End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Zeppy]

Yehaw, God, Gods or Goddess or god damn Atheists bless the glorious Godland South!

Zeppy you pinko.

Well, my right beats your left!
The Confederacy..is interesting to me to say the least.

The whole Civil War is interesting to me I had family on both sides of the conflict my room easily highlights this. Confederate Battle Flag one side and a Northern Calvary Sabre awarded to a distant uncle.

Proof you be a soulless rebel.
Repent your Confederate sins, son, and you too may be saved by the Union wage slavery.

[Natapoc]

I just want to note that some of you are making use of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Just because Europe/the north/the south/the space aliens/God/Kant, ect did not always act consistently with their stated position does not mean the position is wrong or that it is in any way inappropriate for them to speak of their position.

In other words: Just because europe was an imperialist, murdering, slave owning, racist, peasant torturing, child abusing, hypocritical, classist, crusade doing, ect place...

does not mean the argument proposed by some individuals from Europe regarding american slavery practices are any less valid. The actions of other nations are totally irrelevant to the argument.

[Melkor Unchained]

The Confederacy fanboyism here is nauseating..

Well, I'm not going to get all HURR DURR SLAVERY IZ GUD or anything, but I have a lot of roots in the south. I may be a Northerner in terms of temperament and upbringing, but I'm a Reb by blood: both sides of my family trace themselves back to Virginia, and my some of my ancestors on my father's side arrived here not long after the Mayflower in the mid- or late-1600s.

I don't understand how one could be a Reb... a socio-political orientation "by blood." Shit, I don't even agree with my own parents, let alone all their ancestors! But perhaps I'm speaking as a typical California mutt whose blood is all over the place.

I would guess its a psychological thing. It's not that I'm overly sentimental about my ancestors or anything, but I do respect and feel an affinity for them. A lot of it might have to do with how well I get along with my family, too. I imagine if I hated their asses, I wouldn't feel this way... but my family kicks ass!

[Maurepas]

(Before launching into my main tirade I will note that I am not planning on returning to regular posting, although frequent lurking has led me to believe these forums have improved since I last posted here.)

That said, my purpose is to try to put to rest the continual reappearance of revisionist lies about the Confederacy and the Civil War -- i.e., "the war wasn't about slavery," "the issue was state's rights," "the Confederates were fighting for freedom/limited government," etc.

This bullshit is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the historical record.

1. Declarations of Secession

Just as the Declaration of Independence gave the reasons for the American Revolution, the Southern Declarations of Secession gave the reasons behind the forming of the Confederacy. You will find little in this documents about "state's rights" -- other than those related to slavery -- or individual freedom -- except the right to own slaves. To the contrary, you will find consistent complaints about failures of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to FORCE new states to accept slavery or to REQUIRE free states to return slaves.

But let's let these fine documents speak for themselves:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

...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.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

...

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Georgia

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. ...

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

2. Constitution of the Confederate States of America

The CSA Constitution is nearly identitical to that of the the U.S. Constitution at the time of secession. Curiously, however, you will search in vain for any significant increase in the rights of states or individuals under the CSA Constitution. Four very, very minor differences are made regarding the powers of states -- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." These are hardly major victories for state's rights. Furthermore, nothing in the CSA makes any provision for secession.

On the other hand, sweeping new powers are granted to the CSA federal government. Foremost, is that states are REQUIRED to allow slavery. And any new state joining the Confederacy is to be a SLAVE state. So much for state's rights on that issue. Four different clauses stop just short of making owning slaves mandatory.

3. Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

(emphasis added)

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

4. Statements by Confederate President Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis praised slavery as a worthy institution by which "a superior race" had transformed "brutal savages into docile, intelligent and civilized agricultural laborers." See, e.g., Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, Montgomery, April 29, 1861.;

Jefferson Davis' reply in the Senate to William H. Seward, February 29, 1860

The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr. President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority.

5. Apostles of Disunion

I highly recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War" by Charles B. Dew. Although the language below is taken from this source and this source, I have read Dr. Dew's remarkable book.

Dew teaches history at Williams College in Massachusetts. But he is a son of the South with a family tree full of Rebel ancestors. Dew uses the words of real Confederates to rebut the neo-Confederates. The historian explained that after the Rebels lost the Civil War, many of their civilian and military leaders wrote their memoirs, in which they maintained "that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the South's drive for independence." He added that their whitewash is being applied by white guy "neo-Confederate writers and partisans of the present day.

Dew focused his book on a group of state-appointed commissioners who made the rounds of the slave states in 1860 and early 1861. They preached the same racist line: the only way to keep Lincoln and the Yankee "Black Republicans" from destroying slavery and white supremacy was to start a new Southern nation.

"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political or social equality," a Mississippi commissioner said.

Likewise, a Kentucky-born Alabama commissioner to Kentucky pleaded that secession was the only way the South could sustain "the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race." Another Alabama ambassador said ideas that slavery was immoral and that God created all people the same were rooted in "an infidel theory [that] has corrupted the Northern heart."

Dew concluded, "By illuminating so clearly the racial content of the secession persuasion, the commissioners would seem to have laid to rest, once and for all, any notion that slavery had nothing to do with the coming of the Civil War."

6. Views of "ordinary soldiers"

John S. Mosby, A Confederate Soldier’s Thoughts on the Civil War, 1907:

"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her [2] Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."

Chandra Manning in her book What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War:

has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. ....

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

[cite]

I could go on and on and on and on, but have already written more than is necessary to prove my point. Can we now here no more disingenious defenses of the Confederacy?

I've missed you!

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep on missing you if the responses to your OP are anything to judge by. So far the thread is dominated by:

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

> People claiming "meh, who cares?" as if we don't live in a world of revisionists trying to claim the Confederacy were some kind of libertarian heroes or some such, and a world where the racism of that age is still active in the US, and a world where people are still willing to undermine, even destroy the union of the US so they an retain the power to oppress others.

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

In other words exactly the kind of weaseling refusal to accept the past, own it, and improve from it, that the OP decries.

Well, to be fair, I know that the main issue was Slavery, and I would never deny that fact, to do so would be revisionist and wrong...

What I don't like is people that claimed that everyone involved, and everything they fought for was wrong because of that, for example, the Bolsheviks were horrible people that forced millions into starvation and gulags, but, to me, that is no reason to demonize everyone involved in the Russian Revolution, and no reason to say that everything they fought for was wrong...

[Melkor Unchained]

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Can I answer this, or will you get all indignant again?

[Derscon]

I'm going to have to ask you to source the claim that Lincoln wanted a war.

"He told me that the very first thing placed in his hands after his inauguration was a letter from Major Anderson announcing the impossibility of defending or relieving Sumter.... He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens of S.C. The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could."

Taken from The diary of Orville H. Browning

I don't know if there's an online text of that or not.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

Taken from here

While not expressly worded, the letter as a whole, considering the context of Lincoln's other words forming his quasi-messianic vision of the Union, it's pretty clear that "the plan" he's referring to is to get the South to fire first.

[Derscon]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

[Phenia]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

[Maurepas]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

[Derscon]

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Good to know you accept anything Cat Tribe posts as dogma. Most, if not all, of her arguments were about secession being about slavery, not the war itself. Her one source was just a ground troop, whose opinion is basically irrelevant, and a speech by Davis basically saying "Yes, I'm a racist." Hardly significant claims as to "THE WAR WAS ALL ABOUT WHIPPING DEM NEGROS." Which it wasn't, by the way.

> People shrugging the war off with a "meh, who cares?" as if we don't live in a world of revisionists trying to claim the Confederacy were some kind of libertarian heroes or some such, and a world where the racism of that age is still active in the US, and a world where people are still willing to undermine, even destroy the union of the US so they an retain the power to oppress others.

I stopped reading this paragraph after you just dismissed revisionism. That shows you don't know anything about history.

If you're not dismissing historical 'revisionism' as a legitimate practice, I apologize and will continue this track of discussion.

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Agreed. This is silly.

> People even trotting out that whole "the winners write the history" claptrap, as if the slavery issue is somehow a myth, as if the documents the OP quotes were not written by leaders of the Confederacy.

Well... winners do tend to write the prevailing doctrine of history. You scoffing that doesn't make it not true, nor does the prevailing theme simply being the prevailing theme make it true.

[Muravyets]

(Before launching into my main tirade I will note that I am not planning on returning to regular posting, although frequent lurking has led me to believe these forums have improved since I last posted here.)

That said, my purpose is to try to put to rest the continual reappearance of revisionist lies about the Confederacy and the Civil War -- i.e., "the war wasn't about slavery," "the issue was state's rights," "the Confederates were fighting for freedom/limited government," etc.

This bullshit is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the historical record.

1. Declarations of Secession

Just as the Declaration of Independence gave the reasons for the American Revolution, the Southern Declarations of Secession gave the reasons behind the forming of the Confederacy. You will find little in this documents about "state's rights" -- other than those related to slavery -- or individual freedom -- except the right to own slaves. To the contrary, you will find consistent complaints about failures of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to FORCE new states to accept slavery or to REQUIRE free states to return slaves.

But let's let these fine documents speak for themselves:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

...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.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

...

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Georgia

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. ...

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

2. Constitution of the Confederate States of America

The CSA Constitution is nearly identitical to that of the the U.S. Constitution at the time of secession. Curiously, however, you will search in vain for any significant increase in the rights of states or individuals under the CSA Constitution. Four very, very minor differences are made regarding the powers of states -- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." These are hardly major victories for state's rights. Furthermore, nothing in the CSA makes any provision for secession.

On the other hand, sweeping new powers are granted to the CSA federal government. Foremost, is that states are REQUIRED to allow slavery. And any new state joining the Confederacy is to be a SLAVE state. So much for state's rights on that issue. Four different clauses stop just short of making owning slaves mandatory.

3. Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

(emphasis added)

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

4. Statements by Confederate President Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis praised slavery as a worthy institution by which "a superior race" had transformed "brutal savages into docile, intelligent and civilized agricultural laborers." See, e.g., Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, Montgomery, April 29, 1861.;

Jefferson Davis' reply in the Senate to William H. Seward, February 29, 1860

The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr. President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority.

5. Apostles of Disunion

I highly recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War" by Charles B. Dew. Although the language below is taken from this source and this source, I have read Dr. Dew's remarkable book.

Dew teaches history at Williams College in Massachusetts. But he is a son of the South with a family tree full of Rebel ancestors. Dew uses the words of real Confederates to rebut the neo-Confederates. The historian explained that after the Rebels lost the Civil War, many of their civilian and military leaders wrote their memoirs, in which they maintained "that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the South's drive for independence." He added that their whitewash is being applied by white guy "neo-Confederate writers and partisans of the present day.

Dew focused his book on a group of state-appointed commissioners who made the rounds of the slave states in 1860 and early 1861. They preached the same racist line: the only way to keep Lincoln and the Yankee "Black Republicans" from destroying slavery and white supremacy was to start a new Southern nation.

"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political or social equality," a Mississippi commissioner said.

Likewise, a Kentucky-born Alabama commissioner to Kentucky pleaded that secession was the only way the South could sustain "the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race." Another Alabama ambassador said ideas that slavery was immoral and that God created all people the same were rooted in "an infidel theory [that] has corrupted the Northern heart."

Dew concluded, "By illuminating so clearly the racial content of the secession persuasion, the commissioners would seem to have laid to rest, once and for all, any notion that slavery had nothing to do with the coming of the Civil War."

6. Views of "ordinary soldiers"

John S. Mosby, A Confederate Soldier’s Thoughts on the Civil War, 1907:

"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her [2] Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."

Chandra Manning in her book What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War:

has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. ....

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

[cite]

I could go on and on and on and on, but have already written more than is necessary to prove my point. Can we now here no more disingenious defenses of the Confederacy?

I've missed you!

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep on missing you if the responses to your OP are anything to judge by. So far the thread is dominated by:

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

> People claiming "meh, who cares?" as if we don't live in a world of revisionists trying to claim the Confederacy were some kind of libertarian heroes or some such, and a world where the racism of that age is still active in the US, and a world where people are still willing to undermine, even destroy the union of the US so they an retain the power to oppress others.

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

In other words exactly the kind of weaseling refusal to accept the past, own it, and improve from it, that the OP decries.

Well, to be fair, I know that the main issue was Slavery, and I would never deny that fact, to do so would be revisionist and wrong...

What I don't like is people that claimed that everyone involved, and everything they fought for was wrong because of that, for example, the Bolsheviks were horrible people that forced millions into starvation and gulags, but, to me, that is no reason to demonize everyone involved in the Russian Revolution, and no reason to say that everything they fought for was wrong...

Actually, that's not always the case. Let me explain how the adage "you'll be known by the company you keep" applies:

Let's say, for an example, that someone opposes abortion. However, that person would never ever take action to hurt another living being and is in no way connected to any group that advocates killing abortion doctors. In fact, they denounce such groups as terrorists. It would be wrong to demonize this abortion opponent as a murderer just because there are some abortion opponents who do support murder to get their way.

But then let's say there is someone who opposes abortion and who joins an anti-abortion group that does endorse killing abortion doctors, that post their info on a website they can be hunted, that cheers when a murder is committed, etc. Then, despite the fact that our hypothetical pro-lifer never killed anyone himself, he is still tainted with the guilt of the group he joined and supports. He cast his lot in with killers, and now he gets what they get -- blame and guilt.

Now let's apply this to the Confederacy: Hypothetical Confederate Soldier only wants to live free or die but doesn't want to move to New Hampshire to do it. So once Lincoln gets elected, he thinks there is nothing for it but to wage horrible bloody war for his right to ...um... not pay taxes or whatever -- but it has nothing to do with slavery!! So he runs out and enlists in the Confederate army to support secession and the new Confederate States -- which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution. Every battle he marches to and every bullet he fires is in support of slavery, because that is the stated and documented purpose and aim of the government he has given his allegiance to. So whether they did it to serve their own goals or not, everybody who fought for the Confederacy was fighting to uphold slavery.

And if they didn't want to do that, they should not have joined that army.

[Phenia]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

What if I were to say I don't recognize the sovereignty of that any more than I recognize the sovereignty of the Waco rebels?

[Parthenon]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

[Derscon]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

[Derscon]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

States don't have rights, they have powers. =/

[Phenia]

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!

It's also an act of war to send military ships into sovereign waters, which is what the Union was doing.

Whose sovereign waters?

The Confederacy's

Of course, Phenia doesn't recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, and Lincoln was trying to have it both ways...

Hence the problem of who was actually the formal aggressor (although Lincoln was perfectly happy to kill everything in his path to "Preserve the Union," even if it meant murdering 600,000, according to his own definition, American citizens).

The 'formal' aggressor isn't a problem, that was the confederacy. They set in motion the war through secession, and initiated hostilities. Do you really think the secessionists thought that there wouldn't be a war? That would be awfully naive of them if they did.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

WOuldn't slavery fall under the Commerce Clause? Either directly(Slaves are usually imported), or indirectly(slave-produced goods are usually exported)?

[Parthenon]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

States don't have rights, they have powers. =/

Semantics...

The 10th amendment is found within the Bill of Rights...

[Muravyets]

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Can I answer this, or will you get all indignant again?

You can do whatever you want -- after all, it's a free country, thanks in part to Lincoln -- but don't expect me to answer you beyond this post.

[Derscon]

which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution.

>Implying that slavery wasn't just the straw that broke the camel's back

Because nuances never happen in history amirite?

[Natapoc]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

States don't have rights, they have powers. =/

And if it were not for the oppressive power of the southern states the slave revolts would have succeeded.

[Melkor Unchained]

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

Can I answer this, or will you get all indignant again?

You can do whatever you want -- after all, it's a free country, thanks in part to Lincoln -- but don't expect me to answer you beyond this post.

Well, seeing as you were technically answering me with your own little straw man, I feel obligated to defend myself. If you're not interested in debate that's fine, but you should probably be prepared for one when you come in and twist someone's remarks into this kind of nonsense.

[Yootopia]

State's rights...


It just so happens that slavery was one of these rights.

One, not the end all.

States don't have rights, they have powers. =/

And if it were not for the oppressive power of the southern states the slave revolts would have succeeded.

"Rights need oversight shocker"

[Derscon]

The 'formal' aggressor isn't a problem, that was the confederacy.

Only if you accept that SC never had the prerogative to leave the Union. Seeing as there is still legitimate debate over this issue, you cannot say that the South was the formal aggressor for certain.

They set in motion the war through secession, and initiated hostilities. Do you really think the secessionists thought that there wouldn't be a war? That would be awfully naive of them if they did.

Totally irrelevant. For the South to be an aggressor simply by leaving, they would have to have wanted the war, and there is no indication that, as a whole, they wanted a war, even if they felt that it would be inevitable (after all, part of the reasoning behind leaving was because the North could and did push them around to no end and get away with it).

[Maurepas]

(Before launching into my main tirade I will note that I am not planning on returning to regular posting, although frequent lurking has led me to believe these forums have improved since I last posted here.)

That said, my purpose is to try to put to rest the continual reappearance of revisionist lies about the Confederacy and the Civil War -- i.e., "the war wasn't about slavery," "the issue was state's rights," "the Confederates were fighting for freedom/limited government," etc.

This bullshit is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the historical record.

1. Declarations of Secession

Just as the Declaration of Independence gave the reasons for the American Revolution, the Southern Declarations of Secession gave the reasons behind the forming of the Confederacy. You will find little in this documents about "state's rights" -- other than those related to slavery -- or individual freedom -- except the right to own slaves. To the contrary, you will find consistent complaints about failures of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to FORCE new states to accept slavery or to REQUIRE free states to return slaves.

But let's let these fine documents speak for themselves:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

...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.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

...

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Georgia

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. ...

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

2. Constitution of the Confederate States of America

The CSA Constitution is nearly identitical to that of the the U.S. Constitution at the time of secession. Curiously, however, you will search in vain for any significant increase in the rights of states or individuals under the CSA Constitution. Four very, very minor differences are made regarding the powers of states -- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." These are hardly major victories for state's rights. Furthermore, nothing in the CSA makes any provision for secession.

On the other hand, sweeping new powers are granted to the CSA federal government. Foremost, is that states are REQUIRED to allow slavery. And any new state joining the Confederacy is to be a SLAVE state. So much for state's rights on that issue. Four different clauses stop just short of making owning slaves mandatory.

3. Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....

(emphasis added)

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

4. Statements by Confederate President Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis praised slavery as a worthy institution by which "a superior race" had transformed "brutal savages into docile, intelligent and civilized agricultural laborers." See, e.g., Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, Montgomery, April 29, 1861.;

Jefferson Davis' reply in the Senate to William H. Seward, February 29, 1860

The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr. President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority.

5. Apostles of Disunion

I highly recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War" by Charles B. Dew. Although the language below is taken from this source and this source, I have read Dr. Dew's remarkable book.

Dew teaches history at Williams College in Massachusetts. But he is a son of the South with a family tree full of Rebel ancestors. Dew uses the words of real Confederates to rebut the neo-Confederates. The historian explained that after the Rebels lost the Civil War, many of their civilian and military leaders wrote their memoirs, in which they maintained "that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the South's drive for independence." He added that their whitewash is being applied by white guy "neo-Confederate writers and partisans of the present day.

Dew focused his book on a group of state-appointed commissioners who made the rounds of the slave states in 1860 and early 1861. They preached the same racist line: the only way to keep Lincoln and the Yankee "Black Republicans" from destroying slavery and white supremacy was to start a new Southern nation.

"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political or social equality," a Mississippi commissioner said.

Likewise, a Kentucky-born Alabama commissioner to Kentucky pleaded that secession was the only way the South could sustain "the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race." Another Alabama ambassador said ideas that slavery was immoral and that God created all people the same were rooted in "an infidel theory [that] has corrupted the Northern heart."

Dew concluded, "By illuminating so clearly the racial content of the secession persuasion, the commissioners would seem to have laid to rest, once and for all, any notion that slavery had nothing to do with the coming of the Civil War."

6. Views of "ordinary soldiers"

John S. Mosby, A Confederate Soldier’s Thoughts on the Civil War, 1907:

"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her [2] Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."

Chandra Manning in her book What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War:

has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. ....

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.

[cite]

I could go on and on and on and on, but have already written more than is necessary to prove my point. Can we now here no more disingenious defenses of the Confederacy?

I've missed you!

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep on missing you if the responses to your OP are anything to judge by. So far the thread is dominated by:

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

> People claiming "meh, who cares?" as if we don't live in a world of revisionists trying to claim the Confederacy were some kind of libertarian heroes or some such, and a world where the racism of that age is still active in the US, and a world where people are still willing to undermine, even destroy the union of the US so they an retain the power to oppress others.

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

In other words exactly the kind of weaseling refusal to accept the past, own it, and improve from it, that the OP decries.

Well, to be fair, I know that the main issue was Slavery, and I would never deny that fact, to do so would be revisionist and wrong...

What I don't like is people that claimed that everyone involved, and everything they fought for was wrong because of that, for example, the Bolsheviks were horrible people that forced millions into starvation and gulags, but, to me, that is no reason to demonize everyone involved in the Russian Revolution, and no reason to say that everything they fought for was wrong...

Actually, that's not always the case. Let me explain how the adage "you'll be known by the company you keep" applies:

Let's say, for an example, that someone opposes abortion. However, that person would never ever take action to hurt another living being and is in no way connected to any group that advocates killing abortion doctors. In fact, they denounce such groups as terrorists. It would be wrong to demonize this abortion opponent as a murderer just because there are some abortion opponents who do support murder to get their way.

But then let's say there is someone who opposes abortion and who joins an anti-abortion group that does endorse killing abortion doctors, that post their info on a website they can be hunted, that cheers when a murder is committed, etc. Then, despite the fact that our hypothetical pro-lifer never killed anyone himself, he is still tainted with the guilt of the group he joined and supports. He cast his lot in with killers, and now he gets what they get -- blame and guilt.

Now let's apply this to the Confederacy: Hypothetical Confederate Soldier only wants to live free or die but doesn't want to move to New Hampshire to do it. So once Lincoln gets elected, he thinks there is nothing for it but to wage horrible bloody war for his right to ...um... not pay taxes or whatever -- but it has nothing to do with slavery!! So he runs out and enlists in the Confederate army to support secession and the new Confederate States -- which have been organized specifically and solely for the purpose of maintaining slavery as an institution. Every battle he marches to and every bullet he fires is in support of slavery, because that is the stated and documented purpose and aim of the government he has given his allegiance to. So whether they did it to serve their own goals or not, everybody who fought for the Confederacy was fighting to uphold slavery.

And if they didn't want to do that, they should not have joined that army.

I can understand the position, it's not my position as there were Prominent members of this government that agreed with the Hypothetical person, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., for example, who had the power and ability to have that purpose changed, had things gone differently...

but, I understand the position...