Confederate History Month

[Freiwillige]

Mississippi has joined Virginia in declaring confederate history month.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100411/ap_on_re_us/us_confederate_history_flap

I went to a great many Civil war battle fields in Tennessee and Kentucky and it was an eerie feeling because it is as if time stands still. You can picture the lines of men marching towards you and dying in droves. Many sites still had bodies buried under your very feet. I have the deepest respect for all men who fought in the conflict. It is history that should not be forgotten.

[nikimcbee]

Pelham's Battery, Suart's Horse Artillery.
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/2880/infrontoftentpy6.jpg

[Dowly]

:hmmm:

The war's over, mate. :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

Ssshh! I'm taking him with me to the meeting in Boston later this year, to keep them Yankees in line... :03:

[nikimcbee]

Here's my CW trip from last year to Gettysburg and Antietam.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2017809&id=1569565982&l=f9dfbc3e14

I got a good photo of 4th TX monument.

[Task Force]

I didnt even know we had a confederate history month here.:hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

The Confederacy was a treasonous and seditious enterprise that was based on slavery and exploitation and doesn't deserve to be celebrated any more than the institution of slavery itself deserves to be.

And before anyone brings it up - the Civil War was not about state's rights. If the South didn't have slaves, there would have been no war.

[Sailor Steve]

And this brimstone-spewing flame was is being started because...?:06:

[Oberon]

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/0345492471.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[nikimcbee]

What side of the Mason-Dixon line are you on?

Funny story from my trip last year. When I was driving around MD, it was kinda weird to see CSA flags being displayed. I hear it depends on where you go in MD you see them all over the place.:hmmm: I guess I've been dumbed down by PCness.:doh:

[Task Force]

What side of the Mason-Dixon line are you on?

Funny story from my trip last year. When I was driving around MD, it was kinda weird to see CSA flags being displayed. I hear it depends on where you go in MD you see them all over the place.:hmmm: I guess I've been dumbed down by PCness.:doh:

lol, when you drive around the southern states (especialy the ones that were major confederacy states.) you see alot of CSA flags. You also Find alot in old cemetarys down here.

[nikimcbee]

If you ever have the time, read "The Battle Cry of Freedom." The politics behind the CW are pretty interesting, espcially in the South. One of the parts that I found facinating were the Southerners that didn't own slaves that were dragged into the political mess of the people that did own slaves.

One thing that I found interesting, was that most anti-slavery people hated the concept of slavery, but didn't give a rip about the people themselves.

[nikimcbee]

And this brimstone-spewing flame was is being started because...?:06:

I miss our lunchtime CW chat, that was a lot of fun. It is interesting to see people apply 21st morals to the 19th century. Bah, I need to quit typing @ work. Can't type too much in one shot.

[mookiemookie]

And this brimstone-spewing flame was is being started because...?:06:

I was bored. :03:

[Sailor Steve]

I was bored. :03:
:rotfl2:

I'll see your post and raise you two!:D

[UnderseaLcpl]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. States' rights were the primary cause of the Civil War. If the common people who did most of the enlisting and fighting and dying in the war really believed in the slavery issue, the Nroth never would have had to draft and the South would have. The North would have abolished slavery in Union states, which it did not, and the morale and combat performance of Southern units was inarguably better on a man-for-man basis in most cases despite inferior equipment and supply. Note, also, that Britain intended to support the South, despite having abolished slavery itself in 1833 and the trade of slaves in 180....something.

All factors, including the timing of the outbreak of the war, point to the likliehood that the real cause was the debate over states' rights brought on by the introduction of the Morril Tariff, which was intended to make selling cotton to the newly-industrialized North more appealing to the South than selling it to the Empire.

The causations of wars are never as altruistic as the populace believes. As with everything political, the wars of nations generally hinge upon the will of the powerful and influential, while the burden of wars rests upon the gullible populace. I don't defend the South as being full of noble elites who sought to defend freedom, either (though I did at one time, before I read a little more of the early firsthand accounts). They were just as much motivated by the agitations of the wealthy and powerful as was the North. I defend the South because I believe in stronger states' rights, just as the rebel soldiery did. This nation was founded upon ideals of freedom and inalienable human rights, but just as the Confederate states (obviously) didn't abide by this ideal, neither did the Northern States, and their actions prove it.

Even in the computer age, where massive amounts of information can be shared and exchanged in mere seconds, we still keep falling for the lies that the influential tell us while they pursue their own interests. Whether on the left or the right, one must acknowledge that we will still fall for any BS propaganda we are fed. Democrats routinely bash the 2003 invasion of Iraq for moral reasons, but hardly a one of them acknowledges the suffering of the Kurds or the Shiite majority under the Baathist regime because there's no movie about it. Republicans support the war, despite professing a desire to reduce government spending and the power of the state, and a professed desire for freedom of the individual.

Politics beget war, war is about politics, and the winners write the history books. Given a choice between that and greater diffusion of power, even in service of politics, I'll recognize Confederate History Month.

[tater]

State's Rights? Yeah, you are right—the trouble is the right the States wanted to keep as their own prerogative was the right to own human beings. Period.

No slavery, no Civil War, it's as simple as that. They feared that Lincoln and northern congressional majorities would start to dismantle slavery, and left the Union.

You can argue that States should have had the right to leave the Union all you like, but the reality was that they chose to leave in the first place to protect the institution of slavery, nothing more. Assigning it some more admirable purpose retroactively is like claiming that all Germany wanted to do in the 1940s was to spread timely railroad service throughout Europe.

[Freiwillige]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. States' rights were the primary cause of the Civil War. If the common people who did most of the enlisting and fighting and dying in the war really believed in the slavery issue, the Nroth never would have had to draft and the South would have. The North would have abolished slavery in Union states, which it did not, and the morale and combat performance of Southern units was inarguably better on a man-for-man basis in most cases despite inferior equipment and supply. Note, also, that Britain intended to support the South, despite having abolished slavery itself in 1833 and the trade of slaves in 180....something.

All factors, including the timing of the outbreak of the war, point to the likliehood that the real cause was the debate over states' rights brought on by the introduction of the Morril Tariff, which was intended to make selling cotton to the newly-industrialized North more appealing to the South than selling it to the Empire.

The causations of wars are never as altruistic as the populace believes. As with everything political, the wars of nations generally hinge upon the will of the powerful and influential, while the burden of wars rests upon the gullible populace. I don't defend the South as being full of noble elites who sought to defend freedom, either (though I did at one time, before I read a little more of the early firsthand accounts). They were just as much motivated by the agitations of the wealthy and powerful as was the North. I defend the South because I believe in stronger states' rights, just as the rebel soldiery did. This nation was founded upon ideals of freedom and inalienable human rights, but just as the Confederate states (obviously) didn't abide by this ideal, neither did the Northern States, and their actions prove it.

Even in the computer age, where massive amounts of information can be shared and exchanged in mere seconds, we still keep falling for the lies that the influential tell us while they pursue their own interests. Whether on the left or the right, one must acknowledge that we will still fall for any BS propaganda we are fed. Democrats routinely bash the 2003 invasion of Iraq for moral reasons, but hardly a one of them acknowledges the suffering of the Kurds or the Shiite majority under the Baathist regime because there's no movie about it. Republicans support the war, despite professing a desire to reduce government spending and the power of the state, and a professed desire for freedom of the individual.

Politics beget war, war is about politics, and the winners write the history books. Given a choice between that and greater diffusion of power, even in service of politics, I'll recognize Confederate History Month.

From an atheist....AMEN!

[Freiwillige]

State's Rights? Yeah, you are right—the trouble is the right the States wanted to keep as their own prerogative was the right to own human beings. Period.

No slavery, no Civil War, it's as simple as that. They feared that Lincoln and northern congressional majorities would start to dismantle slavery, and left the Union.

You can argue that States should have had the right to leave the Union all you like, but the reality was that they chose to leave in the first place to protect the institution of slavery, nothing more. Assigning it some more admirable purpose retroactively is like claiming that all Germany wanted to do in the 1940s was to spread timely railroad service throughout Europe.

Sorry but I have to disagree. They chose to leave the union to protect their trading rites. They chose to leave the union because they believed that the power of a large federal government over the states was against what was originally set out for this nation. They left the Union because it was their constitutional right. Many States still have that option..Texas is one of them!

I read a great book once that said that if the law of the land was followed that the south could have one hell of a court case against the Government today.

The north occupied the south and made them re write their state constitutions. Well it is said that no state in the union shall do so under military occupation. The idea was to protect against England but since the south ceded the North qualifies as an occupying power.

I am against slavery for sure but I am not against southern independence and the rights of free men to legally vote their fate as they did back then.

But then I digress as UnderseaLcpl already said it best!:salute:

[razark]

They left the Union because it was their constitutional right. Many States still have that option..Texas is one of them!

Sorry, no. That's just an urban legend.

Even if Texas had the right to leave the United States (it didn't), it would have had to give that right up to re-join the Union after the war.

[tater]

That's rewriting history. If there had been no slavery at the time Lincoln was elected, there would have been no secession.

As a conservative I understand and agree with "State's rights" in most cases (though oddly I also like the less megalomaniacal writing of Hamilton and other Federalists), but applying those ideas in hindsight to the Confederacy is going too far. While they certainly argued that they had a right to secede—and I might even agree with them—the reason for secession was to preserve slavery. The entire economic and social system of the south was completely entangled with slavery. It's not like they had much in the way of industry (the state of Connecticut had more industrial capacity than the entire Confederacy). The trade they hoped to preserve was the trade in raw materials harvested by slaves.

Anyway, I see no reason as a conservative (party of Lincoln, after all ;) (though I'm registered Independent)) to try and paint the Confederacy as something more noble than it was. Regardless of State's rights, they sought to indefinitely prolong the ownership of fellow human beings. It was unfortunate that in order to create the country in the first place this terrible practice had to be ignored when it was clear from the start that it would eventually come to a head.

It's interesting that the stated rationale of Lincoln was to "preserve the Union" which in fact is not terribly defensible as you point out. The reality is that abolition would in fact have been an entirely justifiable cause to invade the Confederacy and wipe that government off the Earth. OTOH, Lincoln was being politically wise in not pushing the matter (border state issues, etc).

[August]

All I can say is Confederates thanks a lot for using slavery to test states rights! :dead:






:DL

[Subnuts]

I've got a quick question.

If the South produced 24 times as much cotton as the North, why didn't they their soldiers wear 24 layers of uniforms and make themselves bulletproof?

No wonder they lost.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

:hmmm:

The war's over, mate. :yep:

And the North won.

Some people can't seem to get over that.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

What side of the Mason-Dixon line are you on?

Funny story from my trip last year. When I was driving around MD, it was kinda weird to see CSA flags being displayed. I hear it depends on where you go in MD you see them all over the place.:hmmm: I guess I've been dumbed down by PCness.:doh:

And where were you? Frederick (aka Fredneck)? Or maybe St. Mary's County? Takoma Park (which makes Berkeley, CA, look like Sugarland, TX) would be extremely unlikely. Certainly, such a place as TP which values "diversity" would have no problem w/someone flying the Stars & Bars...right...RIGHT???

[Platapus]

I just don't see the purpose of celebrating what was, in fact, an illegal rebellion.

That would be akin to celebrating Lord Liverpool's involvement in the War of 1812. :nope:

[CaptainHaplo]

If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?

"On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It "freed" only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.

The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free. Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation's long-term validity was uncertain. Apparently any future President could simply revoke it. "The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false," historian Allan Nevins has noted."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Slaves were owned in the North during the civil war - and in fact the "hero" of the Civil War - Ulysses S. Grant - Union Military leader at the end of the war as well as President after Lincoln and Jackson owned slaves.

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue - but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one. It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history. What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

[Platapus]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. - Abraham Lincoln

http://www.abfition.com/abraham-lincoln/lincoln-quotes-slavery.htm

As to whether the South considered Slavery the cause of the civil way, we can reference the individual declarations of the states.

If you read "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" you will see that in South Carolina, secession was based on slavery as well as State Sovereignty.

“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” mentions slavery but puts more emphasis on State Sovereignty.

As does “Georgia Declaration of Secession”

As does “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Florida, Alabama,Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky all had declarations of independence that did not mention slavery at all, but listed State Sovereignty.

Virginia, always being different, makes an oblique reference of solidarity with the other Southern States concerning Slavery but also stated State Sovereignty as one of the justifications of its secession.

So to tally up the score

5 states list slavery as one of the justifications of secession
8 states do not list slavery as one of the justifications of secession.

However all of them mention State Sovereignty as one of the justifications for secession.

So just by reading the individual state’s declarations of independence, it seems that the primary justification for secession was State Sovereignty

[Zachstar]

Confederate history month... What a sack of crap. Remember the south fired the first shots of the war. And even if it wasn't directly about slaves. The people with wealth in the south feared losing slavery more than anything regarding taxes or states rights.

Sounds more like a Tea Party's answer to Black History month more than anything.

[UnderseaLcpl]

So just by reading the individual state’s declarations of independence, it seems that the primary justification for secession was State Sovereignty

Given the "state sovereignty" momvements that have been springing up recently, it comes as no surprise, then, that there are those who wish to celebrate the Confederacy.

I just don't see the purpose of celebrating what was, in fact, an illegal rebellion.

That would be akin to celebrating Lord Liverpool's involvement in the War of 1812. :nope:

You must know something I don't. I mean, we celebrate US Independence Day, although the crown presumably thought our declaration and subsequent rebellion were illegal, right?

[Platapus]

You must know something I don't. I mean, we celebrate US Independence Day, although the crown presumably thought our declaration and subsequent rebellion were illegal, right?


Quoted from the movie 1776

You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as in "our rebellion".

It is only in the third person as in "their rebellion" that it is illegal.

:D

[Randomizer]

Assuming that there are any open minds' left in this debate (opinions on the Internet always seem polarized to the point of dogma), have a look at Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning and Recovery by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. The book is about how the former Confederacy after 1865, France after 1871 and Germany after 1918 shaped the historiography of catastrophic military defeat to satisfy specific nationalist and cultural agendas.

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Defeat-National-Mourning-Recovery/dp/1862076979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271114583&sr=8-1

In the Southern States the aim was to subtract slavery from the "Cause" thus purifying the motives of those who sanctioned succession and later a war that actually destroyed all that was being fought for. This version of events was begun almost on the heels of Appomattox and subsequently prospered under the aegis of groups like the Southern Historical Society.

For France he looks at the mythology behind pre the WW1 revanche movement and Germany is taken to task for the post WW1 "stab in the back" mythology.

Culture of Defeat is by no means perfect and has some flaws, particularly in misreading (in my opinion) certain aspects of American culture that are mostly foriegn to Western Europeans with no direct experiance of America (as opposed to Americans). It is however, an interesting and well researched book that is bound to anger some longing for the myth of the antibellum South of legend, written by a German without a North-South agenda but with academic experiance dealing with national trauma.

[razark]

You must know something I don't. I mean, we celebrate US Independence Day, although the crown presumably thought our declaration and subsequent rebellion were illegal, right?

That's because we won that one. The Confederacy didn't win theirs.

[Zachstar]

Difference is the Redcoats fired first. The south decided to declare war by firing on the fort thus is completely in the wrong any way you slice it.

[Tribesman]

The great truth apparently....
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man.
....white supremacist bull.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Quoted from the movie 1776

You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as in "our rebellion".

It is only in the third person as in "their rebellion" that it is illegal.

:D



That's because we won that one. The Confederacy didn't win theirs.


That's what I thought, and I said as much. Platapus has a history of knowing things I don't, though. so I had to ask.


Difference is the Redcoats fired first. The south decided to declare war by firing on the fort thus is completely in the wrong any way you slice it.

So simple is it? Very well, then. I believe I'll help myself to a portion of your income, and you're no longer allowed to buy or sell as you please. You have to consult me if you want to conduct any transactions outside of what I approve of, because I'm bigger than you, I have more guns, and I'm a better shot. If you fail to comply, I'll have no choice but to raid your home and jail or kill you.

Don't fire at me, though. We wouldn't want to be doing anything "wrong" would we?:DL

[Buddahaid]

Oh what's the big deal, it's still the history of the area whether you like it or not. Should we just pretend everything we currently don't like in history didn't happen, and revise all the books? Get over yourselves and move on. :yawn:

[Zachstar]

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.

[August]

Assuming that there are any open minds' left in this debate (opinions on the Internet always seem polarized to the point of dogma), have a look at Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning and Recovery by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. The book is about how the former Confederacy after 1865, France after 1871 and Germany after 1918 shaped the historiography of catastrophic military defeat to satisfy specific nationalist and cultural agendas.

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Defeat-National-Mourning-Recovery/dp/1862076979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271114583&sr=8-1

In the Southern States the aim was to subtract slavery from the "Cause" thus purifying the motives of those who sanctioned succession and later a war that actually destroyed all that was being fought for. This version of events was begun almost on the heels of Appomattox and subsequently prospered under the aegis of groups like the Southern Historical Society.

For France he looks at the mythology behind pre the WW1 revanche movement and Germany is taken to task for the post WW1 "stab in the back" mythology.

Culture of Defeat is by no means perfect and has some flaws, particularly in misreading (in my opinion) certain aspects of American culture that are mostly foriegn to Western Europeans with no direct experiance of America (as opposed to Americans). It is however, an interesting and well researched book that is bound to anger some longing for the myth of the antibellum South of legend, written by a German without a North-South agenda but with academic experiance dealing with national trauma.

Thanks for the recommendation. It sounds like something i'd enjoy reading.

[Buddahaid]

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.

It's still the history of the area no matter what government existed. And the BTW points sounds a bit familiar even now, their just buried behind more noble facades.

I'm not supporting a return of the Confederacy, or it's ideals, I just think it should be allowed to be recognized for what it was.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

BTW just think if the Confederates won and got to have their own little country. Unions would definitely have been outlawed. Segregation would be a way of life. Police answerable only to those with money. Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government. The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

And yes its as simple as that. They made an open attack on the US and they got pounded and conquered for it.

You're as unreachable as I was at your age.:DL

Buddahaid has a good point, and I like to think that I do as well. It's not a matter of good or evil states in most cases; it's a matter of the nature of states in general.

Governments are what governments are; force monopolies. Even with the consent of the governed, they are still monopolies on the use of force. Governments are also made of people, not angels, and there is no way to ensure that the "right" people are in government at any given time, no matter what nation sponsors it.

When one combines a monopoly on force with people, one will invariably arrive at the same result that every nation in the history of the entire world has; the will of the few dominate the will and needs of the many. The mechanisms by which they arrive at this condition differ, but the principle always hold true.

That idea was the genius behind the US Constitution; if government was forced by itself to limit its own power, and the will of the people was protected, it could never abuse its own power.

Sadly, it didn't work out quite as well as intended, but such are the plans of mice and men. Voltaire once said that there was no problem capable of withstanding the assault of sustained thinking. I don't believe that's entirely true, but I certainly believe he was correct when one considers the nature of any human institution. The US has certainly helped to prove that in the creative way it has bypassed its own Constitution.

It isn't as black-and-white as you think, ZS. There are aristocrats and manipulators on both sides of any battle line. You do yourself a disfavor by accepting one preached doctrine over another. It is only when we value individuality and personal judgement that we gain freedom, and that is why I side with the CSA, despite the fact that they also used manipulative tactics.

Actually, that remains true to this day. I said earlier that the CSA never enstated the draft, but I was somewhat wrong. The CSA began what is now known as "stop-loss" in 1862, well before the Union enstated the draft in 1863. They forced Confederate soldiers who signed one-year contracts to serve for three.

Some historians argue that this constitutes a draft. Others say it was not because the soldiers volunteered to begin with. I ask: What kind of conflict, if it is supported by the populace, requires such measures if it is truly justifiable? What it boils down to, what is always boils down to, is the few controlling the many.

Given a choice, I'd side with the government that used states' rights as its' rationale, not becuase I really buy it, but because it will be held accountable to some greater degree than a state that professes a desire for union at any cost.

[TLAM Strike]

One reason I was tought as to why we went to war with the south was that they made a treaty with each other and some native tribes which is in violation of Article II of the US Constitution.

The President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

[Tribesman]

Oh what's the big deal, it's still the history of the area whether you like it or not.
Its still the history, but its if people who want to celebrate one aspect of the history and also want to sanitise that history to make their celebration more palatable.
Like Randomizer points out
In the Southern States the aim was to subtract slavery from the "Cause" thus purifying the motives of those who sanctioned succession and later a war that actually destroyed all that was being fought for. This version of events was begun almost on the heels of Appomattox and subsequently prospered under the aegis of groups like the Southern Historical Society.

[CaptainHaplo]

Because people with money called the shots in that farce of a government.

So the rich and powerful were only to be found in the CSA, while the North was run by paupers who only had the welfare of the people in their hearts and minds? Things are rarely that black and white - and a look at history shows that your idealism in viewing that time frame is misplaced.

The grunts fought to "defend their homes" which is exactly what the ones trying to keep slavery alive wanted.

It is often said that the Civil War was a war that tore apart families - not only due to the deaths and injuries - but because it pitted brother against brother due to the ways people saw things. This idea that "the rich" had everyone snookered is further demonstration that you have swalled a revisionist version of history.

Its not the history of an area but a type of government a government founded on keeping slavery alive for the benefit of the rich.

You seem intent on your view regarding slavery. So answer the questions that have already been posed - if the issue was slavery, why did the North continue the practice of slavery after the war began? If it was over slavery - the North would have stopped said practice - and it did not. Secondly - why is it the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves ONLY in the states and areas that were rebelling against the Union (Federal) government, yet kept slavery as a legal institution in the "Northern" states?

At first glance, your view on slavery as being a "North/South" issue would appear to be flawed given historical facts. Care to try and explain this discrepency?

[Tribesman]

At first glance, your view on slavery as being a "North/South" issue would appear to be flawed given historical facts. Care to try and explain this discrepency?
Thats easy, only some in the North had accepted the flawed world view that god had decided the negroes were really human, so the union had to keep these scientific people on board by agreeing the blacks were meant to be slaves as it is ordained that a negro shall be inferior to a white man.
Come to think of it the Confederates really were the strict constitutionalists.
After all the constitution is based on the ideals of the declaration and the notion is that all men are equal and have inalienable rights like liberty, and as all men are equal and only white free males really count then it goes without saying that non whites certainly ain't human or they would be free

[Randomizer]

CaptainHaplo wrote
So answer the questions that have already been posed - if the issue was slavery, why did the North continue the practice of slavery after the war began? If it was over slavery...

The issue for the Federal Government in Washington was not slavery in the beginning but the issue for the South was Abolition from day-one. Without slavery there would have been no radical abolitionist movement that so enraged Southern politicians so you are standing your strawmen on their heads.

Do you really believe that abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner was beaten near to death on the floor of the United States Senate by slave-holding South Carolina representitive Preston Brooks over tariffs or states rights?

The Brooks-Sumner incident is indicative of the violence resulting when the subject of abolition was broached in the presence of the slave-holding Southern gentry.

[Sailor Steve]

I tried to warn against starting this argument again, I really did.

My problem with all of this is bias. The Southern apologists ("It wasn't about slavery!") are just that - apologists for The South. It is to their benefit that it not be about slavery. Otherwise why argue so vehemently? There's no discussion here, just trying to prove that you are right. You don't answer any of the questions posed for you, but you have your own questions you demand be answered.

How biased is the other side? With a couple of exceptions, those being the ultra-liberals who never discuss issues but rather call anyone who disagrees an idiot and then laugh at you, most of us really don't care about anything but the truth.

Me, I'm a Southerner by birth (Dallas, Texas). My great-grandfather fought for Lee's Army Of Northern Virginia, in the Fourth Texas Regiment. His father owned a stagecoach line in Dallas...and several slaves. I personally believe that slavery is totally wrong, but it's also so far in my past that I don't really see it as real. It just was.

So, the Civil War was about States' Rights? Any particular rights, or just a general disagreement about the subject? Walker Tariff? Why seceed over an economic measure passed fourteen years earlier? And why seceed en masse just because one man is elected president? I challenge anyone to deny that that is the primary cause of the secession, even if none of the ordinances mention it at all. The timing was just too convenient.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. States' rights were the primary cause of the Civil War.
Can you cite one contemporary document in which anyone ever says that? Was there ever a single heated discussion which talked about 'States' Rights'? Members of states did accuse other members of trying to use congress to deny their rights, but the discussion was always over the proliferation of new 'free' states and the dearth of new 'slave' states.

Sorry but I have to disagree. They chose to leave the union to protect their trading rites. They chose to leave the union because they believed that the power of a large federal government over the states was against what was originally set out for this nation.
No, they didn't see a large federal government at all. The federal government at that time was neither big nor strong. What they saw was a federal government which could be controlled by a coalition of states whose agenda it was to bully other states, and rather than bow to the will of the majority they petulantly picked up their toys and walked out.

They left the Union because it was their constitutional right. Many States still have that option..Texas is one of them!
The Texas ordinance of secession contains the following phrase:

the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression:
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/secession/1feb1861.html

If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?
Lincoln insisted that his sole duty was to preserve the Union. He didn't feel he could allow anything else, slavery included, to take precedence over that agenda. But there is no question that Lincoln was an avowed abolitionist and that the Republican Party was known as the Party Of Abolition. Why else did seven states seceed immediately following Lincoln's election?

5 states list slavery as one of the justifications of secession
8 states do not list slavery as one of the justifications of secession.
Four of those seceeded after the fact in protest of Lincoln's call for volunteers to "put down the rebellion". So you now have five declaring for slavery and four not, with four abstaining until later. And two of them were prevented from actually seceeding, so the Confederacy was made up of only eleven states.

But the states also published separate papers explaining the reasons they seceeded. Let's look at those.

SOUTH CAROLINA:
South Carolina's Ordinance Of Secession doesn't mention any causes at all, just a flat statement that they were now a free and independent country.

But they also published a Declaration of Causes of Secession, which makes for interesting reading. After a rehashing of the original Constitutional Convention of 1787, they have the following phrases:
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
In other words, if the fugitive slave laws were not guaranteed, the southern states would never have joined in the first place.


We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
So South Carolina's secession was specifically over slavery. Read the whole document yourself, and feel free to find any phrases that proclaim otherwise.
http://aescir.net/edu/scarodec.htm

MISSISSIPPI:
Again there is nothing but a flat declaration in the Ordinance itself, and again there is a Declaration of Causes.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
And again the whole thing.
http://aescir.net/edu/miss_dec.htm

FLORIDA:
Well, you have me there. Florida's Secession document says nothing, and they didn't publish a declaration of causes.

ALABAMA:
Alabama's Secession document doesn't mention slavery, but it does refer to "the party of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin" being a "sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama".

But again the Declaration of Causes starts right off the bat:
WHEREAS, anti-slavery agitation persistently continued in the non-slaveholding States of this Union...
http://aescir.net/edu/bamares.htm

GEORGIA:
Again the official document says next to nothing. But the causes? First sentence:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

LOUISIANA:
Yet again a dry statement of secession. And no declaration of causes.

TEXAS:
No separate declaration of causes, but the Ordinance speaks for itself:
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
"Peace and liberty" and "Negro slavery" in the same paragraph. Amazing.

VIRGINIA:
Ordinance mentions no causes, and there is no declaration of causes.

ARKANSAS:
Only cause listed is that the United States is waging war on fellow states.

NORTH CAROLINA:
No causes given.

TENNESSEE:
Same thing.

Overall, every state that actually published their reasons for leaving put slavery right at the top of the list. Combine this with all the arguments that had been taking place over the slavery issue ever since the publication of the Constitution in 1787, and it's really very hard to come up with any valid argument that leaves slavery out.

You can try all you want, but it's the 500-pound gorilla sitting on the couch.



I've got a quick question.

If the South produced 24 times as much cotton as the North, why didn't they their soldiers wear 24 layers of uniforms and make themselves bulletproof?

No wonder they lost.
One of the problems the South ran into was with England and France, whom they hoped would support them. Unfortunately, at the time there was a cotton glut in Europe, and so they had very little market (not helped by the Union blockade, which made it hard to get the stuff out anyway.

What England and France did need was extra manufacturing to help process the cotton into usable materials, and guess who had that? That's why they were reluctant to throw in with the South and anger the North.

[Tribesman]

I tried to warn against starting this argument again, I really did.

Sir, you take the fun out of it
Unless of course someone wants to challenge the accuracy of.....
Overall, every state that actually published their reasons for leaving put slavery right at the top of the list.

[Sailor Steve]

Sir, you take the fun out of it
Well, I'm known for my pedantry. I can be quite boring in an actual conversation.

[nikimcbee]

Good post Steve:salute:.

...and now for something completely different.

Another interesting subject was the state of the CSA economy, or better to say, lack there of. I don't remember how long it took, before the CSA currency was worthless and they just started printing more money. Economically, the South didn't stand a chance. The North, around 1863ish started running out of money and quite litterally was taxing everything to fund the war effort.

[Randomizer]

@ Sailor Steve - Excellent post, Sir. Too bad there is generally little room for meaningful dialog whenever this subject comes up. To paraphrase from movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When legend becomes fact, print the legend" so the legend grew that slavery had no part in America's Civil War...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Very nice piece, Steve:up:



Can you cite one contemporary document in which anyone ever says that? Was there ever a single heated discussion which talked about 'States' Rights'? Members of states did accuse other members of trying to use congress to deny their rights, but the discussion was always over the proliferation of new 'free' states and the dearth of new 'slave' states.


I laughed when I read that. My response was : "Of course I can", but actually, I can't. That's troubling, because I've been arguing this position for years on the basis of evidence I'm completely sure I found but now cannot find. :oops:

I'll have to go dust off some of the books I have in storage and see if I can't find the references again, but I'm worried now because I can't find the info on teh interwebs, and one would assume it would be readily available. Well, there are a lot of supporting sources on the web but none that are any good.

In my own defense, and in a desperate attempt to salvage my dignity, I must point out that I said: I defend the South because I believe in stronger states' rights, just as the rebel soldiery did. This nation was founded upon ideals of freedom and inalienable human rights, but just as the Confederate states (obviously) didn't abide by this ideal, neither did the Northern States, and their actions prove it.
and consistently upheld the position that the actions of neither side were as clear-cut as they might seem.

In the meantime, I retract any implications I made as to the innocence of the South in seceeding because of slavery, and I apologize for any misinformation I communicated, should it prove to indeed be false.

[Sailor Steve]

I believe in States' Rights too, and think the Constitution leaves it just vague enough that it can be abused. One book I read on the 1787 convention suggested that they wanted to give the president less power, but since George Washington was sitting in front of them every day as president of the convention, and they pretty much knew that he would be the first US president, they gave the position more authority than they otherwise might have. I adhere to Jefferson's three statements:
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

[TLAM Strike]

Fantastic post Steve, that's why we voted you part of the best of subsim. :yeah:

[Freiwillige]

There is the view point that it was only about slavery.
There is the view point that it was not at all about slavery.
The truth lies probably smack dab in the middle.

The truth as I understand it is that many of the Southern states could not survive without slavery until the south became more industrialized. The North became far more Industrialized as the South remained mainly rural farming.

Their were many inflaming issues of the day slavery being one of them. But I think allot of the issue's just became cultural as they remain to this very day.

The South still carries a feeling of commonality distinct and separate from the rest of the U.S., Not to say that they consider themselves as non Americans just different Americans. One must also remember that the Morally justified north were anything but Morally just to the south after the war where raping and looting remained rampant for a great many years.

Should the South Celebrate its Confederate history? Well the Way I see it Hundreds of thousands of Men fought and died for the South. And Sure they defended slavery but they also defended southern culture, southern traditions and southern ways of life. Back in those days States were much more nations then the watered down states we have today. Virginians fought for Virginia and their allies etc.

Slavery is wrong and I doubt you will find anybody recommending its revival even in the south.

I have no problem with the remembrance of the confederacy in those states. Both sides bare a burden of shame and both sides carry some Glory.

[tater]

Great post, SS. Great.

No, I don't think the real reason was something in the middle. The "right" that the states hoped to secure was the right to own human beings.

Why slave holding states in the Union? Pragmatism. I did not say the reason claimed by the North was abolition, I said the cause of the Civil War was abolition. The cause of the war in the Pacific in WW2 was OIL, for example. Yes, the US entered because we were attacked at PH, but the REASON for the war was the japanese feeling they had to have the oil in the NEI or cease to be able to survive (without giving up China). No slavery, no civil war, it's just that simple.

Did anyone in the south ever claim it was their right as a State to leave? Yes, certainly. Did they claim it was their right as a State to determine if they could own slaves, even should the Federal government at some point in the future make it illegal as a "State's right?" I'm sure. That doesn't mean "State's Rights" was the cause of the war, that's an abstract argument relating to the proximal cause of the grievance, slavery.

I'm fine with State's rights, but linking that modern cause to the Civil War is not only wrong, but it hurts State's Rights argument NOW since it paints anyone in favor of State's Rights as really being some kind of would-be slave holder. C'mon, you can see that sort of undertone in press coverage, can;t you?

[breadcatcher101]

Happy Confederate History Month everyone!

[Platapus]

One reason I was tought as to why we went to war with the south was that they made a treaty with each other and some native tribes which is in violation of Article II of the US Constitution.

I don't think anyone would go to war over this. A state can make its own treaty, it just is not going to be recognized by the Federal Government and, nowadays, could not be in any violation of any federal law.

Besides, based on our performance, treaties with Indians were not only not enforceable, they were often just ignored when convenient. :(

[Ducimus]

You know, i was stationed in Mississippi for a year and a half and i learned one very important thing. Some things (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041302867.html) are very deep rooted in the south. Confederate history month..... sure whatever.....

[TLAM Strike]

I don't think anyone would go to war over this. A state can make its own treaty, it just is not going to be recognized by the Federal Government and, nowadays, could not be in any violation of any federal law.

Besides, based on our performance, treaties with Indians were not only not enforceable, they were often just ignored when convenient. :(

There are no minor parts of the Constitution, only minor interpretations of it. ;)

I'm curious where it states that a State has the right to make a treaty? Article II says the Executive branch of the Federal Government has that power (pending ratification by the senate). :hmmm:

The US Constitution... its an awesome thing to discuss and debate. :up:

[Ishmael]

To answer the bozos who STILL think the Civil War was about "State's Rights", refer them to this link:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html)

It's a site that lists the Declaration of Causes for Secession for the states of Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas, written by the state Legislatures in 1860. Two salient portions from Mississippi's and Texas' declaration respectively:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

So the ONLY "State's Rights" issue they were concerned with was the ownership of human beings as property. Texas goes further, complaining about slavery being shut out of the new territories in the West.

Now with all of that said, what I find MOST ironic is that there is ONE Virginian who WON'T be celebrated during VA's Confederate History Month. This one Virginian, arguably, had the greatest single impact on the outcome of the Civil War. I refer to my relative, Old Fuss & Feathers himself, Petersburg, VA native son General Winfield Scott, Conqueror of Mexico and Architect of Union Victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield_Scott)

Scott was Chief of Staff of the US Army at the outbreak of the Civil War. He formulated the Anaconda Strategy that was used with devastating effect by Federal forces to defeat the Confederacy and achieve Union Victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Plan)

I, for one, find it deliciously ironic that the ONE Virginian who had the greatest impact on the outcome of the Civil War isn't mentioned because it was his plan that brought the Confederacy crashing into ruin.

So I think we should ALL lobby Virginia's governer to proclaim Scott's birthday, June 13, as Preservation of the Union Day

[Sailor Steve]

There are no minor parts of the Constitution, only minor interpretations of it. ;)
The Constitution itself, which is the instruction manual, or the Bill Of Rights?

The Constitution gets reinterpreted every time a new administration comes into office. How much power each branch should have has been argued and rewritted over and over again right from the start.

The Bill Of Rights seems to be very straightforward, but, as you say, they keep trying to make it say something else.

I'm curious where it states that a State has the right to make a treaty? Article II says the Executive branch of the Federal Government has that power (pending ratification by the senate). :hmmm:
That is a very good question, since the one of the three reasons the Constitution exists at all is that the big three of the time - Britain, France and Russia - all refused to make trade treaties with thirteen independent countries; especially since the peace Treaty Of Paris in 1783 was signed between the Kindom Of Great Britain and The UNITED States Of America. So the Constitution specifically grants treaty power to the Federal Government.