Confederate History Month

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

[razark]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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!

[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.

[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.

@ 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]

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. 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!