted to be more like countries that had some trade agreements and stuff, instead of being part of a federation
• United States
29 May 16
@Jessicalynnt The interesting part of any War is that both sides have the same view but a different interpretation. The Civil War was about Slavery but not in the way people might think. The North fought to Free Slaves for economic reasons more than anything else. Labor costs were far cheaper in one area than in another. Freeing the Slaves would flood the market with workers and thus make labor cheaper. Keeping Slavery kept Labor Cheaper by creating a 'Labor Force of Property'. Consider this link to help put it into perspective:
Economy and the Civil War; Constrasting Economics of the North and South,Economics of secession, economics and the Union Victory
4 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
it is quite interesting, so many shades and nuances of the whys. We know when things happened, a charge here, a won battle here, but the whys, and the hows, those can be more vague
1 person likes this
• United States
29 May 16
It can be interpreted in many ways, but it only happened one way.
3 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
true, we do know WHAT happened, just not necc all the whys
• United States
30 May 16
@Jessicalynnt When I was in 7th grade I made the mistake of saying that the south won the war - I told the nun my father said so. Guess who got called in to school...his southern wit saying the south won - as a joke - stuck in my head so when we studied the war in school I argued with the nun....
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
@AbbyGreenhill hahahaahahahaha, that's too funny. not as big, but mom made dad stop calling spagetti pasketti when sister started calling it that at school.
1 person likes this
@thesids (22455)
• Bhubaneswar, India
29 May 16
For sure, history is all written and taught different. A very simple instance is - In India, we call the war of 1857 as the first war of Independence and as far as I know, the British against whose rule it was fought, they call it the Sepoy Mutiny. It is all same, but based on interpretations of the country, they change the names, perspectives and mean something completely different. I have never been a lover of History though there are things in it that interest me. More of this lack of interest has been due to the tweaks and misinterpretations... very similar to the religions stuff (for sure, in my opinion and perspective).
3 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
I love some history, I love more the shadings of a thing, and how people color in the shape of things.
• Eugene, Oregon
29 May 16
The cause of that war is still controversial. The south would like us to see it as a states' rights thing, but scholars on both sides still argue. Slavery was an abomination and would not have ended as soon as it did without the war. It is interesting that England outlawed slavery back in 1833.
3 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
I think some things get lost to time, and bad recordings. I mean, one book says one thing, the next says another. It paints a picture, but more like a Munch painting rather than a photograph. We can see the ideas of whats there, but not the fine details.
1 person likes this
@FourWalls (9458)
• United States
29 May 16
They say that history is written by the winners. Another idiom about history is that truth rarely matters. The best way to tell you the truth about what the Civil War (known in the North as "the war of disagreement") is to look at Kentucky. Kentucky was a Union state. Kentucky was also a slave state. (You can visit My Old Kentucky Home State Park and see the slave quarters that were there when Stephen Foster visited and wrote "My Old Kentucky Home" [with its original line referring to the slaves, "'Tis summer, the d*rkies are gay"].). No, it wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights. Another interesting thing about Kentucky Abraham Lincoln, president of the US during the Civil war, was born in Kentucky. Jefferson Davis, the only president of the Confederacy, was born in Kentucky.
3 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
I think Missouri was also one of those on the border things. I have read in some places Lincoln USED the issue of slavery to get states onboard with a war they might not have otherwise, or perhaps to fight one they might not have otherwise, to force the issue.
@Wordly1 (485)
• Kingston, New Hampshire
29 May 16
The same 'power-brokers' as we have today didn't want to lose their cheap labor. Isn't History repeating itself today with job outsourcing and big demand for 'illegal' workers? If they had their way, they would bring slavery back in a heartbeat. However, also, the States had to establish their individual sovereignty. The Federal Government should be the arbiter and not the master of the Union of States. Look at what this Administration is trying to do now with 'Bathroom Rights' and Freedom of Speech.
2 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
Id almost be more scared they'd allow indentured servants again
@Inlemay (17323)
• South Africa
29 May 16
Always two sides - nothing in life is one sided
2 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
and in many cases, more like a D20
1 person likes this
@Dramista (548)
29 May 16
Yep, There is a saying, "History is written by the victors". Since the north won, they can badmouth the south all they want. Wars are usually more complicated, there is the noble reason and the economical or political reason. An example would be the war on terror of America. The noble cause is to stop terrorists and promote democracy but the economical and political reason would be to gain oil and have control of the middle east. Another would be world war 2, it wasn't simply about the allies vs the evil Nazis. It was also a battle for industrialization and progress. Hope it helps :)
2 people like this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
I didnt see it as bad mouthing, at least not what I was taught, but more so it was a oversimplified view of what was much more rich and complex. But I do get what you mean!
@miniam (9304)
• Bern, Switzerland
30 May 16
history can always be interpreted in many different ways depending on who you talk to.
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
and some of it, even if you were there when it happened, your own bias would change how you see it!
1 person likes this
@miniam (9304)
• Bern, Switzerland
30 May 16
@Jessicalynnt as time goes,the brain thnk of details just a little bit different
1 person likes this
@JudyEv (96507)
• Bunbury, Australia
30 May 16
Our governments and the indigenous people give very different views on our early history too.
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
I bet so too. I am sure the indians have some strong things to say about, say, the Trail of tears, etc
1 person likes this
@Tampa_girl7 (21241)
• United States
30 May 16
I believe that slavery was a big part of that war, but there are always other issues.
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
now i wonder more about the other issues
1 person likes this
@jstory07 (56903)
• Roseburg, Oregon
29 May 16
I think it was over slavery plus other issues.
1 person likes this
• Centralia, Missouri
30 May 16
I honestly think it was about states rights, but slavery and other issues made up the issues in regards to states rights
@alberello75 (12944)
• Genova, Italy
30 May 16
In Italian we would say "Ognuno tira l'acqua al suo mulino", translated: "Everyone pulls water to his mill". The truth? Well sometimes it hurts, but it is than that concretely is valuable!