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 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!

[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.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Dowly

The war's over, mate.

And the North won.

Some people can't seem to get over that.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by 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. I guess I've been dumbed down by PCness.

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.

[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-linc...es-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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?