Blog #118 – Two different takes on the causes of the Civil War
There has been a lot of time and money and energy spent talking about the causes of the Civil War ever since the guns stopped firing in April 1865. And judging by the historiography, American historians have viewed the causes in a different light depending upon the time period in which they lived in. One of the main reasons why there has been such interest in this topic is because the war set Americans vs. Americans and was, in one way, a fight over the future of the country. Were we going to remain an agriculture-based economy (think Jefferson) or were we going to keep up with the times and become more industrial? Another issue at stake was the status of African Americans in this country – would they stay or be sent back to Africa? Would slavery and second-class citizenship be their continued status or would they share in the bounty of American freedom?
Historians writing about the conflict soon after the war tended to be Northerners who blamed an aggressive slave conspiracy that wanted to spread the institution all across America. Southern historians saw the conflict as a moral one in which the North instituted an unconstitutional strategy of making the South economically subservient to the North. A third group tended to blame the politicians of the antebellum era who could not reach compromises like had been done in the past. President James Buchanan and Senator Stephen Douglas are their usual targets.
By the 1890s, a Nationalist school of history arose, sparked by America’s emergence as a world power economically and politically. One particular historian, James Ford Rhodes, wrote that slavery was the primary cause, where the South fought the war to extend slavery and that the war was an “irrepressible conlfict”. However, he didn’t see Southern slave owners as hideous monsters and in some ways blamed the cotton gin for making slavery become more entrenched in the South. Slavery, in essence, became a burden that 1860 slaveowners had inherited and some thing that they couldn’t completely control. Nationalist historians tended to focus also more on the outcomes of the war – American industry exploded after the war, a more powerful federal government emerged, and we became an imperialist nation starting in 1893.
The next group of historians, writing in the 1920s and 30s, was called the Progressive School and was influenced by the ill social effects of run-amuck industrialism and uneven distribution of wealth in the country. Charles and Mary Beard were two of the most influential of this school, and they saw the war as a “social cataclysm” in which “the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy in the South.” This school tended to focus more on the economic causes of the war instead of slavery, which fit well with some very racist historians writing at the time who portrayed the South as a land of chivalrous planters with their pathetically helpless and loyal slaves – by contrast the North were nasty, profit-driven capitalists trying to destroy the honor and tradition of the South.
Revisionist historians, writing in the 1930s and 40s, saw the war as an insufferable evil, regardless of causes. The political leaders were to blame for not taking advantage of alternatives that could have saved the nation. They thought that the war could have been avoided, and that the politicians had deliberately set apart the North and South during 1840 – 1860 as people who were both trying to preserve their culture and way of life. James G. Randall called these politicians the “blundering generation”.
Starting in the 1960s, newer historians started reevaluating all of these previous approaches and started to synthesize them together and not focusing on just one cause. Prominent historians like Michael Holt, Eric Foner (the author of a competing APUSH textbook), James McPherson, Manisha Sinha all mashed these causes together and reformulated the causes of the war together. Some focused on an ideological conflict – whether slavery or economics – that primarily caused the war. During this time, we also see more women and African American historians with their own takes on the war as the academic world becomes more diversified.
So, when you think about what primarily caused the Civil War, there is a lot to choose from. Slavery? Economics? States’ rights? Clash of cultures? Terrible politicians? Westward expansion?
I think this Venn diagram kinda shows how that maybe all of them interlock together. However, that’s not our job today. What I am asking you to do today is to compare two videos. One takes the strong stance that slavery was the main cause, while the other dissects that argument.
The following short film discusses unequivocally that slavery was the main / primary cause of the war. It is presented by the lead history teacher at the West Point Academy, Colonel Ty Seidule, and is produced by Prager U.
This video, produced by social studies teacher, Tom Richey, who is from South Carolina. His film is a direct rebuttal of the Prager U film.
After watching both videos, answer the following questions:
- Who do you think has the better argument about the Civil War? Why? Provide examples from the films.
- Do you think either man has something motivating them to take their position? If so, what? How do you think this motivation shaped their opinions?
I believe Tom Richey from South Carolina provided the better argument compared to Colonel Ty Seidule simply because of the formatting of their respective videos. Seidule’s video had to rely on bold graphics and statistics to get his point across, and he briefly acknowledged any counter-arguments he may receive, but shut them down instant with a single piece of evidence. It also seemed that his total amount of evidence was rather minimal, so he felt the need to speak slower in order to have enough material for a five-minute video. Richey, on the other hand, acknowledges Seidule’s argument directly, and provides evidence and reasoning for his argument as he analyses the video. He even goes as far as to point out any of the sneaky methods that have been used in an attempt to make the Colonel’s argument more appealing. An example of this would be leaving some of the southern states’ votes on secession out of the video as the numbers were a lot closer than he wanted. Richey’s speech is quick and energetic, as he has a lot of evidence and material to go through, and this allows him to extend his video to nearly half an hour!
The motivation for Tom Richey’s argument seems to be quite simple. It appears that he wants to encourage his students and viewers to think deeper on the cause of the civil war rather than just believe all that is shown in a short educational video. He wants to show his students the importance of analyzing information given to them to check its legitimacy. Colonel Ty Seidule, on the other hand, seems to have a motivation that is entirely different. The intensity of his push for people to believe that the civil war was just caused by slavery has my conspiracy spider senses tingling. Why is he so determined to prove his point? Why would he go as far as to leave out certain bits of key evidence to make his claim seem like the correct assumption? I have a strong feeling that West Point Academy, the school where Seidule teaches, is trying to push for its students to have the same mentality when it comes to exploring controversial topics. It wants the students to pick one side and one side only, and they should only look at the facts rather than reasoning. It also appears that the mentality of the academy includes the idea that there is a definite ‘right’ side and a definite ‘wrong’ side. I am not entirely sure why this would be the case, but Seidule’s video gave me a feeling deep down that something strange is afoot at that academy.
I believe that Tom Richey’s argument was better than the University’s. I think he made a lot of good points even if I didn’t enjoy the way he presented them. Richey went more in-depth in his claims and evidence, which in the end gave him a better argument. The PragerU video was much more simplified and more like a summary rather than an argument. Richey was also able to refute the first video’s arguments, which made his argument much more convincing. When Richey prooved that Seidule’s evidence about Arkansas was false. I think Richey’s claim that the war was more complex than what met the eye, such as his statement about Lincoln’s speech House-Divided and in office, was better backed up with evidence, and ultimately more convincing.
I think both men’s past influenced their viewpoint. Seidule was a soldier and now teaches at West Point. He has the uniform from the army that defeated the Confederacy, which gives a very strong bias on this topic. He defends the union and blames the Confederacy, which shaped his argument and his main claims. Richey was raised in South Carolina, which was the first state to secede from the union. Richey’s upbringing was most likely surrounded by talks against the union rather than for it. His from-childhood beliefs would have stuck with him for this whole time. He defends his point with this bias, making him counter some of Seidule’s points.
the videos have different goals. one is to show that the civil war was a straightforward single main cause, while the other one debunks this and is a very complex string of events that all triggered little things that led to the civil war. I personally believe that the second video was much better. He argued the the civil war wasn’t something that could be explained in five minutes is was a very complex series of events with many different causes. I liked how he compared his own ideas with the pragerU video to give further depth to the video and more insight on the civil war. The best part about the prager U video was that it addressed many different causes and ideas of the civil war. They talked about states rights and the economy but all ended up tying it back to slavery and civil rights. The teacher reviewed and corrected some false claims that the other video made. He added more facts and detail to the video and pointed out false claims that he did not agree with. He analyzed the video and explained how slavery might have been a major cause, but it was not the only thing that started the war, he said it had also to do with political tensions and social respectability and class.
Yes, i think as a university and more 21st century establishment they blame slavery more to highlight the cruel terrible inequality they face. I also think the because the pragerU video teacher was a military general he focused a bit more on the clashes and tensions between the north and south. I think that the teacher is a much more open and reliable resource only because he didn’t worry about having to make his video five minutes. he took his time and analyzed everything with a completely unscripted and open minded attitude that led to deeper detail in the video. The prager university video might have been a shorter video with less detail that ended up pin pointing it on slavery mainly for simplicity, i think the fact that the teachers video wasn’t manufactured makes it more realistic and gives more real information and what i mean by that is is that he doesn’t over simplify things for the sake of the video. Overall i think that the teachers video was better although i did like the speed that the university video went because it made it quick and easy to learn a lot about the civil war.
I believe that Tom Richey’s argument was better than the University’s. I think he made a lot of good points even if I didn’t enjoy the way he presented them. Richey went more in-depth in his claims and evidence, which in the end gave him a better argument. The PragerU video was much more simplified and more like a summary rather than an argument. They would briefly mention something, give a source and move on. For some of the video, I understood what his point was, but the information went by so fast it was difficult to get a really good insight into his ideas. Richey, on the other hand, explained all of his ideas really well and gave really good evidence to support them. I felt very convinced after Richey’s video, and I also felt like I understood his point. Richey was also able to refute the first video’s arguments, which made his argument much more convincing. When Richey prooved that Seidule’s evidence about Arkansas was false. I think Richey’s claim that the war was more complex than what met the eye, such as his statement about Lincoln’s speech House-Divided and in office, was better backed up with evidence, and ultimately more convincing. However, from what I gathered from the first video, I think I agree with Seidule more than I do Richey. Richey’s video, although it was very informational, had a lot of rude comments toward Seidule, and even about slavery itself. It made sense with his background, but there was a bit more bias than I would have liked.
I think both men’s past influenced their viewpoint. Seidule was a soldier and now teaches at West Point. He has the uniform from the army that defeated the Confederacy, which gives a very strong bias on this topic. He defends the union and blames the Confederacy, which shaped his argument and his main claims. Richey was raised in South Carolina, which was the first state to secede from the union. Richey’s upbringing was most likely surrounded by talks against the union rather than for it. His from-childhood beliefs would have stuck with him for this whole time. He defends his point with this bias, making him counter some of Seidule’s points. Both men’s motivation created the differences between the video, and the overall complexity of both claims, which shows us why “the cause of the civil war” was such a confusing topic.
I think that Tom Richey’s argument is better than the University’s. I believe many good points were in both videos even if it was not presented in a way I really enjoyed. Richey went more into detail with his evidence and claims, which, in the end, gave him a better argument. The PragerU video was more simplified and more of a summary than an argument. Richey was able to counter the first video’s argument which in the end made his argument stronger and more convincing. When Rickey proved that Seiduel’s evidence about Arkansas was false I believe it makes Rickey’s claim more complex by saying this. I think Richey’s claim that the war was more complex than what is shown at first was better backed up with evidence, and ultimately the better argument. The videos have different goals. One is to show that the war had only one cause while the other video was more supported and better versed.
Richey was raised in South Carolina, which was the first state to secede from the union. Richey’s upbringing was most likely surrounded by talks against the union rather than for it. His from-childhood beliefs would have stuck with him for this whole time. He defends his point with this bias, making him counter some of Seidule’s points. While Seidule was a soldier and now teaches at West Point. He has the uniform from the army that defeated the Confederacy, which gives a very strong bias on this topic. He defends the union and blames the Confederacy, which shaped his argument and his main claims. I believe as a university and more 21st-century establishment they blame slavery more to highlight the cruel terrible inequality they face. I think the teacher is more open and a reliable resource because he takes his time to go into detail. This is essential so that we can know all the facts and instead of trying to fit all the information in a five-minute video, going more in depth will help people understand your argument more.
After seeing both of these videos I am definitely inclined to say Tom Richey’s video was more believable and much more well informed. Tom was able to talk about the topic and supply plenty of historical evidence as well as bringing up idea’s that could support the reasoning for either side. In the Prager U. video, historical evidence was used out of context and situations were grossly misinterpreted. For example in the Prager U. video, they quoted an extremist newspaper from the south called The Charleston Mercury that was known for being controversial even to some proslavery supporters. The fact that it was put into the video as a generalization on the south’s views was very misleading to the people who viewed this video. Richey also points out the video’s use of flashy effects and graphics to convince the viewers that the video is reliable. I think that the number of different views and pieces of evidence that Tom Richey’s provides makes the video very believable and reliable.
While I did find the second video more reliable, I can see the reasons both men had to argue the cause of the civil war. The Prager U. video was attempting to show how good the U.S military is and how the civil war was good against evil, it also attempted to oversimplify the civil war and make it seem like there is one and only one answer to the question “What was the cause of the civil war?” On the other hand, Tom Richey was almost too defensive of the Confederacy at some points, this is because of his heritage. You can tell just from listening to the video you can tell he is from the south and feels somewhat passionate about protecting some aspects of the civil war. He makes sure that he gives evidence from either side which is important but he also spends most of the review bashing the Prager U. video. He could have spent more time explaining why the Prager U. video was valid and he could have brought up a more equal amount of points and evidence for either side. I do think that the Prager U. video was being somewhat vindictive by showing very selective evidence.
1) In a direct comparison of the two videos and their points of view, I would have to say that I agree most with the point of view of Tom Richey, the one who had criticized the video made by Prager U. I agree most on the fact that slavery was definitely not the only cause of the Civil War. There were so many moving parts at the time moving up to the war that it was only a matter of time before something drastic happened. I also think that he made some really good points in the criticism, such as when he criticized the the Prager U video on its depiction of the North as being primarily agricultural and growing corn. Richey pointed out how it misrepresented the North by ignoring the fact that factories were still present and that the issue of working conditions for factory girls was actually a really prominent issue of the time. I also liked when he said that the video overlooked the fact that the North wasn’t completely acceptable of blacks, mentions the fact that they were banned from Lincoln’s home state of Illinois and free blacks couldn’t vote. But even though I agree with the majority of his argument, I felt that he was a little over critical of the video and even seemed a little spiteful of it. He would constantly criticize aspects that just weren’t at all relevant and softened the points that actually mattered, to a point where it was hard to take him seriously, such as the way the animations looked and the appearance of the presenter himself.
2) I believe that both of these individuals have a drive behind their opinions on the causes of the Civil War. The person from the Prager U video is driven by what I consider to be some kind of personal duty of needing to inform his audience because he is a veteran and understands on a first hand level the struggles these soldiers had to face in order to win the war against the confederates. He also gives off a tone of american exceptionalism, seeing that he sees America as “his country” and that it may even be the greatest country in the world. With the criticism of the Prager U video by Tom Richey, Richy seems to be driven by a sort of anger and disgust by the information that he is presented with, and with these strong emotions, the audience can tell that he is very passionate about history and that he doesn’t want the oversimplification of the Civil War the misinform the public.
After watching both videos I think that Tom Richey provided better argument than Colonel Ty Seidule. Richey had better argument for the reasons that he told the whole truth and said all the facts while Seidule used only facts that supported his truth and for some points that he made, he didn’t back up at all. Seidule also did not address counter arguments by saying things like “not true” to a counter argument that said the cause of the war was economic. Richey on the other hand accepts that some points that Seidule made were valid, however Richey did knock down a lot of Seidule’s points with valid evidence. Richey did have one advantage over Seidule though, which was that he was able to make counter arguments against Seidule so that was unfair, but overall Richey had better arguments that he supported better than Seidule.
I think that Seidule had an agenda of showing just how good that the North was in the civil war for several reasons. One reason is that he is trying to convey to you that there is only one answer to why the civil war started, that slavery was the cause of the civil war and that it is not more complex than that. I also feel that he is trying to portray that the northern army that wore the same uniform as him was cause against evil and that because he wears that same blue color he is also a good person, for him to admit that the north wasn’t only fighting to end slavery and that it had other agendas, he would no longer be able to say the things he said about his uniform, like “As a soldier, I am proud that the United States army, my army, defeated the Confederates.” Although Tom Richey’s agenda could have been that he wanted to get people to look for further reasons that the civil war started, I believe that he made his video to strike down Prager U’s video’s credibility. One reason that he could have done this is because as he said in the video, he was born in the south and that could have affected his opinion on the civil war as he would personal beliefs on why his ancestors went to war against the north, and these beliefs could make him not want to look at his ancestors as bad people, and that they weren’t fighting for a institution that oppressed/enslaved people.
1. I believe Colonel Seidule had the best argument as it was the most structured and stated backed up facts, while Richy’s argument was very fractured and he did not cite his sources. I also liked the way the colonel presented the facts, he used visuals, stated the sources beneath the facts and had a well structured argument. In Seidule’s video he states the other causes of the war but emphasizes slavery was the biggest one, he then debunks or shows that the other reasons are linked to slavery. He presents the factor of states rights but then reveals that “right” the south was fighting for was the “right to operate a slave system”. The colonel than address the economic factor, but then deducted that if it wasn’t for slavery the economic factor wouldn’t have been anywhere near as important or perhaps wouldn’t have existed at all. When it came to the economic factor he pointed out the north had to pay their workers while the south could just use slaves, this was in the long run less expensive(and morally wrong), and again showing the roots of the economic factor went back to slavery. When addressing the common question,”If only a small percentage of southerners owned slaves, then there had to be a better reason for the rest of them to go to war”, he explained the social ladder and how if slavery was abolished, poor whites would be held equal to, if not below, blacks, something the white southerners would die to keep from happening.
I believe both men had obvious reasons for supporting the arguments that they did. The colonel is employed at west point, a northern military academy, as a member of the us army it is very likely he doesn’t like the confederacy(which is understandable) and as a northerner his perspective is only form a northerners point of view. The channel that made the video, Parger U, is notorious for over simplifying topics, manipulating/misinterpreting evidence and having a strong right-wing bias. The potential bias for Richy’s video is quite obvious, you can tell by his accent he hails from a southern state. We also learn later on that his family fought for the confederacy and he was raised in South Carolina. The environment he was raised in was very likely pro-confederacy and childhood views are nearly impossible to get rid of. He also may be in dinel, he may not want to accept the fact that his fellow South Carolinians were willing to fight and die to uphold the system of slavery.