What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Secession Was Stupid (My First Civil War Sesquicentennial Thought)

February 7, 2011, 9:55 AM
Peter2

Bob Duggan, BIG THINK's artistic blogger, worries that nobody is thinking about the sesquicentennial of the Civil War.  I agree that there's not enough political reflection about that war. 

Political reflection means, among other things, looking to statesmanship--or political leadership--as a cause of success and failure.  A neglected classic, Burton J. Hendrick's Statesmen of the Lost Cause (1939), shows us that there's a lot of truth to the proposition that the Confederacy's defeat was a failure of statesmanship.  The outstanding generals--mainly from Virginia--were victimized, so to speak, by the weak political leaders--mainly from the deep South or "cotton belt."

I'm sure historians have found much wrong with Hendrick's analysis, but I still find its basic approach compelling. It's certainly the approach that can most effectively achieve Bob's goal of demystifying the "lost cause" romanticism that animates the tradition of southern apologetics. It's also the approach that reminds us that what great men and women think and do is as important as impersonal causes--such as the economy and technology--in determining historical change.

The book is also of special interest to us in Georgia because it focuses so much on the perverse and borderline treasonous leaders from our state.  They had a lot to do with the Confederacy's demise.

Nobody fascinates and repulses Henrick more than Alexander Stephens of Georgia, the most brilliant of the South's political leaders. Stephens' speeches and actions during the war can rightly be charged with vain and neurotic perversity and something like treason. Henrick revels, maybe too much, in describing what we would now call Stephens' "body image" and "self-esteem" issues.

But, at the beginning, the statesman Stephens offered his state indispensable advice.  Don't secede!  The argument he made at the state's special convention (there's a taste of it in the quote below) almost carried the day.  The vote for secession was only 164 to 131.  Had Georgia stayed in the Union, it's very doubtful the Confederacy could have gotten off the ground. Stephens, the staesman, was a failure only because his eloquent and truthful argument was not quite persuasive enough.

For now, let's remember that February, 1861 is the sesquicentennial of the Montgmery convention assembled to frame the new government.  Stephens reluctantly consented to be one of Georgia's ten representatives to the convention, and he was selected the Confederacy's vice president.

In a letter to his brother Linton sent from the Montgomery convention, Stephens wrote that the argument for secession "arises more from a spirit of peevishness or restless fretfulness than from calm and deliberate judgment....With but few exceptions the South has controlled the government in its every important action from the beginning.  It has aided in making and susaining the administration for sixty years out of seventy-two of the government's existence.  Does this look like we were or are an abject minority at the mercy of a despotic northern majority, rapacious to rob and plunder us?"

There was, of course, no point in making such observations in public in Montgomery.  But Stephens was right:  Secession itself was the first of many of the South's failures of statesmanship.

I'll be returning to happiness next post, but from time to time I will be returning to key events of the war and their relation to thoughts and deeds of statesmen.  The next will be the Confederacy's first big mistake:  the firing on Fort Sumter.

It goes without saying that it would have been a disaster if the South had won the war.  But the point of view of statesmanship allows us to consider why the South might have won.

 

 

 

Secession Was Stupid (My F...

Newsletter: Share: