Claiming the Moral High Road

Claiming the Moral High Road

Austin Bahr
Salt Lake City Community College
Claiming the Moral High Road
2

North v South

Anna Elizabeth Dickinson narrates the violence and riots in New York following the

United States new policy of conscription; elaborating that many people of lower socioeconomic

class rioted in response to the high fee needed to avoid the draft. As working class individuals,

they could not afford to pay the fee and were to be drafted into the armed forces of the United

States to fight in the Civil War. The working class saw this as a way for the rich to benefit from

the loss of life and sacrifice of poor Americans and the rioting that broke out was atrocious

targeting conscription offices and even an orphanage for colored children. Dickinson concludes

her article with the statement that offers a more sinister motivation. She states that the intention

of these northern rebels was to help the south; to terrorize the heart of a great city while the

majority of forces that could have disbanded the mob were in use to wage war with the southern

states.

The second document including excerpts from the debate on allowing slaves to serve in

the army in order to gain manpower for the war effort is incredible. Knowing that the South

seceded from the Union for the purpose of maintaining slavery and hearing them defend their

change of motive to fight is interesting to hear to say the least. This opinion was obviously not

shared by all and was becoming a popular topic of debate between Southerners as the war

eventually came to a close and the Union triumphed.

The Moral High Road

It is interesting to read both of these documents from opposing side of the civil war conflict
Claiming the Moral High Road
3

and realize that both sides of the Civil War were under the impression that they were taking the

most moral path possible and claimed the moral high road in comparison with their opposition

but in radically different ways and with their own contradictions.

The North freed the slaves in the name of morality, but also because they needed manpower

to fuel their war effort. African Americans were allowed to serve on a volunteer basis while

white males were drafted. White citizens could only avoid conscription if they had enough

money to pay the fee which equated to about half of a working mans annual wages. In this way,

the north provided freedom to some but not all; real freedom was only afforded to those who

had power, prominence, and/or wealth - creating a class system all their own. While they fought

for racial equality, socioeconomic inequality in the Union was growing.

On the other side of the border in the Confederate states, we see the southerners realize that

they may lose this war if they don't change tactics and adapt quickly; they had already lost a

handful of battles before the articles cited were written. Some start to claim that their motivations

for war should change, offering slaves an opportunity to fight for home and country by joining

the ranks of the Confederate Army and perhaps allowing these slaves to attain their freedom

once the Confederacy has triumphed. They argue that rich plantation owners contributing their

slaves to the war effort gives everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status a stake in the

war. One author claims that this is far better than what is happening in the Union, where poorer

citizens are fighting the elites battles for them. This is ridiculous and ironic because the

plantation owners were avoiding directly.

Impact and Analysis

Anne Dickerson relies heavily on emotion in her writing. While her observations of the riots

may be accurate, she claimed that these rioters only succeeded in aiding the south. She wrote, It
Claiming the Moral High Road
4

[is] absurd and futile to characterize this new Reign of Terror as anything but an effort on the

part of Northern rebels to help Southern ones, at the most critical moment of the war,with the

State militia and available troops absent in a neighboring Commonwealth,and the loyal people

unprepared. I believe that she is appealing to feelings of nationalism within the citizens of the

Union and claiming that any unrest and violence within the Union will only weaken its chances

of triumphing over the Confederacy. If I would have read the article in the time that it was

published, I would have felt angered with anyone who tried to undermine the Unions task of

reclaiming the southern states. I am sure that many were motivated the condemn the acts of the

riots as a result of Anne Dickinsons observations and claims in her writing.

The excerpts from the southern debate to emancipate slaves is more logical in its approach.

Each side of the argument makes valid factual points. On one hand, to free the slaves will give

more manpower to the Confederate army however, it will undermine the very reason why the

Confederacy seceded from the Union. Another thought to consider is that perhaps the slaves

would turn on Confederate soldiers. African Americans had guaranteed freedom if they escaped

to the Union. Why would they fight for the benefit of a people who had enslaved them and

treated them as property? I can imagine that many people were very conflicted listening and

reading both sides of this argument at the time it was taking place. It is easy to understand both

positions and both arguments, however, it seems that the Confederacy was on its way to only

caring about winning the Civil War by any means necessary instead of maintaining the cause that

they fought for.