|
|
 |
Columns::February 11, 2002
Worth repeating
James M. McPherson of Princeton University delivered the Charter Lecture Jan. 24. He discussed The Problem of Peace in the Midst of War, 1863-1865. An excerpt:
In a limited war, where the goal is the defense or conquest of territory, a negotiated peace after that goal has been achieved by the victorious side is usually not that difficult. But in an all-out war, where the very survival of ones nation or society is at stake, a negotiated peace sometimes seems impossible. That was the case in the American Civil War, where the issues of national sovereignty, and eventually slavery or freedom, were, in effect, non-negotiable.
By 1863, three different positions had emerged in both North and South about how to bring an end to this cruel war. The first position was the official policy of both the Union and Confederate governments under Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis: peace could be achieved only by victory. . . .
A second position, held by several prominent people on both sides, was the advocacy of an armistice followed by negotiations based on certain prior conditions agreed to in advance by both sides. . . .
The third position . . . was the advocacy of an armistice and negotiations without any prior conditions. . . . In effect these people came close to embracing the cause of peace at any price--even the price of defeat. . . .
There was a kind of Catch 22 about the whole notion of a negotiated peace in the American Civil War. An armistice with prior conditions was impossible because the other side would not agree to such conditions; an armistice without prior conditions amounted, in effect, to a surrender. . . .
|
|
|
|
|