Confederate History Month

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.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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/about.../1feb1861.html

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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?

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

...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.

@ 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

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 are very deep rooted in the south. Confederate history month..... sure whatever.....

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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).

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