explain why the north won the civil war. the leadership on both sides presidential and military. they discuss why reconstruction is not as well remembered or studied. it is about an hour. >> for the record, we should make clear who is who. how many of you have been to multiple of these events? great to see so many people coming back. if you like to continue studying the civil war, the kansas city area has two or three more roundtables. the kansas city roundtable meets in kansas and they have monthly event so if you like to continue studying, they bring and scholars and historians from all

over, including in a couple of weeks, this guy right here. he'll be giving a presentation on the grand review. mr. beckenbaugh: yes. mr. rafuse: i figured we were wrapup tonight. you are used to us giving these presentations and having questions afterwards. we figured we would have it more director by you. any questions you may have at the end. the question of why the north one, why it matters, we will address in the course of the discussion. i like to start by taking out an envelope since the powerpoint did not arrive. reading from the back of an envelope is legendary in the civil war, so. [laughter] mr. rafuse: we will start out where i left off a month ago which is the question of why the

confederacy failed, which can be reversed to why the north one, which is what we're discussing. we start out with robert e. lee's statement the day after the surrender saying the army had been compelled by overwhelming resources and numbers. that the north had more stuff. they were not morally superior not militarily superior, they just had more stuff. other ones -- the argument that southern leaders could not cooperate with each other effectively because everybody had to be the big man and consequently that hurt the seven were effort.

conversely, the north must have worked well together. this is what i converse with lincoln. lincoln, the modest, who could always check his own ego on behalf of the cause. the thesis that jefferson davis lost the war because after he deployed his force is in a unique formation in the mexican work on the that he knew everything there was to know about war and would not listen to anybody. therefore, the confederacy died because of jefferson davis. a lot of this revolves around abraham lincoln. robert e lee -- god chose the side that won. historians argued it was events of contingency. he argued there are moments of contingency in the civil war where the south could have one but the north managed to pull it

out and prevent seven victory. one is stereo and argue the south lost because of robert e. lee. he was much more aggressive when the south should have been more defensive. another argument -- james long longstreet killed the confederacy with his conduct at gettysburg. of course, much of the controversy around that revolves around gettysburg. one of the famous participants after hearing a discussion of what the south could have done differently, what the south did wrong, what seven or made the mistake, george pickett replied "i always thought the thank you

had something to do with it." -- "i always thought the yankees had something to do with it." [laughter] mr. rafuse: there are various arguments that have been advanced for why the north won the civil war. the question of why it matters -- mr. beckenbaugh: you see it in the news every day. we're still influenced by the civil war every day. most historians argue the single most important event in our country's history was not the civil war but the revolutionary war. the revolutionary war is important because the declaration of independence lays out the ideological framework which we will live on. "all men are created equal." that sort of stuff. our history has been one of trying to live up to those ideals and not always quite

making it. the effort does matter and we are usually willing to look at ourselves rather critically, what a lot of other countries don't always do. when you -- we commemorate the civil war but i have to guess there will not be a lot of reconstruction memories -- commemorations. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: while the civil war is one of the most studied

events in our history, reconstruction is one of the least. just talking to crosby before we started, the share by them of books that come out of the past four years is mind-boggling. tron to keep up with that scholarship has taken a lot of our time. -- the reconstruction scholarship i guess not been massive boom in reconstruction books coming out. reconstruction is almost important as the war. what happened was in a nutshell, the white south essentially accepted the verdict of slavery being gone but would not accept the verdict of african equality. essentially, that is what formed a backdrop for the next hundred or so years. quite frankly, the white south -- even to use that term is not necessarily even the most accurate term. if northerners were so have to during the war for african-american quality, why wasn't he civil rights bill passed until might in 64? that is one of the things that is lost in the study because everybody likes the feel good -- we cannot together and hugged. they kind of did but they told the african-americans know, that

is ok. we don't need your help. that is one of the things we see . we're still dealing with the racial fissures of that. i don't want to get into specific political sides but just look at the news. he stuff happening in ferguson cleveland. at his still is a direct -- that still is a direct outcome of not so much what happened during the civil war but after. nobody has approached us about any kind of reconstruction series. don't feel that. i'm not trying to fish for something here. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: i have not heard anybody doing that quite frankly. it is one of those chapters in american history that is not a feel-good chapter. you talk about lynching, intimidation, groups like the klan, terrorist groups. out of the kind of stuff you can

be talking about and that doesn't fit in the american scheme very well in that is one of the reasons why the civil war in some respects -- unfinished revolution is a good way to phrase it. this is the thing that sometimes does get forgotten. slavery was gotten rid of and that is not a minor thing. if you wonder how deep slavery was in american society, it turned the south -- the south is still a fundamentally different region then the rest of the country. the primary reason is because of the civil war. realistically, no other region of a country has suffered the kind of physical devastation the south suffered. no part of the country has. it took most of the south -- and by the south, i mean the former confederate states. it most of the south until world war ii to economically recover from the civil war. think about that.

it took a much longer time for the south to recover from that physical devastation. there is a long series of that. that kind of physical devastation does not just disappear overnight. not to mention the emotional scars. i think you still see some of that. we still see that with the debates over the confederate flag issue. and a lot of other debates. if you really are a masochist, put something on facebook either pro-confederate or anti-confederate and just sit back. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: you will be amazed at the backlash you get. if you think it does not matter why it is relevant, i would say -- here is an article. stick it on facebook and let me see what your reaction is. i had two of my officers take me

up on that and they said i will never do that again. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: with that, i will open it up. mr. rafuse: enjoy the war. germans are famously said to have told each other near the ending days of world war ii. "emjoynjoy the war because the piece will be terrible." the war offers whether you disagree with a particular cause , men's sacrificing their livelihoods on behalf of some cause greater than themselves. the northerners or southerners. reconstruction -- a lot of scoundrels. it was a time of the tammany hall ringed, the tweed ring come in corruption throughout the country. the time of the transcontinental railroad. great a compliment but a lot of corruption with that. reconstruction does not have the kind of heroic -- nobody died at the angle on reconstruction. turn it over to you. to the microphone.

>> thank you and this is a wonderful series. the generalship of ulysses grant seems to always get mischaracterized in -- and the latest blurb i heard was that before the civil war, he was a drunken failure and what can we you do to set the record on that right? his presidency in relation to the reconstruction. mr. beckenbaugh: in terms of the drunken failure, i think that is overdone. grant was certainly not a success in his prewar life will start when the war broke out, he was working at his dad's -- what was the shop? mr. rafuse: tannery.

mr. beckenbaugh: the guy was essentially living at home again with his wife. he is a boomerang kid. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: there's actually been a significant revision of his presidency in the past 20 or so years. grant was very much in favor and stood up for african-american civil rights. he was -- his -- there were plenty of scandals. they were scandals he seemed that she did not make money off of it himself but he was also kind of gullible in the frenzy chose. -- friends he chose. these to be right among the worst presidents we had ever had. he is still not ranked great but he is moving up to lower mediocre.

[laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: it is a hardly endorse up lower mediocre is still better than one of the worst ever. james buchanan is still considered the worst non-scandal ridden president in our history. mr. rafuse: andrew johnson. mr. beckenbaugh: they are no ends next -- net and net -- neck and neck for the bottom. mr. rafuse: the grant drunk butcher thing -- grant would have been very unique if he did not drink. he was about five foot 8, 135 pounds. a couple sips and he is not doing too well. [laughter] mr. rafuse: it is still very very -- what happened to lead in

to leave the army for the civil war. yet problems with his superiors. there were clear rumors of them having a problem with alcohol before. of course, he rose from nowhere to become the general in chief and when you do that along the way, other guys are going to -- you will arouse jealousy and for people who had issues with grant -- the old rigging accusations were useful -- drinking accusations were useful in raising questions about grant. the question among civil war stories that he was the best

general of the civil war. after the war, southerners made a dedicated effort to try to write the history of the war. they had their thesis. they were defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources. they were not more lisa. to us. they were superior to us militarily so the only way to do this was superior numbers. the number one target in that will be grant to ground down the army during the last year of the war and the idea that grant 13 clumsy strategy. grant showed great skill. the lost cause effort to lionize lee, validate his thesis about superiority of the confederate cause morally, and the fact that his presidency was scarred by these scandals made it very convenient to create this picture of grant. his memoirs are an effort to counter this. one grant mccann general in chief of the army, he became the president of the gilded age. a time were very few americans think of a time as honesty and integrity.

his presidency has undergone some reevaluation. his generalship has undergone reevaluation for 150 years, ever since southerners try to bring down grants reputations. very few civil war historians by the idea of him as a drunk and a butcher anymore. it still prevails in the popular image which is mind-boggling to me. it is frustrating because every grant book has the need to reflect him as a butcher and a drunk. your 20 bucks starting that way. -- books. there is still the idea that he was only a drunk and a butcher. it is a public and did story. over here. >> what impact do you think

diplomatic recognition by great britain are one of the great european powers would have had on the outcome of the civil war? mr. beckenbaugh: that is an excellent question. the question of why the confederacy did not get help from the outside like other revolutionaries. one was more than diplomatic skill. charles francis adams, the north had some pretty good diplomats working on the problem. the issue of slavery helped but probably the most important factor why written did not get involved and everybody watched britain and would take their cues from them was because -- i was involved in a roundtable and i asked the audience what are two words that ruin any cops''s

evening? domestic disturbance. no one else once to get involved with someone else's domestic disturbance. that is the problem britain would have faced. as winston churchill says, those who enter others quarrels in her nerposed often end up with a bloody nose. the closest he stopped intervening was in the aftermath and with happen was their secretary of war laid out this is what we will have to do because the north will not go along with it voluntarily. these are the resources we need to force the north to come to the table. we don't have those resources. britain backs out and figured they will wait.

mr. beckenbaugh: france is not going to do anything unless britain gets involved. napoleon the third was interested in getting involved but the problem for the rich and french is specially that the federal navy is growing with frightening quickness. if the british and french are going to help, they have to bring forces across the went at. thereafter bring forces and land them and supply them and the confederacy will not be able to supply them. if you're going to do that, it requires a big navy and frankly, the federal government is just beginning to realize the industrial potential the u.s. has. even lee says. the federal government is forced to step up its shipbuilding program ended could have done it. the british have to really ask

themselves -- there are couple instances where they think about this. do a really want to be seen as defenders of slavery? that is really a big part. once lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation and turns it to a were to get rid of slavery, the british will be seen in the world of public opinion. lincoln was very good at information operations or public relations. it would have been very problematic. the confederacy hurt itself in the couple years of the war when they cut off cotton to the rest of the world. the confederacy did that, not britain and france. the federal blockade was nowhere near effective at that point. by trying to create this

artificial shortage, what they did was forced britain and france to find cotton from elsewhere, which they did. india and south america and egypt. mr. beckenbaugh: about half a decade earlier, the british and french had enough trouble. they had memories of that country emphasized and the limits of what they could accomplish and forced the north to push up. mr. beckenbaugh: russia had a weakly developed economic infrastructure in terms of trains. that's a month in issue for the federal government in the south. -- will not be in issue. >> you hear many reasons why the war was bought from both sides. we one you hear from lincoln most often is to save the union, to not let it dissolve. how universal was that from the north and the north's attitude and feeling about our we there just because we want to save the union? mr. beckenbaugh: liggon said the purpose of the union war effort

was to prevent popular government was not absurd. mr. rafuse: in the winter of 1861, there was a compromise put together to try to do what it had done in 1820 what was try to find some compromises. it stuck on the issue of letting slavery expand into the territory. lincoln's perspective on this -- there were some republicans willing to compromise. lincoln's stance on this was we just carried it into the election on its both carried by the american people. just because a minority loses an election, what is the point of having a election? the people knew what they were getting and they voted for us and therefore, if we don't doug do this, it makes the whole idea of democracy absurd. the idea was to prove democracy could work.

and to improve a democracy will not break up the second -- mr. beckenbaugh: for the north there was a sense every time southerners approached southern democrats, weaponize want along and accepted that as the rules of the game. mr. rafuse: now, the south will not except the rules of the game. consequently if the rules of the game -- if someone can pick and choose when they will follow the rules, there's no point in having the rules. if people can pick and choose, there's no point in having an election. that is the higher moral principle. liberation was the slaves was a means towards that end. >> i was wondering about the common person in the north. whether willing to let their sons go to war in order to save the union? mr. beckenbaugh: mr. rafuse:mr. beckenbaugh: lincoln makes it very clear. he talks about it in the

gettysburg address. but if we fail the democracy sa does not just failure, but it fails around the world. this is a big experiment and whether that type of government can enter -- endure. lincoln made it a clear case that without unions, there is no liberty. what makes a democracy democracy is not a majority rule. what makes a democracy is minority rights. is a minority's right to protect even if the election goes

against their way. people don't realize how huge the election of 1800 is. you know how many of you thought about it. what happens in 1800 is thomas jefferson is elected and his party goes into power and guess what happens? the sun came up, children played, grass group. the federalists were convinced there would be purges. this is right after the french revolution so that is what they were afraid of. when that election happens and there are no massive killings, that idea of a peaceful transfer of power -- how many of you really thought in 2000 when the supreme court gave bush the election that al gore would start a guerrilla movement? [laughter]

mr. beckenbaugh: that is how entrenched we are in terms of accepting elections. we have had only one election in our history result in violence 1860. even if you don't like the outcome, you have to play by the rules. if you don't like it, you work hard to get your person elected next time and that is one of the things that has come out of elections. there have been grumblings. the 2000 election was highly contested but i don't become a i don't think anybody realistically expected al gore really expected anybody to start a guerrilla insurgency. [laughter] >> you were almost foreshadowing my question a few minutes ago. did the north really when or did it just not lose? did the south lose or did it just not win?

with the amendments, the fact of the matter is within a few years, white southerners were back in control of their states, african americans or reduced to a status that was almost servitude. in fact, arguably, in many ways it was worse than slavery. they cannot vote. the former confederates in the south became -- southerners ran the house off representatives. the south became the key element in the democratic coalition that lasted well into the 1940's. so, the war ended in a defeat but was the cause really defeated or just harmed, especially as he brought up earlier the lost cause and how that permitted not only seven police but the entirety of american belief. can you respond to that?

mr. rafuse: politics is the art of the possible. after having shed -- lost hundreds of thousands in a cause, they accepted the union was preserved. there were three new amendments to the constitution. the 13th, 14th, 15th. slavery was abolished. that is a lot to have accomplished between 1861 and 1877. you can look at the glass being half empty as he presented. we can look up a glass half-full half-full, taking into account the american system of government is in perfect and sometimes -- again, politics is

the art of the possible. if there was no opportunity to accomplish more, it was thrown away by andrew johnson during his first few months as president. again, this is the united states that gives us andrew johnson that gives us the klu klux klan. pushing anything toward seems to be a good account punishment in that country. mr. beckenbaugh: i kind of look at it -- the federal government won the war. secession is illegal now. look it up. secession is illegal. when people say that now -- sorry, that is done.

settled. the union is saved. one of the things you have to look at is -- had lincoln lived, would the outcome have been that different? certainly, this is all counterfactual history. i don't know it would have because the vast majority of white americans were not ready to accept african-american equality in 1865 or 1900 or 1920 or maybe even 1950. i just don't know -- remember lincoln is a pragmatic politician. what he believes is right and

what he is will him to do are two different things. i don't know necessarily that lincoln -- certainly, the things he did in terms of his reconstruction attempts had not been to hammer the south into the ground. i hear a few people say that the vectors history. well, not in the civil war. the south wrote the history for a lot of the post-civil war period. when i taught a reconstruction class, i would have them watch an hour of gone with the wind and that the end of the semester, as them if their perceptions had changed. it is usually a very dramatic change. you don't understand how much of the myth has permeated our society. it really is mind boggling when you know what kind of things to look for. we civil war is still a very significant event. getting rid of slavery is not a minor thing.

the idea that the radicals had everything -- they could not. i don't think the rest of white america was willing to put the kind of expense and time and effort and probably some blood into it. >> if the south had won, how much longer would slavery have remained a viable institution and if the south had won, how would that have affected westward expansion, particularly as it applies to the southwest? mr. beckenbaugh: in 1865, the confederacy out of desperation agrees to emancipate some slaves

and put them in the military. how long does slavery last? are big agricultural areas in this country now are the southwestern areas where they have done irrigation. i cannot see the south winning. i know -- the only way the south wins is if the north quiz and i do not see any point in which the north is ready to quit. northern debate is not over the end of reserving the union -- preserving the union. most northerners would have said that is it. let them go. but how seven victory would have affected things is way to complicated a question.

it gets into circumstances under which they win. babies is that joe johnson -- the thesis that joe johnson is not replaced and atlanta does not fall. that has been the most popular alternative. by the time johnson is removed the atlantic campaign is already decided. we will say this breaks for the confederacy and you have to give me something that breaks for the north. stonewall jackson is at gettysburg. i let you have that and now you let -- and you let me have all of the corps commanders. something like that. [laughter]

>> my question is more about how complete is our view of reconstruction. i never read anything about reconstruction until i took a church history course. we were deciding to investigate an early disciples minister. i chose to investigate an african-american minister named reston taylor in tennessee who was born a slave and died a millionaire and spent most of that money contributing to the african-american community there, including building an amusement park. he was a mortician and had the cemetery there because the wife was not let blacks very their

dead in a mixed cemetery. i don't find him in our white history books or tales of reconstruction. he was not a popular person. other people have told me about other names. i wonder if we included those people in our stories, we might see it a little differently. mr. beckenbaugh: part of the reason you don't hear about him is he is so a typical. they are not a dime a dozen in the south after the civil war. read anything by eric phoner. he is the dean of scholarship on reconstruction. it is a much smaller field then

than the civil war. most of the stories are those of scrabbling. they are trying to get by. there is tremendous opportunity. most people don't realize that if you're watching a john wayne movie, 20% of the cowboys should be african-american if you want to be accurate. for the first time now, african americans could go wherever they did not have any family. that freedom is something they really value. that mobility will be something that is a feature of the early reconstruction period. the white southern democrats come back to power and clamp down on that and it becomes difficult to move. i'm not saying the gentleman you studied is not fascinating.

he would be. i am sure there is a decent amount of material about him. he is a typical. i would say extremely, a black millionaire. >> i would also mention there was a black civilian in the world fair in the u.s. he was not the only person -- there were a lot of people who contributed to having that civilian and showing the progress of the african-americans in our country and after the war. mr. rafuse: the civil rights movement does not start in the 1950's.

most of the abolitionists were like ok, good luck. but it did not solve the problem. >> for a lot of us, we don't know about those people and it is a shame. mr. beckenbaugh: i agree. >> i heard another speaker from the college say he doesn't think the south was ever really a true nation. they didn't have a common set of principles, just a common cause. if they would have won the war they would have broken up into several smaller nations.

what do you think the effect of that would have been? mr. beckenbaugh: lincoln was successful in turning because into religion. davis was unsuccessful in doing so for the confederacy. no one fought harder than jefferson davis but he cannot get other people to buy into the arguments. one argument lincoln has is if a minority can break up a union come under future conditions, it will break up under another one and it will be like the balkans. you see centralization and consolidation and collective action. lincoln was a great nationalist and was able to bring a cause of union and nation to the northern cause. davis failed to do that. mr. beckenbaugh: in davis's defense, he has the harder job. he is constrained by an ideology. the confederate government is based on this idea that slavery

is good. that is a hard sale when only 20% of your population owns slaves. ym i fighting for this group of people who owns slaves when i don't own one? it is much closer to saying the white south is much more realistic in reconstruction then during the civil war. if there is one thing white southerners agree on, they don't want the african-american to have jobs. that is a bird of a different feather. a lot >> a lot of americans have the view with the emphasis of what happens down to richmond after gettysburg. it would suggest the possibility

of a confederate victory. i always focus my attention on the real losers. i bring my attention to the other side of the appellation chains. i don't see any way the confederacy could have won the american civil war by any military effort. you agree with that assessment. it just seems like the west is understudied and not fully

appreciated in our assessment of how the war turned out the way it did. mr. beckenbaugh: god bless the unions out west. they worked as routes. the mississippi flows from north to south. you have the tennessee river providing good routes. in the east, the rivers are blocking the way south. jogger free did help the north. that is clearly -- geography did help the north. they did not have the resources

they did not have the resources -- they still do not have the resources. there was a talk on railroads and logistics of our production for the union army is amazing. there is criticism of the union army not being prepared to fight a civil war. which is silly, because he were not supposed to fight a war in your country. mr. beckenbaugh: texas seems to be under that impression. [laughter] mr. rafuse: they are prepared for it in the west. the problem in the south is the same as the problem out west. you have people who are resistant to submit to the rule of the united states so you project to get them into line to go to the superior civilization. mr. beckenbaugh: i agree with your point about the west. but the south seems to have bad generalship the further west you go. i have never quite understood why sterling price is so revered in missouri. the guy lost almost every single battle spectacularly. he does win at lexington but some of the things he does later on during the war are mind-bogglingly dumb.

it is hard to fathom why there is so much admiration. when you look at the federal government, they are constantly finding these good generals out west and these guys are very good. they start out as a quartermaster in riley. the geography plays a role in it. the federal army has much better leadership. the further west, the bigger the advantages. compared to their opposition

they are pretty good. if you are playing oklahoma every week, it is tough. if you are playing southeast missouri state, you have a chance of winning. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: that is going to be one of the problems you have. lee tends to push guys he does not like. a guy like holmes -- lee says

great job, you are going to arkansas. he sends them to arkansas. he might as well exiled him. the army of tennessee does get short trip when it comes to resources. they are fighting against a much more adaptable opponent and they are fighting in the terms of shortness of supplies. mr. rafuse: it also helps out west, your further from washington. >> jefferson davis really did not want virginia to secede. he was not behind the war as such. it was a gentleman's war. watching gone with the wind, the owners of the plantations that wanted the war to go on. jefferson davis only became president upon being pushed. do you think that adds to the entire thing and the gelling of the government and the south? there did not seem to be continuity in unity going on the

way it showed in order to strike the battles they needed to strike. it was at first a gentleman war, upholding our life for this secular group of people. mr. beckenbaugh: one lincoln is arguing, he is arguing ideology, approach. jefferson davis is arguing about personal things. alexander stevens is one of his most bitter critics. they argue he is baking that -- making bad decisions. his opponents get nasty and they have all of these characters but

lincoln is still arguing about policy fundamentally. davis is not. you may have some issues of sending troops but there is nobody saying maybe we should just free the slaves and do this until the very end and even then -- mr. rafuse: time for two more questions. >> you addressed earlier the question of european recognition or possible intervention before or during the war after the union prevailed. the effect of the union being preserved unsettling european international relations with the new world militarily and diplomatically. mr. beckenbaugh: lincoln wants to prove democratic governments can work and he is concerned

european countries are looking at the united states as a form of government and see a civil war as a validation of believe. -- belief. are you talking about long-term? the south africans keeping apartheid? >> [inaudible] mr. rafuse: the british had already decided it was in their interest to cooperate with the u.s. and that the new world was

off-limits. >> there was some question during the 1840's. mr. beckenbaugh: we benefited a lot of times from european unrest. part of a reason we get alaska is because of the crimean war. the british take other outposts in russia and the russians always want to reverse that verdict. they are thinking, we cannot defend alaska, how can we really cause trouble for the british and still make some money? let's sell it to the americans they will buy anything. [laughter] mr. beckenbaugh: that is before we found gold in alaska.

i think the french-american give up their ventures in mexico because lincoln doesn't send troops down to the border. it doesn't stabilize the western hemisphere and sends a message that you will have to look elsewhere. the next big round is about to begin. that is in africa and asia, not in the western hemisphere. i am not saying because this of awards not happen in the western hemisphere. to argue that is relevant is not -- is too strong a statement. >> i would like to shift the focus on the discussion away from the popular view of it being to free the slaves. it should be viewed more precisely on the economics. one you look at slavery, the importance was the fact you had a contained group of people you could exploit for cheap labor and it was basically good for the economy.

at the time of the civil war the u.s. is transitioning into an industrial-based economy that required a labor force that could be hired and laid off based on the expansion of the catholic economy and slavery stood in the way of that especially with the western expansion. the problem for the working class man -- he feared slavery because it impacted his wages. he had an interest in fighting against it. we all understand the concept that africans used their slaves and that came after the call me had been evolved when they switched from indentured slavery

to where it was more economically sound to have a group of people that could be contained for exploitation of labor. the war itself -- the civil war -- was centered around that issue of expanding slavery and suppressing the economics, the wages of the rest of the population. a lot of the focus should be on that issue alone as far as the economics of it because we know that race is a hot topic tool used to keep people from really looking at the rational, pragmatic reasons as to why things continue to happen in the way it does all the way up to ferguson. what are your comments on that?

[laughter] [applause] mr. rafuse: slavery is not just economics. it was also social, economic cultural. it unified rich and poor whites on the basis of race. they had the concept in the south -- why do poor, white southerners fight for the confederacy? they're fighting for the society that gives them value by saying they're not slaves. even if you are not poor in the south, you still have a sense of self-worth. there is also the argument that southerners used before they

were talking about the cost between labor and capitalism. they argue slavery is a better system for the workers. under the capitalist system, workers are treated purely on the basis of their economic value whereas in the south because you owned your slaves, you had a stake and interest in their health and well-being. consequently, that makes slavery more benevolent. it is an argument you can push and get some people nodding on. as all that -- odd as it sounds. mr. beckenbaugh: i would agree. when you look at the economics economics plays a big role. historians don't dispute that. the economic system of the north , this industrial, capitalist system versus this slavery system, they are not compatible. economic historians argue that is the main cause. marxist historians argue it is a control for the struggle of the

economic future of the country. the problem is that those economic theories -- it is not they don't have weight, they do. they tend to ignore the idea of religion playing a role, of ideology. these things do lay a role. some of the marxist ideas say some of the most devastating ideas of capitalism came from the south. there were some devastating critiques of capitalism from the south. their portrayal of slavery is this thing where everybody is happy and it is overoptimistic but in terms of the critique of capitalism, it is pretty devastating. a lot of arguments for critiques were in the southern capital. these are crucial to know. no really story and ignores it.

mr. rafuse: we have gone over our time. >> thank you. we will be completing the centennial of the spanish-american war beginning in 2048. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

? >> the civil war airs every saturday. to watch more of our programming any time visit our website. you are watching american history tv every weekend on c-span3. >> coming up next, from the university of virginia, a conference on the end of the civil war. historians discuss the idea of the lost cause of the confederacy. the virginia sesquicentennial of the american civil war commission organized this hour-long event. >> welcome all of you. to our panel. the topic of the second panel is the stream of memory of the war that is often te