Monday, May 21, 2012

"Legacy" versus "impact" of the Civil War


"Legacy" as it is most frequently used refers to that left at the death of a person in his will. Indeed, I think we frequently speak each bequest in the will as the legacy from the deceased to that inheritor. In that sense, we can talk about the legacy of the Civil War:

  • to African Americans, freed from slavery and set on a long perilous path towards equality;
  • to the West, which was developed much more rapidly due to the policies instituted by the Republicans that survived the Civil War;
  • to the United States, thereafter a singular noun rather than a plural as it had been, strong enough to spread from sea to sea, and thus to have an increasing role in global affairs;
  • to the world, leaving a model democracy still standing to serve as a model for other states.
"Impact" seems to me to imply counter factual analysis. Thus we might wonder:
  • What would have happened had the Union allowed secession? The difference between that scenario and the actual history might be seen as the impact of the decision to go to war.
  • What would have happened had Virginia and North Carolina not joined the Confederacy, but rather remained with the Union, Might the states of the deep south have come back into the Union? Would there have been a shorter, less destructive war and a peace more conciliatory to the south? Again, the difference between the best counter factual scenario and the actual history might be seen as the impact of the decisions by North Carolina and Virginia.
  • What would have happened had South Carolina not fired on Sumter?
  • What would have happened had the deep south not seceded from the Union before Lincoln took office?
In thinking about history, I suggest "legacy" and "impact" have quite different implications. I would suggest an even better question might be, what was different after the event as compared with before the event, and what followed from that difference.

No comments: