Unlike the revisionists of antique, Goldfield sees slavery because the bedrock of the Southern motive and abolition because the warfare‘s exceptional achievement. but he argues that white supremacy turned into so entrenched, North and South, that struggle and Reconstruction should in no way supply authentic racial justice to freed slaves, who soon became difficulty to financial peonage, Black Codes, Jim Crow, and rampant lynching.
march.png Nor did the battle knit the nation again collectively. as a substitute, the South became a stagnant backwater, a envious region that lagged and resisted the country‘s development. it might take a century and the Civil Rights battle for blacks to achieve felony equality, and for the South to emerge from poverty and isolation. “Emancipation and reunion, the two remarkable results of this struggle, had been badly compromised,” Goldfield says. Given those equivocal profits, and the gigantic toll in blood and treasure, he asks: “was the battle really worth it? No.”
Few contemporary students go as a long way as Goldfield, but others are tough key tenets of the modern-day orthodoxy. Gary Gallagher, a leading Civil war historian on the university of Virginia, argues that the long-reigning emphasis on slavery and liberation distorts our expertise of the war and of ways individuals ideainside the 1860s. “there may be an Appomattox syndrome–we take a look at Northern victory and emancipation and read the proof backward,” Gallagher says.