My new blog isn’t even a week old and I get to talk about the Civil War. This is paying off.
BEN SHAPIRO (HOST): Meanwhile the attempt to paint America’s history as irreversibly dark and immutably horrible continues apace at our nation’s great editorial newspapers. Jonathon Capehart, writing for The Washington Post has an entire piece called “Dismantling the Myth of America and the white men who founded it.” You see they were all evil and terrible and no good and very bad. And that means that America’s founding was very bad.
There was a national apology for slavery. It was called the Civil War where 700,000 Americans died. So that seems to have been kind of important in American history.
Ben Shapiro said, “There was a national apology for slavery. It was called the Civil War where 700,000 Americans died.”
The American Civil War was NOT an apology, jackass. Far from it. You don’t invade on the premise of human rights and start burning people’s farms down as an apology.
The war was fought over slavery. While it’s true that not all motives were pure and many of them were economic, like many of the 17th Century revolutions, the basic idea was whether black people could be treated as chattel. The cost and value of labor was on everyone’s mind. Much is made of the northern industrialists, but the south had grown to a vastly wealthy aristocracy. Even Lost Cause sympathizers admit that the “southern way of life” was a mere euphemism for what was, in reality, a caste system.
It is true that the Union fought to free the slaves, but it was no apology. Many of the eventual Freedmen folded a blue uniform before stowing it away with their memories. You can’t claim an apology on a collaboration.
Claiming that the Civil War was an apology is offensive. There also need not be an apology for slavery. Apologies, however sincere, can only do so much. While we spend far too much time judging the past through modern eyes, and there is an overemphasis on the evils of “white” men, Ben Shapiro is not helping. Just because he’s a lawyer and political scientist does not mean he’s read history.