7. To this day, some partisans insist that the Civil War was not about slavery per se but rather about the
issue of states’ rights. In this view, northern extremists, anti–slavery radicals, and even Lincoln
himself bore responsibility for putting the victimized South on the defensive and forcing them to
defend their beleaguered and constitutionally guaranteed “states’ rights.” To some of these groups,
the Civil War is more appropriately named the “War of Northern Aggression.”
Renowned Civil War historian James McPherson reflects the overwhelming consensus of
professional historians when he bluntly dismisses such ahistorical interpretations. In his 2007 book,
This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War, McPherson wrote, “Of all these interpretations, the
states’-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states’ rights for what
purpose? States’ rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to
achieve a certain goal more than a principle” (p. 7). Southern leaders, McPherson points out, saw
control of the national government as the ideal means to protect slavery, even if it meant trampling on
the rights of the northern states in the process and only when the South foresaw that such control was
slipping beyond its grasp did the “states’ rights” argument gain currency.
8. Have your students read a few short articles on slavery and/or secession published on the eve of the
Civil War. From the North, you might read The Brooklyn Daily Eagle or the Boston Evening Transcript.
From the South, you might consult the New Orleans Bee or the Atlanta Intelligencer. To find a more