Perspectives on History: The War of Northern Aggression vs. The American Revolutionary War

The American Civil War and the Revolutionary War were similar conflicts with similar causes, but with drastically different outcomes and interpretations; the Revolutionary War patriots are oft viewed as the pinnacle of freedom, justice, liberty and the American way, while the Civil War rebels are scorned as the scum of the earth and a threat to the aforementioned freedom, etc. These conflicting viewpoints arise from one simple fact: the Revolutionary Americans won and the Confederacy lost.

As far as causes go, the two wars are remarkably similar. The primary cause of each was a reaction of one party against perceived unjust legislation by the other (excessive taxation of the Colonies by the British for the Revolution, antislavery laws proposed by Congress for the Civil War). Moral issues aside, the Revolutionaries and Confederates were fighting for the same principle, that being freedom from oppression. I would ask any who jump to defend the incorruptibility of the colonists to read accounts of the treatment of Native Americans prior to and during the Revolutionary War.

The word "secede" is never used to describe what the Colonies did prior to the outbreak of war; it's always "they declared independence from Britain." However, saying that the Colonies seceded from the British Empire is just as correct. Similarly, it is also correct to say that the Confederacy "declared independence" from the Union. Yet it's rarely, if ever, said that way in the history books. In fact, parallels between the two wars appear so infrequently that they seem to be avoided, considering the similarity of the two conflicts.

In each case, the injured party was the clear underdog at the outset; the Colonies were nothing compared to the might of the British Empire, and the CSA were inferior in population, infrastructure, budget, and supplies to name a few, to the Union. Both wars hinged upon foreign aid; had the Colonies not been aided by France, and had Great Britain not been engaged militarily with three other countries (The Netherlands, France, and Spain), they would have been mercilessly crushed and reabsorbed by the British. A key reason of Confederate defeat was the lack of foreign aid, which both France and Britain were willing to provide. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1862) turned the European powers off by making the cause of the war slavery. However, the Proclamation neglected to free any slaves in the slave-holding Union-controlled border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware.; in effect, the Emancipation Proclamation only declared free the slaves over which it had no authority to do so (i.e., those slaves still in states under Confederate control). I'll leave the ethical judgment of Lincoln's action for another time.

Sadly, I haven't read accounts of either war by non-American sources. Thus I have no means of comparison to verify my hypothesis, but analysis of the evidence at hand seems to indicate that the American view of these particular events is incredibly biased.

Hopefully this doesn't come as a complete surprise.

I would even venture that there is no possible objective history; history by definition must involve interpretation and analysis. Thus, when dealing with history one must always consider the source; if bias is unavoidable, the best we can do is acknowledge it's presence.

Just something to think about.