End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Maurepas]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

1. Quit being fucking coy. Among other things, I don't think you can produce anything particularly authoritative from Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc. Nor do I think they override the Declarations of Secession, the CSA Constitution, and the statements of CSA President Davis and CSA VP Stephen.

2. Ridiculous. The members of the Whiskey Rebellion had a problem with a particular government policy well after the Revolution. Nothing suggests the opposed the U.S. Constitution as such.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._ ... on_slavery

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife,[22] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
“ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. ”

Although it is very racist today, I don't think it is too much different in that respect than what anyone up north would have to say about it..

2. I think they would be opposed to the provisions that allowed the US Government to put in that tax...One can be opposed to one aspect of a document without being opposed to all of it, hell, I myself can think of things in the Confederate Constitution that would be an improvement over the US one, a Line-item Veto for example...

[The Blue Chocobo]

Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But on a similar note, free blacks did serve in the confederate army, most likely several thousand.

ya, but they were offered freedom right? thats some huge incentive.

[Maurepas]

Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But on a similar note, free blacks did serve in the confederate army, most likely several thousand.

ya, but they were offered freedom right? thats some huge incentive.

Not really, no, they weren't, the proposition that they would be granted that freedom was opposed by the CS Government when it was presented by the Military Leadership...

[Raul Caribe]

now im not supporting slavery here just the way were told the stories growing up in the south.

When the US Constitution was adopted and the Union formed slavery existed in practically all the States. To the south laws the took away their slaves what they conside4red their property were illegal. so although slaves may very well have been the root cause of the states rights issues, to them it was the rights of the states and since slaves were the hot topic of the time the slavery laws were in the forefront of all debates.

the way i see it is the OP is correct it was over slaves but the idea of slavery was not illegal at the time so the root cause was the right of the states.
but it is funny that the south had volunteer black units a full 2 years before the north had them. But that aside the south also had the alliance with 7 different Indian nations (colored race) against the North. As well as the non-white Hispanics (colored race)of the gulf coast areas of the south and Texas.

Basically the only thing that really validates the op is over a hundred years passing by allowing moral standards of the people to interrupt the laws of that time differently.

so YES it was about slaves, But the slave issue was a states rights issue. so a person can say it either way and still be right. saying it was over slaves is just a way to make the south look like racists. and saying it was over states rights is trying to glorify the Southern cause.

i prefer saying it was over the States rights to have slaves which up until i think 2 1/2 years after the war started was still legal.

One of the many problems with your line of thought is that the CSA Constitution didn't recognize any "state's right" regarding slavery (or on any other matter of importance).

yes it did just as the US Constitution did. you seem to be skipping over the fact that they just regarded slaves as property and what the property was did not matter it was just property. so why say single out one piece of property and not another like a horse or whatever.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

interrupt it how you like but effects is property.

this was also in the CSA Constution

Section IX
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Id like to see the parts of the Constitution you referd to as forcing the states to own slaves.

[Bryn Shander]

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?

I'd argue that tariffs were a bigger issue. The North favored strong tariffs to protect its manufacturing industry from cheaper and higher quality European goods, and the South favored much weaker or no tariffs to benefit its agricultural economy.

You'd "argue" said point but present no evidence to support your claim. And, fyi, the CSA Constitution gave even more power for tariffs.

Derscon isn't a retard so I don't have to do his homework for him. If you doubt my claim, you look it up and provide evidence to the contrary.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

1. Quit being fucking coy. Among other things, I don't think you can produce anything particularly authoritative from Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc. Nor do I think they override the Declarations of Secession, the CSA Constitution, and the statements of CSA President Davis and CSA VP Stephen.

2. Ridiculous. The members of the Whiskey Rebellion had a problem with a particular government policy well after the Revolution. Nothing suggests the opposed the U.S. Constitution as such.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._ ... on_slavery

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife,[22] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
“ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. ”

Although it is very racist today, I don't think it is too much different in that respect than what anyone up north would have to say about it..

That quote (which is both outrageous on its face and taken out of context) is your BEST evidence of a CSA official not supporting slavery?

By the way, that letter was written for the expresss purpose of OPPOSING abolitionists and goes on at length about how slavery should be allowed to continue for as long as 2000 more years. The truth is that General Lee was both a supporter of slavery and a brutal slaveowner. [cite]

As an aside, Lee wrote the following to his son on January 23, 1861 about legality/morality of secession:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

2. I think they would be opposed to the provisions that allowed the US Government to put in that tax...One can be opposed to one aspect of a document without being opposed to all of it, hell, I myself can think of things in the Confederate Constitution that would be an improvement over the US one, a Line-item Veto for example...

Bait and switch. Are you saying that a significant number of Confederate soldiers supported the CSA Constitution, but opposed the four separate provisions mandating slavery? On what do you base this?

[Maurepas]

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

True, but, they felt that they had to defend themselves from a Federal Army that was gathering to take their homes, which they felt overrided that sort of thing...

Lee said so himself when he declined the request to lead said army...

Well, there you go then. They made their choice. There's another old saying: "If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas."

Fair enough, that just goes fundamentally against my way of thinking, upbringing probably plays a role in that...

I refer you back to my example about the Hypothetical Abortion Opponent who, in one case, is totally unconnected to people who murder doctors because it is wrong, but who, in the other case, joins forces with doctor-murderers in order to advance his anti-abortion agenda. By choosing to align himself with a group that does wrong, he acquires the guilt of their actions. Merely not participating personally himself is not enough to keep him innocent. But if he keeps himself entirely separate from and opposed to that group, then he can be as anti-choice as he wants and never earn the label of "supporter of murder."

My argument is that there is no blame in wanting to secede, no blame in opposing the government, etc. But there is blame in aligning oneself with slave-owners, and merely claiming that one personally opposes slavery will not erase the actions one takes in defense of slavery.

EDIT: We all do what we think we have to do. But then we have to man or woman up and pay the price for our decisions. Those who said they opposed slavery but still aligned themselves with a pro-slavery government because they disliked the federal government more, frankly, have no one to blame but themselves if slavery is now their legacy.

I have to say, I can't argue with that, and whether or not I should agree with my parents and grandparents' reasoning on the matter has always been a bit of a moral dilemma to me...Normally I'm presented with the arguments in the OP when this issue comes up, and then it is simply a case of throwing statements at eachother, but, I admit to not having thought of it in those terms, especially with regards the the Abortion analogy, considering I've argued the same thing against "pro-lifers"...

It wouldn't be the first time my faith in historical figures has been misplaced...Have to think about it...

[Derscon]

So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

So, other than just ignoring the evidence I've laid out, do you have anything to back up your opinion that the Civil War was not "by a long shot" about slavery.

"... when they [slaveowners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives."

"...in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you... I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' "

"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." (speaking in regards to slavery and in support of a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to explicitly guarantee slavery)

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." (October 16, 1854)

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." (Aug. 21, 1858)

All quotes by Lincoln

Here's a fun fact for you:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." ~ Letter to Horace Greeley

That's just shit about Lincoln said, the executor of the war. Do you want more shit? I figured quotes straight from our deified savior of the Union would be good enough. It is absurd and childish to claim that the war was all about slavery. There are far too many actors on all sides, including those that disagree on motive on the same side, to say something like that.

[Derscon]

I gather your are attempting to make a distinction between the cause for secession and formation of the Confederacy and the cause of the Civil War. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a valid distinction, what then was the war about?

Lincoln's messianic and ahistorical vision of the Union. the south fired on the North because Lincoln aggravated the situation, as they saw federal ships encroaching on their waters as an act of war. Lincoln was willing to do absolutely anything to "preserve the Union," up to and including, as historically demonstrated, annihilating the Southern countryside, destroying untold amounts of property, and murdering 600,000 people - and according to his view of the situation, his people.

[Caninope]

To say it is ONLY about slavery is naive. It was about the way of life.

The South wanted low tariffs, was agrarian, and had slaves, whereas the North was the complete opposite, and the two regions collided over lifestyles.

For the record: The majority of people in the South owned very few slaves, as the majority of the slaves were in the hands of the Elite.

[Bryn Shander]

For the record: The majority of people in the South owned no slaves, as the majority of the slaves were in the hands of the Elite.

FTFY.

[Derscon]

To say it is ONLY about slavery is naive. It was about the way of life.

The South wanted low tariffs, was agrarian, and had slaves, whereas the North was the complete opposite, and the two regions collided over lifestyles.

For the record: The majority of people in the South owned very few slaves, as the majority of the slaves were in the hands of the Elite.

About three quarters of the South didn't even own slaves, and only about a tenth of the population owned more than ten slaves.

Sure was racist, though. Now, times might've changed, but deToqueville writes in Democracy in America that there was a strange correlation between slave ownership and general racism...however, it wasn't what you'd expect. HE wrote that he found racism more prevalent in the slave-free zones, and less so in the slave zones. Now, we're talking personally racist feelings, not institutions, but still.

[Raul Caribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

1. Quit being fucking coy. Among other things, I don't think you can produce anything particularly authoritative from Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc. Nor do I think they override the Declarations of Secession, the CSA Constitution, and the statements of CSA President Davis and CSA VP Stephen.

2. Ridiculous. The members of the Whiskey Rebellion had a problem with a particular government policy well after the Revolution. Nothing suggests the opposed the U.S. Constitution as such.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._ ... on_slavery

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife,[22] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
“ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. ”

Although it is very racist today, I don't think it is too much different in that respect than what anyone up north would have to say about it..

That quote (which is both outrageous on its face and taken out of context) is your BEST evidence of a CSA official not supporting slavery?

By the way, that letter was written for the expresss purpose of OPPOSING abolitionists and goes on at length about how slavery should be allowed to continue for as long as 2000 more years. The truth is that General Lee was both a supporter of slavery and a brutal slaveowner. [cite]

As an aside, Lee wrote the following to his son on January 23, 1861 about legality/morality of secession:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

2. I think they would be opposed to the provisions that allowed the US Government to put in that tax...One can be opposed to one aspect of a document without being opposed to all of it, hell, I myself can think of things in the Confederate Constitution that would be an improvement over the US one, a Line-item Veto for example...

Bait and switch. Are you saying that a significant number of Confederate soldiers supported the CSA Constitution, but opposed the four separate provisions mandating slavery? On what do you base this?

ID still like to see these 4 separate provisions mandating slavery

[Natapoc]

Just because some (or even most) in the north were just as racist as most in the south does not in any way excuse the behavior of the south in supporting slavery.

[The Cat-Tribe]

So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

So, other than just ignoring the evidence I've laid out, do you have anything to back up your opinion that the Civil War was not "by a long shot" about slavery.

"... when they [slaveowners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives."

"...in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you... I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' "

"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." (speaking in regards to slavery and in support of a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to explicitly guarantee slavery)

"The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." (October 16, 1854)

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." (Aug. 21, 1858)

All quotes by Lincoln

Here's a fun fact for you:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." ~ Letter to Horace Greeley

That's just shit about Lincoln said, the executor of the war. Do you want more shit? I figured quotes straight from our deified savior of the Union would be good enough. It is absurd and childish to claim that the war was all about slavery. There are far too many actors on all sides, including those that disagree on motive on the same side, to say something like that.

I'll get back to you on the the details -- especially some of those quotes which are either irrelevant or out of context (let alone unsourced0.

In the meantime, I'll say fair point: the motives of President Lincoln and the Union were not primarily about slavery. If you would take a gander at the OP (which I believe you said you read at least 3 times), you might note my argument was that the Confederacy was principally and primarily about slavery.

You are correct their were many actors on both sides. On the Confederate side, however, there were an awful lot of powerful people who pushed for secession over the slavery issue with full expectation it would lead to war.

[Derscon]

As an aside, Lee wrote the following to his son on January 23, 1861 about legality/morality of secession:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

Of course, Lee is totally wrong about that issue...

"[I am] determined . . . to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government . . . in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"... a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical ... a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." ~ Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union... let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." ~ Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address, 1801.

"To coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.... Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself – a government that can only exist by the sword? ~ Alexander Hamilton, during the Constitutional Convention.



Fact is, secession was another dividing issue in political thought. There was no real consensus. The only thing close was that the Jeffersonian view on it tended to claim precedence in the first half of the 19th century... or rather, secession being OK was the dominant view.

[Phenia]

Lincoln was willing to do absolutely anything to "preserve the Union," up to and including, as historically demonstrated, annihilating the Southern countryside, destroying untold amounts of property, and murdering 600,000 people - and according to his view of the situation, his people.

It seems you're giving the south a blank check to do absolutely anything to "defend their sovereign waters," including opening fire and beginning the civil war, while denying the same right the US had to protect its sovereignty against rebels. Double standard not that surprising.

Pretty amusing you're calling all war casualties "murders" now!

[Derscon]

In the meantime, I'll say fair point: the motives of President Lincoln and the Union were not primarily about slavery. If you would take a gander at the OP (which I believe you said you read at least 3 times), you might note my argument was that the Confederacy was principally and primarily about slavery.

And I never once argued that slavery wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back. I never once argued that slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession. I am, however, taking issue with you saying the war was about slavery.

[United Dependencies]

Fine, but I would just end by pointing out that Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Beauregard, etc., also could have avoided being tainted with the guilt of slavery if they really cared about it by doing the same thing as our Hypothetical Person -- not joining the Confederate army. At the time it was created, there was nothing forcing those men to join it and obey its orders, regardless of what they thought of the CSA's political and social aims. If they opposed slavery, they really didn't have to toss in their lot with a government that supported it.

True, but, they felt that they had to defend themselves from a Federal Army that was gathering to take their homes, which they felt overrided that sort of thing...

Lee said so himself when he declined the request to lead said army...

Well, there you go then. They made their choice. There's another old saying: "If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised if you get up with fleas."

Fair enough, that just goes fundamentally against my way of thinking, upbringing probably plays a role in that...

I refer you back to my example about the Hypothetical Abortion Opponent who, in one case, is totally unconnected to people who murder doctors because it is wrong, but who, in the other case, joins forces with doctor-murderers in order to advance his anti-abortion agenda. By choosing to align himself with a group that does wrong, he acquires the guilt of their actions. Merely not participating personally himself is not enough to keep him innocent. But if he keeps himself entirely separate from and opposed to that group, then he can be as anti-choice as he wants and never earn the label of "supporter of murder."

My argument is that there is no blame in wanting to secede, no blame in opposing the government, etc. But there is blame in aligning oneself with slave-owners, and merely claiming that one personally opposes slavery will not erase the actions one takes in defense of slavery.

EDIT: We all do what we think we have to do. But then we have to man or woman up and pay the price for our decisions. Those who said they opposed slavery but still aligned themselves with a pro-slavery government because they disliked the federal government more, frankly, have no one to blame but themselves if slavery is now their legacy.

I have to say, I can't argue with that, and whether or not I should agree with my parents and grandparents' reasoning on the matter has always been a bit of a moral dilemma to me...Normally I'm presented with the arguments in the OP when this issue comes up, and then it is simply a case of throwing statements at eachother, but, I admit to not having thought of it in those terms, especially with regards the the Abortion analogy, considering I've argued the same thing against "pro-lifers"...

It wouldn't be the first time my faith in historical figures has been misplaced...Have to think about it...

These are my thoughts. I can't say anything to defend what the south did but...it's my home.

[Derscon]

Lincoln was willing to do absolutely anything to "preserve the Union," up to and including, as historically demonstrated, annihilating the Southern countryside, destroying untold amounts of property, and murdering 600,000 people - and according to his view of the situation, his people.

It seems you're giving the south a blank check to do absolutely anything to "defend their sovereign waters," including opening fire and beginning the civil war, while denying the same right the US had to protect its sovereignty against rebels. Double standard not that surprising.

Pretty amusing you're calling all war casualties "murders" now!

War is murder.

And I'm not denying the US's prerogative to defend its territory; no double standard. SC and President Buchanan knew the situation regarding the forts were in question, and who actually owned the fort was in question. That's why there was an agreement that SC would supply the fort in lieu of the federal government until a deal could be reached. Lincoln, though, would have none of that.

When I talk about SC defending its sovereign waters, I'm talking about the situation from their perspective, a perspective of which you are being deliberately ignorant. Who owned the fort was in dispute,, and the situation was a literal powder keg. Lincoln at best acted with gross negligence and at worst was deliberately provocative when dealing with the situation.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

1. Quit being fucking coy. Among other things, I don't think you can produce anything particularly authoritative from Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc. Nor do I think they override the Declarations of Secession, the CSA Constitution, and the statements of CSA President Davis and CSA VP Stephen.

2. Ridiculous. The members of the Whiskey Rebellion had a problem with a particular government policy well after the Revolution. Nothing suggests the opposed the U.S. Constitution as such.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._ ... on_slavery

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife,[22] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
“ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. ”

Although it is very racist today, I don't think it is too much different in that respect than what anyone up north would have to say about it..

That quote (which is both outrageous on its face and taken out of context) is your BEST evidence of a CSA official not supporting slavery?

By the way, that letter was written for the expresss purpose of OPPOSING abolitionists and goes on at length about how slavery should be allowed to continue for as long as 2000 more years. The truth is that General Lee was both a supporter of slavery and a brutal slaveowner. [cite]

As an aside, Lee wrote the following to his son on January 23, 1861 about legality/morality of secession:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

2. I think they would be opposed to the provisions that allowed the US Government to put in that tax...One can be opposed to one aspect of a document without being opposed to all of it, hell, I myself can think of things in the Confederate Constitution that would be an improvement over the US one, a Line-item Veto for example...

Bait and switch. Are you saying that a significant number of Confederate soldiers supported the CSA Constitution, but opposed the four separate provisions mandating slavery? On what do you base this?

ID still like to see these 4 separate provisions mandating slavery

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... cument=654

Article I, Section 9:

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article IV, Sec. 2:

(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article IV, Sec. 3:

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

[Caninope]

Classification of debaters here:

1) The South was made up of all racists, and nothing but! LALALALA!

2) The South had no right to secede, as they had no grievance, and they started it as they didn't secede

3) The War wasn't just about slavery

4) The South had a different perspective, and seceded as they thought they're way of live would change

5) Dem Yankees tuk my slaves!

Seem like a reasonable analysis of the types debating here?

[Raul Caribe]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

This is cute. Setting aside that I raised several new arguments including views of common soldiers, pray tell how we are to judge the purpose and meaning of the Confederacy and/or its actions if not by the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS that created it and the statements of its popularly elected officials?

You've asked me that before, I have no desire to engage in that same fight with you again, especially because I respect you, and everytime I've engaged in this discussion with you I get the tone of "this is cute" and don't feel any respect from you in kind...

there are official statements from the people I mentioned that disagreed with those documents...

I don't deny that that is what the Government stood for, but that isn't what all of the people stand for, any more than every soldier in the US Army in Iraq stood for President Bush, and the Republican Officials...

1. To what official statements from what people are you referrring?

2. Are you really going to claim that that the CSA Constitution doesn't stand for what those defending the CSA stood for?

1. The statements of Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

2. Yes, I am, ask the members of the Whiskey Rebellion whether the US Constitution stood for them when they fought in the Revolution...

1. Quit being fucking coy. Among other things, I don't think you can produce anything particularly authoritative from Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc. Nor do I think they override the Declarations of Secession, the CSA Constitution, and the statements of CSA President Davis and CSA VP Stephen.

2. Ridiculous. The members of the Whiskey Rebellion had a problem with a particular government policy well after the Revolution. Nothing suggests the opposed the U.S. Constitution as such.

1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._ ... on_slavery

Another source is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife,[22] which can be interpreted in multiple ways:
“ ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. ”

Although it is very racist today, I don't think it is too much different in that respect than what anyone up north would have to say about it..

That quote (which is both outrageous on its face and taken out of context) is your BEST evidence of a CSA official not supporting slavery?

By the way, that letter was written for the expresss purpose of OPPOSING abolitionists and goes on at length about how slavery should be allowed to continue for as long as 2000 more years. The truth is that General Lee was both a supporter of slavery and a brutal slaveowner. [cite]

As an aside, Lee wrote the following to his son on January 23, 1861 about legality/morality of secession:

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.

2. I think they would be opposed to the provisions that allowed the US Government to put in that tax...One can be opposed to one aspect of a document without being opposed to all of it, hell, I myself can think of things in the Confederate Constitution that would be an improvement over the US one, a Line-item Veto for example...

Bait and switch. Are you saying that a significant number of Confederate soldiers supported the CSA Constitution, but opposed the four separate provisions mandating slavery? On what do you base this?

ID still like to see these 4 separate provisions mandating slavery

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr ... cument=654

Article I, Section 9:

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Article IV, Sec. 2:

(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Article IV, Sec. 3:

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

those all protect slavery they do not mandate it. the only one that could even be seen as a mandate would be the Article IV, Sec. 3: but i see it as a further protection if the people so desire with words like may i see no mandate and as a territory at that time as it is now is covered under federal law this is only a further protection .

[You-Gi-Owe]

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Civil-War/Secession.htm

I'll agree that slavery and it's economics were what motivated the cotton states, but not every state of the Confederacy was motivated by the economics of slavery.

Virginia had been defeating it's own secessionist elements in the state legislature until President Lincoln called for the state to provide soldiers against the South.

[Phenia]

Lincoln was willing to do absolutely anything to "preserve the Union," up to and including, as historically demonstrated, annihilating the Southern countryside, destroying untold amounts of property, and murdering 600,000 people - and according to his view of the situation, his people.

It seems you're giving the south a blank check to do absolutely anything to "defend their sovereign waters," including opening fire and beginning the civil war, while denying the same right the US had to protect its sovereignty against rebels. Double standard not that surprising.

Pretty amusing you're calling all war casualties "murders" now!

War is murder.

And I'm not denying the US's prerogative to defend its territory; no double standard. SC and President Buchanan knew the situation regarding the forts were in question, and who actually owned the fort was in question. That's why there was an agreement that SC would supply the fort in lieu of the federal government until a deal could be reached. Lincoln, though, would have none of that.

When I talk about SC defending its sovereign waters, I'm talking about the situation from their perspective, a perspective of which you are being deliberately ignorant. Who owned the fort was in dispute,, and the situation was a literal powder keg. Lincoln at best acted with gross negligence and at worst was deliberately provocative when dealing with the situation.

If war is murder, then by shooting and killing people at Fort Sumter, the Confederacy was the first to start murdering. You then blaming Lincoln for that is, apart from being preposterous by any reasoning, indeed a double standard since by blaming all the "murders" on him you're excusing the confederates of wrongdoing.

It's a bit like arguing that a rape victim "provoked" her attacker and then that you're not excusing the rapist. You're just saying she's guilty of provoking him. It doesn't fly. You're defending the right of the south to "murder" people by blaming every death on Lincoln.