End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[SaintB]

It's not that I disagree with the characterization of the Confederacy as a slave owning state. It was. And clearly, one of it's prime goals (if not the only goal, though you can argue around the side of that) was to preserve and defend the institution of negro slavery. That much is historical fact.

What I don't like though, is the implication that the civil war was purely a war about slavery. It wasn't. While there is no doubt that for many New England Yankee abolitionists, going to war and punishing the south for its wretched "peculiar institution" was the entire point, the fact is that slavery alone would never have mobilized the north to war.

Inasmuch there were mostly black hats in the south, fighting for their right to own people, much of the necessary support of the war in the north came from people who were unmoved by the issue of slavery, and who were more concerned by the need to prevent free ports, or to sell railroad bonds &c.. Without that backbone, based upon a fundamental difference about how geography should be used, and how the United States should function economically, there would never have been a war. At best, the slave states would have been allowed to separate - and those who (rightly) violently opposed them would have been classed as John Browns - and at worst, slavery would have limped on in attenuated forms ultimately - much as happened after reconstruction was declared over, even though nothing was reconstructed.

And apparently, since I missed the point of the entire thread, yah, I'd like to make my own position clear. People who go around worshiping the Confederacy are wankers. My quibble is simply that huge wars that last for years are never really fought over a single issue.

This is basically what I'm trying to say.

Slavery was fuel for the fire; it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was not the only reason for the war.

[The Black Forrest]

Here are some interesting comments.

Take a look at some of the comments people wrote to his articles.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C1

[Maurepas]

Here are some interesting comments.

Take a look at some of the comments people wrote to his articles.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C1

I have no problem with calling Confederate Soldiers Terrorists, Union Soldiers were too; that was Mosby's entire directive, and Sherman's reason for burning Atlanta...

Terrorism is a tactic, and one the US has used on countless occasions, I really don't see why we've demonized it so much, I mean, I'm not saying it's a particularly noble tactic, but, it's only a tactic nonetheless...

I've always maintained that the more intelligent thing to do was declare a "War on Al Qaeda" rather than a "War on Terror" as it opens the door for very true accusations of hypocrisy...

[Muravyets]

Here are some interesting comments.

Take a look at some of the comments people wrote to his articles.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/m ... tml?hpt=C1

I have no problem with calling Confederate Soldiers Terrorists, Union Soldiers were too; that was Mosby's entire directive, and Sherman's reason for burning Atlanta...

Terrorism is a tactic, and one the US has used on countless occasions, I really don't see why we've demonized it so much, I mean, I'm not saying it's a particularly noble tactic, but, it's only a tactic nonetheless...

I've always maintained that the more intelligent thing to do was declare a "War on Al Qaeda" rather than a "War on Terror" as it opens the door for very true accusations of hypocrisy...

Good point. I agree.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

The tyrant Lincoln made a complete and utter mockery of state's rights and the right of secession during the war. It directly lead to the federal government having previously- unfathomable amounts of power. If he calls all Confederate soldiers 'terrorists' then he should also call Union soldiers terrorists because of Sherman's scorched earth policies. It's like calling all German soldiers during WW2 terrorists when this was clearly far from the case. It's embarrassing and CNN should pull the article.

[Sierra Systems]

In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.

Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states? I could argue that one part of a country exercising control over another part, simply because the first part has more people, isn't that much different from the British Empire in the 1700s.

[Muravyets]

In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.

Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states? I could argue that one part of a country exercising control over another part, simply because the first part has more people, isn't that much different from the British Empire in the 1700s.

Which might be a powerful argument except that it is not what happened, as you might see if you had read more of the thread, including the many posts which have already dissected the legal issues, political motives, and social impetuses of the time.

[Tmutarakhan]

Slavery was fuel for the fire; it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was not the only reason for the war.

I would say slavery was just about the entire load on the camel's back, and that any other reason you point to amounts to just a piece or two of straw.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Slavery was fuel for the fire; it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was not the only reason for the war.

I would say slavery was just about the entire load on the camel's back, and that any other reason you point to amounts to just a piece or two of straw.

And you would be mistaken.

[Caninope]

In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.

Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states? I could argue that one part of a country exercising control over another part, simply because the first part has more people, isn't that much different from the British Empire in the 1700s.

Which might be a powerful argument except that it is not what happened, as you might see if you had read more of the thread, including the many posts which have already dissected the legal issues, political motives, and social impetuses of the time.

We have a loser! The North held the Senate advantage, which 1 more state.

[Muravyets]

In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.

Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states? I could argue that one part of a country exercising control over another part, simply because the first part has more people, isn't that much different from the British Empire in the 1700s.

Which might be a powerful argument except that it is not what happened, as you might see if you had read more of the thread, including the many posts which have already dissected the legal issues, political motives, and social impetuses of the time.

We have a loser! The North held the Senate advantage, which 1 more state.

We do have a loser, but it isn't me this time.

[Caninope]

In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.

Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states? I could argue that one part of a country exercising control over another part, simply because the first part has more people, isn't that much different from the British Empire in the 1700s.

Which might be a powerful argument except that it is not what happened, as you might see if you had read more of the thread, including the many posts which have already dissected the legal issues, political motives, and social impetuses of the time.

We have a loser! The North held the Senate advantage, which 1 more state.

We do have a loser, but it isn't me this time.

Maybe I misread this: where you denying the fact that the North had control of the government?

[Tmutarakhan]

Slavery was fuel for the fire; it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was not the only reason for the war.

I would say slavery was just about the entire load on the camel's back, and that any other reason you point to amounts to just a piece or two of straw.

And you would be mistaken.

Wow, what a powerful argument.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states?

I love the way you circumlocute here: there was only one "thing they felt was a right" at issue, namely that they felt it was right to own human beings as property.

And: the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

[Vetalia]

So tariffs were a primary motivator for the Southern secession? And particularly that those import duties were 10% too high?

EDIT: In case you're wondering, I'm well aware of a number of differences. The poster I was responding to is claiming that Slavery was not the primary point of contention between Virginia and the US. I asked what the primary point of contention was. I've still not gotten an answer.

Tariffs were a huge point of contention because the South's entire economy was heavily reliant on free trade of agricultural products and in turn importing finished goods from Europe. This was a huge issue that had already nearly provoked secession and civil war in the 1830's with the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina (and other states), well before the expansion of slavery was a contentious issue in US politics.

Regardless of the fundamental motivators, slavery was a core component of the reasons for secession (at least for those involved in making the decision about whether or not to secede from the Union). On the other hand, those fighting for the Confederacy rather than leading it likely had little concern for it either way, especially since plantation agriculture was often detrimental to the well-being of the men that made up the bulk of their armed forces; their motivations were certainly different than those of the elites and I think that also needs to be considered when examining the causes of the Civil War.

[Sierra Systems]

Slavery was fuel for the fire; it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was not the only reason for the war.

I would say slavery was just about the entire load on the camel's back, and that any other reason you point to amounts to just a piece or two of straw.

And you would be mistaken.

Wow, what a powerful argument.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states?

I love the way you circumlocute here: there was only one "thing they felt was a right" at issue, namely that they felt it was right to own human beings as property.

And: the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

We thought we had a right to be represented in Parlaiment. When that didn't happen, "We Quit!" Funny how that works out eh?

I agree that it is morally wrong to own human beings as property, but I cannot agree that that is the only reason for secession. The goal of the confederacy was similar to the goal of the original US, that of a weak federal government with strong states. The reason that no new powers were given to the states was that almost all power rightfully rested with the states in the US Constitution(amendment 10), and has been slowly usurped by the Federal government over the last two hundredish years. Anything that the constitution does not specifically the Federal government CAN do, is something it cannot do. Anything it cannot do is something for the states to handle. It was designed that way, and just didn't work out that way in practice.

[Sierra Systems]

In summary. Why, pray, did the U.S.A consider itself as having a right to secede over a disagreement with it's governing body when the Southern states were not considered to have the right to secede because of a disagreement with it's governing body.

Because the Northern States won.

Not really. The US left England because it's right of representation was not being honored. This was seen as a fundamental right being violated by england. (of course there were many less noble reasons also)

The south on the other hand wanted to leave the US not because of any infringement on their rights but rather because they wanted to be able to be free to infringe the rights of others.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states? I could argue that one part of a country exercising control over another part, simply because the first part has more people, isn't that much different from the British Empire in the 1700s.

Which might be a powerful argument except that it is not what happened, as you might see if you had read more of the thread, including the many posts which have already dissected the legal issues, political motives, and social impetuses of the time.

That kinda is what happened. Northern control of the government would be a Very Bad Thing for the South, because the North was at that time a functionally separate country. One was an urbanized(more than the south anyway) industrial nation with a large part of its population in cities, with no need for large amounts of unskilled or semi-skilled labor. The south was a rural nation(more than the north anyway) whose entire economy depended on a mass of unskilled or semi-skilled labor. What really would have killed slavery, had it been left alone, would have been the development of mechanical farming methods in the 1900s. When you stop needing a ton of labor per acre, then you stop "needing" slaves. They would have eventually had to release their slaves, because they simply would have had no use for them.

[Tmutarakhan]

the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

We thought we had a right to be represented in Parlaiment. When that didn't happen, "We Quit!" Funny how that works out eh?

We never took part in elections for Parliament; we could not "quit" doing so, because we never did so in the first place. This is nothing like the case in 1860:
When you participate in an election you are agreeing to be bound by the result. The south had taken advantage of the results of previous elections that came out their way; people who had voted for the other side respected the outcome.

I agree that it is morally wrong to own human beings as property, but I cannot agree that that is the only reason for secession.

The people who decided on secession proclaimed, loudly, that yes, indeed, that was the only reason for their decision.

[Jocabia]

Slavery was fuel for the fire; it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but it was not the only reason for the war.

I would say slavery was just about the entire load on the camel's back, and that any other reason you point to amounts to just a piece or two of straw.

And you would be mistaken.

Wow, what a powerful argument.

You are aware that the south was afraid that in part things that they felt were rights would be violated by the numerically superior northern states?

I love the way you circumlocute here: there was only one "thing they felt was a right" at issue, namely that they felt it was right to own human beings as property.

And: the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

We thought we had a right to be represented in Parlaiment. When that didn't happen, "We Quit!" Funny how that works out eh?

I agree that it is morally wrong to own human beings as property, but I cannot agree that that is the only reason for secession. The goal of the confederacy was similar to the goal of the original US, that of a weak federal government with strong states. The reason that no new powers were given to the states was that almost all power rightfully rested with the states in the US Constitution(amendment 10), and has been slowly usurped by the Federal government over the last two hundredish years. Anything that the constitution does not specifically the Federal government CAN do, is something it cannot do. Anything it cannot do is something for the states to handle. It was designed that way, and just didn't work out that way in practice.

You know what the difference was? We didn't make the rules and then refuse to abide by them. We didn't create the English government. The US was a place with different needs and different issues than England and had not part of their governments creation or continued existence.

The South participated in the formation of the government and/or voted to live under the set of rules that the US had. The people of each state had already said they wanted to be a part of the US. They created a system that accounted for the varying needs of the states (thus the differences in the way Senators represent states and the way Reps do and the electoral system). They set it up to work a certain way and they supported it until they felt like on a particular issue they didn't have numbers on their side. That issue was slavery and was so important to them that they took their ball and went home. They didn't believe in democracy. They believed in creating a system where one group rules another. And they were willing to fight a war to ensure they had the numbers advantage and kept it.

[Jocabia]

So tariffs were a primary motivator for the Southern secession? And particularly that those import duties were 10% too high?

EDIT: In case you're wondering, I'm well aware of a number of differences. The poster I was responding to is claiming that Slavery was not the primary point of contention between Virginia and the US. I asked what the primary point of contention was. I've still not gotten an answer.

Tariffs were a huge point of contention because the South's entire economy was heavily reliant on free trade of agricultural products and in turn importing finished goods from Europe. This was a huge issue that had already nearly provoked secession and civil war in the 1830's with the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina (and other states), well before the expansion of slavery was a contentious issue in US politics.

Regardless of the fundamental motivators, slavery was a core component of the reasons for secession (at least for those involved in making the decision about whether or not to secede from the Union). On the other hand, those fighting for the Confederacy rather than leading it likely had little concern for it either way, especially since plantation agriculture was often detrimental to the well-being of the men that made up the bulk of their armed forces; their motivations were certainly different than those of the elites and I think that also needs to be considered when examining the causes of the Civil War.

I don't think they need to be considered at all. Many, many soldiers did not really care about the cause. They fought for whatever side they were on out of a sense of honor. That's why the war was brother against brother. It was practically as if they simply chose sides based on where they were standing.

We don't examine the reasons that soldiers went over there when looking at the reasons for the Iraq war. We look at the leadership. That's typical and should be. The reasons that soldiers fight for their country are extremely varied and there is little evidence of any change in the bulk of that reasoning (there are exceptions).

[Jocabia]

the southern states had agreed to a democratic system; whenever they prevailed in elections, they expected the northerners to be bound by the results, but then, when they lose, all of a sudden "WE QUIT!" That's not how it works.

We thought we had a right to be represented in Parlaiment. When that didn't happen, "We Quit!" Funny how that works out eh?

We never took part in elections for Parliament; we could not "quit" doing so, because we never did so in the first place. This is nothing like the case in 1860:
When you participate in an election you are agreeing to be bound by the result. The south had taken advantage of the results of previous elections that came out their way; people who had voted for the other side respected the outcome.

I agree that it is morally wrong to own human beings as property, but I cannot agree that that is the only reason for secession.

The people who decided on secession proclaimed, loudly, that yes, indeed, that was the only reason for their decision.

There is a lot of evidence that southern white males (not all but certainly enough to make decisions) consider themselves the ruling class. They have repeatedly threatened to leave when they didn't get their way. There is a lot of evidence they don't trust Presidents who are not only white protestent males, but also southern. Or at least expressing certain southern values. And I don't mean values that are reasonable to expect from a leader. They want someone who kills things. They want someone who distrusts foreigners. They want someone who hates the French. They want someone who sides with them on issue of minorities. They want someone who sides with them on the issue of religion. They care about issues, sure, but mostly they care about "lifestyle" and keeping their place as the ruling class. Every time they see a chance that we might lift up the downtrodden in this country, they see it as a threat. They see it as "dirty communists" letting the rabble into the castle. "Sure, we've got plenty for everyone, but God put us here to rule on high over these pieces of crap. Don't worry, you can trust us to be loving."

That's why they're anti-regulation but they support making laws that enforce their morality on people. They aren't for freedom. They're just against anything that is a threat to what they view as their privelege as white males. They determine right and wrong and all laws should be designed not to rule over everyone, but rather to control the rabble.

[Jocabia]

As a relevant current news item, Oklahoma conservatives who did not raise an eyebrow when the feds were wiretapping their phones and such things are now attempting to form an armed militia. They already have a National Guard, but now they wish to form another armed group because they believe the federal government has recently become a credible threat.

Bush increased the size and scope of the federal government more than an previous President. No reaction from the southern conservatives. Obama steps into office and conservatives are picking up guns and threatening to secede.

How can anyone support these folks and their obvious hypocrisy? Where have these guys been for the entire Bush administration?

[Commonwealth Unions]

Up here in Ohio we celebrate Union History Month. It just reminds us how we kicked the South's ass every year. We not only messed with Texas, we smashed them to eency weency pieces. Go on with your traitor talk Gov Parry, we will smash you again just like in 1865. Jefferson Davis, the South's leader, was caught wearing his wife's dress trying to escape Union troops. He should have been hanged with Robert E. Lee.

[Heartlund]

Irony: The Confederacy fought for 'freedom' to live as they wished, while denying freedom to others. The Union fought for 'freedom' for all men, while forcing the Confederates to obey by force.

[Jocabia]

Irony: The Confederacy fought for 'freedom' to live as they wished, while denying freedom to others. The Union fought for 'freedom' for all men, while forcing the Confederates to obey by force.

The Union did not fight for freedom for all men. They fought to keep the United States united. Slavery was not the issue for the North and many who supported the North also supported slavery.

[Tmutarakhan]

Irony: The Confederacy fought for 'freedom' to live as they wished, while denying freedom to others. The Union fought for 'freedom' for all men, while forcing the Confederates to obey by force.

The Union did not fight for freedom for all men. They fought to keep the United States united. Slavery was not the issue for the North and many who supported the North also supported slavery.

OK then: The Union fought for forcing the Confederates to obey, and ironically ended up winning 'freedom' for others.