It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

[Louis VI the Fat]

April, the cruellest of months, has been (re-)declared Confederate History Month in the Commonwealth of Virginia:


WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and
WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and [...]


WHEREAS, this defining chapter in Virginia's history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live, and this study and remembrance takes on particular importance as the Commonwealth prepares to welcome the nation and the world to visit Virginia for the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the Civil War, a four-year period in which the exploration of our history can benefit all;


NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.
Confederate history will rise again!

What is, in your opinion, the history of the Confederacy? A misunderstood struggle for state's rights? Or the most un-American act in the history of the US, four years of shame?
Is the confederate flag an object of regional pride? Or the Swastika of the US, an affront to good taste?


Next year will mark the 150th birthday of the outbreak of the Civil War. It will attract a lot of attention, not least of which in Virginia. This coming year then, leading up to the 150th, will be of much importance for deciding how the Civil War will be commemorated / condemned / remembered / celebrated. It's history is not yet relegated to the dusty study room, but remains an object of much contention in contemporary politics.

[PanzerJaeger]

Although I wasn't born in America, I have a lot of sympathy for the Confederacy and for Confederate soldiers particularly. Despite the current politically correct, revisionist environment that paints the war as a battle over slavery, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers had never owned a slave. Slavery itself was a state's rights issue, and trying to separate the two does a disservice to the complex political undertones of the era.

In any event, they were excellent soldiers who fought for principled leaders and a noble cause. Their loss led the United States down, in my opinion, a regrettable path towards centralization of power in the federal government that was directly contradictory to the principles in which the nation was founded.

As an American, I have no problem reconciling the celebration of their battlefield successes and the unique antebellum society they cultivated with the injustices of slavery. Those who cannot usually stand to profit from their objections. The controversy over the confederate battle flag is a good example (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/cheney_sharpton_and_a_hunt_clu.html).

[Kagemusha]

I dont know much about confederacy other then military aspects concerning civil war. Looking at the military personel.It would seem that many of them really thought that they had casus belli to fight Union as they felt that they were first citizens of their home states and only after it citizens of United states of America.If the Union were to invade their states. They felt they had the moral obligation to defend themselves and their state. To me the whole talk about values and justifications of the war boils down to the point if member states of the United states had right of secession from the federal state.

[Lord Winter]

The lead up to the civil war is a testament to the dangers of staying with an outdated economic system. While I can certainly see, and to a certain extent sympathize, with the south's cause, they have no one to blame but themselves for arriving there.

[gaelic cowboy]

Despite the current politically correct, revisionist environment that paints the war as a battle over slavery, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers had never owned a slave. Slavery itself was a state's rights issue, and trying to separate the two does a disservice to the complex political undertones of the era.

So the South fought to protect the rights of a small elite to continue slavery thats hardly noble in fact it makes it worse cause most the people never owned a slave and they still ended up killed.

In my view most the revisionism is on the confederette side I shudder to think of the consequences for the world in later years if the south won thankfully we never had to find out

[The Lurker Below]

This announcement was nothing more than publicity. Next year is the big anniversary and they want you to start planning your vacations now so you can come celebrate with them, don't forget to bring your credit card. Politicians only care as much about history, any history, that it will garner votes for them.

Something to consider though. Regardless of whether you view the thing as shameful or rightous, what have you, remember that in addition to going through a rebellion, the country also went through a major revolution. The way life was lived afterwards was greatly different in both the north and south. Culturally, economicially, and politically.

[drone]

As a resident of Virginia, Southerner by birth, and direct blood descendant of a signee to the South Carolina declaration of secession, I would just like to say: Some people have got to let things go. The South started the war, and the South lost it. I'm a firm believer in states' rights, and I understand the economic and social realities federal abolition would have wrought in the South, but it still doesn't change the fact that slavery was the root cause.

The governor's statement is not really that surprising. Up until 10 years ago, Virginia still had this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Jackson-King_Day) as a state holiday.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, I think the North should've let them go without violence, as I am opposed to the increase of centralized federal power. However, I'm also glad that the war ended up ruining lots of Southern gentlemen. My blood boils at the thought of those smug aristocrats, combined with them holding human beings in chattel slavery.

Fun fact: there were upwards of 100,000 southern whites who enlisted in Union regiments (not counting more in irregular units or militia), and every Confederate state except for South Carolina mustered regiments for the Union Army.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.Genius.

[The Lurker Below]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.

Considering the original was mostly the plan of Virginians, and that the federal government was dominated by southerners right up till 1860 when the Republicans won, why would they change it? The southerners of 1860 should be criticized for bailing out as soon as they no longer dominated the national debate, but not for taking with them what they had created to begin with.

[TinCow]

I'm a Virginia resident (though a carpetbagger, not a 'Virginian') and an amateur historian. Personally, I do agree that the sacrifices of Confederate soldiers are too often overlooked in this country. The vast majority fought for their country with good faith and good intentions. Their sacrifices deserve to be honored and remembered. At the same time, the Civil War cannot be taught without a discussion of slavery. To do otherwise is to actively misinterpret history and is akin to teaching WW2 without a discussion of the Holocaust, or the conquest of the Americas without a discussion of the genocide of the native peoples. Thus McDonnell is on solid group in promoting Confederate History Month, but he deserves all the muck thrown his way for ignoring the issue of slavery in his original statement.

Those who distort history for political ends do an immense disservice to human civilization, and actively promote misunderstanding and division, rather then education and peaceful reconciliation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Considering the original was mostly the plan of Virginians, and that the federal government was dominated by southerners right up till 1860 when the Republicans won, why would they change it? The southerners of 1860 should be criticized for bailing out as soon as they no longer dominated the national debate, but not for taking with them what they had created to begin with.

Why would I be criticizing them for not changing it? Only for saying it was about state's rights when the only state's right they cared about was slavery.

However, checking the wiki article (which has been immensely expanded since the last time I read it) it seems the confederate constitution made a ton of changes to weaken the power of the federal government. The perils of using wiki as a source...

-edit-

Although honestly I don't know enough about the constitution to say if the article is more accurate now.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why would I be criticizing them for not changing it? Only for saying it was about state's rights when the only state's right they cared about was slavery.

However, checking the wiki article (which has been immensely expanded since the last time I read it) it seems the confederate constitution made a ton of changes to weaken the power of the federal government. The perils of using wiki as a source...

-edit-

Although honestly I don't know enough about the constitution to say if the article is more accurate now.When I'm found out, I continue my bluff by confusing the other debaters with a barrage of links, too long to be actually read. :beam:

[PanzerJaeger]

So the South fought to protect the rights of a small elite to continue slavery thats hardly noble in fact it makes it worse cause most the people never owned a slave and they still ended up killed.

No, they fought to maintain the sovereignty of the states, a principle on which the nation was founded. More directly, they fought for their families, their brothers in arms, and their way of life.



However, checking the wiki article (which has been immensely expanded since the last time I read it) it seems the confederate constitution made a ton of changes to weaken the power of the federal government. The perils of using wiki as a source...

This is what I remember as being accurate. "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character..."

Further, I don't believe the Southern states had so much of a problem with the Constitution itself, but with how the government had been drifting away from the founding principles expressed in that document. They believed themselves to be - and I think quite accurately - patriots, returning the balance of power to the states as was originally envisioned by the founders.

[Strike For The South]

What a joke.

A small elite upper class sent the vast majority of the poor and destitute to do their fighting, all the while promising them the life they had.

The war was nothing more than a desperate attempent to keep a way of life going for 1% of the souths population.

And for the record the stars and bars is the Confederate battle flag, the actual confederate flag is much more quaint.

[Hooahguy]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[PanzerJaeger]

What a joke.

A small elite upper class sent the vast majority of the poor and destitute to do their fighting, all the while promising them the life they had.

The war was nothing more than a desperate attempent to keep a way of life going for 1% of the souths population.



Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?

[Strike For The South]

Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?

Of course, we all know the stories of the feds picking the Irish right off the boat and handing them a rifle.

But to assume that the movers and shakers of the confederacy were concerened with states rights is to assume wrong, look at anyone seccesion vote and the most "for" votes are right in line with cotton belt.

Look at the Confederate speeches before the war and then after, they quickly changed their tune so it would fit the "Lost Cause" narritive


Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. [Applause.] 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.

That is Alexander Stevens

[The Wizard]

The Civil War was a conflict without base, without justice, without proper cause. The South had no right to secede. Slavery was the greatest and most black evil in the history of the United States. It was nothing but the blind, unrelenting thirst for power, which had driven the South to force its way of life on the rest of the Union for ninety years, and which finally drove it to plunge the nation into the bloodiest conflict it has ever experienced.


In any event, they were excellent soldiers who fought for principled leaders and a noble cause.

Tell me... what is noble about slavery? Do enlighten my ignorant person.

[drone]

The South had no right to secede.
That's debatable. ~;)

It was nothing but the blind, unrelenting thirst for power, which had driven the South to force its way of life on the rest of the Union for ninety years, and which finally drove it to plunge the nation into the bloodiest conflict it has ever experienced.
How exactly did the South force it's way of life onto the rest of the Union? Individual states could choose to ban slavery, as was their right under the 10th Amendment, and many did.

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course, we all know the stories of the feds picking the Irish right off the boat and handing them a rifle.

But to assume that the movers and shakers of the confederacy were concerened with states rights is to assume wrong, look at anyone seccesion vote and the most "for" votes are right in line with cotton belt.


And to assume that the prime motivator for the war was exclusively slavery ignores years of discord over states rights, regionalism, and a host of other issues that had been splitting the North and the South for some time. Examining the Confederate Constitution only strengthens this position.

Further, the election of an abolitionist president and the whole issue of slavery was just the tipping point in a string of state's rights issues that the South protested as power began to centralize around the federal government, which was dominated by the North due to demographic realities; including the Alien and Sedition controversy, the Hartford Convention, and of course the Nullification Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) - none having anything to do with slavery. The situation was tolerable when most of the power was centered in the states, but as it shifted toward the federal government, the Southern states increasingly saw themselves losing the ability to control their own destinies, which had been a founding principle of the nation. To ignore these undertones in favor of the simplistic "we want our slaves" view does a disservice to the complexities of the political reality of 1800s America.


Tell me... what is noble about slavery? Do enlighten my ignorant person.

What would lead you to believe I was talking about slavery?

[Strike For The South]

And to assume that the prime motivator for the war was exclusively slavery ignores years discord over states rights, regionalism, and a host of other issues that had been splitting the North and the South for some time. Examining the Confederate Constitution only strengthens this position.

Further, the election of an abolitionist president and the whole issue of slavery was just one in a string of state's rights issues that the South protested as power began to centralize around the federal government, which was dominated by the North due to demographic realities; including the Alien and Sedition controversy, the Hartford Convention, and of course the Nullification Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) - none having anything to do with slavery. The situation was tolerable when most of the power was centered in the states, but as it shifted toward the federal government, the Southern states increasingly saw themselves losing the ability to control their own destinies, which had been a founding principle of the nation. To ignore these undertones in favor of the simplistic "we want our slaves" view does a disservice to the complexities of the political reality of 1800s America.
?

Fair points but the undertow of all these issues was the way of life which Southeners had built for themselves on the backs of slaves. This way of life only worked because of the ability to export large amount of cotton to European markets and for that you needed slaves, a gin, and no protectionism.

In a way the antebellum south was the ani-thesis of the industrial revolution. A largely agrain socitey subsisting on an underclass compared to the north which was indusrializing at an alarming rate. The real blame lies in the way the constitution was framed. States rights nor slavery are ever flat out addressed and this of course leads to everyone interpeting it as they damn well please.

The overtones in the state constitutions are quite clear what the Confederates thought about the black man (which to be fair was the prevading thought at the time for all peoples).

The election of Lincoln is also a paper tiger, The corwin amendment had been agreed upon by every major presidential nominee in 1860

As you look at what these men said and where the loudest voices for secession was coming from, it becomes quite clear what the engine of the CSA was

[PanzerJaeger]

Fair points but the undertow of all these issues was the way of life which Southeners had built for themselves on the backs of slaves. This way of life only worked because of the ability to export large amount of cotton to European markets and for that you needed slaves, a gin, and no protectionism.

In a way the antebellum south was the ani-thesis of the industrial revolution. A largely agrain socitey subsisting on an underclass compared to the north which was indusrializing at an alarming rate. The real blame lies in the way the constitution was framed. States rights nor slavery are ever flat out addressed and this of course leads to everyone interpeting it as they damn well please.

The overtones in the state constitutions are quite clear what the Confederates thought about the black man (which to be fair was the prevading thought at the time for all peoples).

The election of Lincoln is also a paper tiger, The corwin amendment had been agreed upon by every major presidential nominee in 1860

As you look at what these men said and where the loudest voices for secession was coming from, it becomes quite clear what the engine of the CSA was

I agree that the primary reason for the divergence of the North and the South was the disparity in economic systems, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role slavery played in the motivations of those who fought for the South. Slaves were an expensive luxury that most Southerners would never have, especially considering the fact that the South continued the ban on new importation. The vast majority of Southern whites worked their own farms or on those of others. The federal tariffs and other laws which increasingly favored Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture hurt these non-slave owning Southerners just as badly, if not more so. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

[Subotan]

If I remember correctly, the confederate constitution was basically a copy of the US constitution, with a proviso added that said slaves were allowed. Other articles that had been widely criticized as being detrimental to states rights were left intact.
As well as it being illegal for a state to secede from the Confederacy.


. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.
True, but that is exactly why any such attempts to commemorate the Confederacy should be treated with caution. I think we can all feel sympathy for Johnny Reb who went out and died to prevent Northern Aggression, but we also have to consider why the institutions which allowed him to fight were created. They were created due to a clash over states rights, on the issue of slavery. Ergo, the Confederacy was fighting for slavery, and so was Johnny Reb. He may not have been fighting for slavery in his conscience, but in the bigger picture, that is the only thing he was fighting for. As slavery as an phenomenon is indefensible, so are the institutions which uphold it, and that includes the Confederate States of America.

Commemorating the Confederacy is in many ways similar to commemorating Imperial Germany. Although Fritz von Boche may not have been fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was, and that the German Empire was an imperialistic, militarised and aggressive state. Any commemoration of the German Empire and it's culture/citizens is thus tainted with those qualities, as any commemoration of the CSA is with slavery. To put it another way, I think we can all agree that the world was better off for the Central Powers losing WWI. Likewise, we can be glad that the South lost the American Civil War.

[PanzerJaeger]

True, but that is exactly why any such attempts to commemorate the Confederacy should be treated with caution. I think we can all feel sympathy for Johnny Reb who went out and died to prevent Northern Aggression, but we also have to consider why the institutions which allowed him to fight were created. They were created due to a clash over states rights, on the issue of slavery. Ergo, the Confederacy was fighting for slavery, and so was Johnny Reb. He may not have been fighting for slavery in his conscience, but in the bigger picture, that is the only thing he was fighting for. As slavery as an phenomenon is indefensible, so are the institutions which uphold it, and that includes the Confederate States of America.

In that case, we should cancel 4th of July celebrations and American history as a whole should not be commemorated, as the nation was essentially created through aggressive expansionist policies and the destruction of hundreds of other nations. A more mature view, in my opinion, is to realize that these commemorative holidays celebrate the positive elements of a particular group's history, and that the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to be able to separate the good from the bad. In that vein, I do not believe anyone seriously views Confederate History Month as a celebration of slavery.

Those seeking to make hay over this are a) the typical black profiteers that come out of the woodwork every time anything even vaguely related to race comes up and b) Democrats seeking to score some political points against Governer McDonnell.


Commemorating the Confederacy is in many ways similar to commemorating Imperial Germany. Although Fritz von Boche may not have been fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was, and that the German Empire was an imperialistic, militarised and aggressive state. Any commemoration of the German Empire and it's culture/citizens is thus tainted with those qualities, as any commemoration of the CSA is with slavery. To put it another way, I think we can all agree that the world was better off for the Central Powers losing WWI. Likewise, we can be glad that the South lost the American Civil War.

Couldn't disagree more!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Commemorating the Confederacy is in many ways similar to commemorating Imperial Germany. Although Fritz von Boche may not have been fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was, and that the German Empire was an imperialistic, militarised and aggressive state. Any commemoration of the German Empire and it's culture/citizens is thus tainted with those qualities, as any commemoration of the CSA is with slavery. To put it another way, I think we can all agree that the world was better off for the Central Powers losing WWI. Likewise, we can be glad that the South lost the American Civil War.
Although it's off-topic, the Allied victory in WW1 set up it's far more terrible sequel.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Had the Secession never happened, or had the South seceded and won its independence, slavery would still have been scrapped within a few decades. The economics of mass production and the mechanization of agriculture would have killed it even if common morality did not. So, even a souther victory would have done little more than extend it a while. Slavery would have been "legal" for much longer, but functionally discarded almost as quickly as it was.

Most of the lads on both sides fought because of the excitement of the thing -- seeing the elephant -- and the rush of excitement as all of their neighbors volunteered and what not. This paled as the war progressed and conscription became necessary, but by then too much blood had been spilled for much in the way of "live and let live" to occur. The South fought for its way of life and to continue its right to own slaves. The North fought because the South needed to be taught a lesson (and eventually to end slavery as well). The South did not fight a war of aggression -- yet was by far the more bellicose of the two.

A sad era.

[The Lurker Below]

I must agree that essentially the war was fought because of slavery, regardless of the semantics and details that many can bring should they wish.

Having said that I can't help but be amused that Lincoln freed no slaves, and before it was over the CSA did free theirs.

[Strike For The South]

I agree that the primary reason for the divergence of the North and the South was the disparity in economic systems, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role slavery played in the motivations of those who fought for the South. Slaves were an expensive luxury that most Southerners would never have, especially considering the fact that the South continued the ban on new importation. The vast majority of Southern whites worked their own farms or on those of others. The federal tariffs and other laws which increasingly favored Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture hurt these non-slave owning Southerners just as badly, if not more so. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

I agree that regular old Johnny had no bone in this fight, but the men whom voted on secession did. The tariffs affected the yeoman very little as he had very little to sell internationaly to begin with.

The North dominated the south only because the elite in the South refused to change due to the fact they had rigged the game in the first place. Domonation only came when the Southern elite refused to see the writing on the wall and felt the only true explanation could be those damned Yanks were trying to poach on their way of life.

I dont mean to come off sounding as classist but the American South was exactly that and the majority of Southeners were forced into a war they did not want.

[DisruptorX]

I agree that the primary reason for the divergence of the North and the South was the disparity in economic systems, but I think you are putting too much emphasis on the role slavery played in the motivations of those who fought for the South. Slaves were an expensive luxury that most Southerners would never have, especially considering the fact that the South continued the ban on new importation. The vast majority of Southern whites worked their own farms or on those of others. The federal tariffs and other laws which increasingly favored Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture hurt these non-slave owning Southerners just as badly, if not more so. For most, the war was about the North dominating the South through the federal government.

That assumes that Slavery was not a system that non slave holders supported or aspired to be part of. But really, as you suggest, non-slave holders were simply fighting for their nation, of which slavery was a fundamental institution. They weren't fighitng for slavery in the abstract, no. But you really can't divorce the South from the institution of slavery.

Do you have examples of letters or whatnot of non slave holders discussing why they fought? I think that would be rather interesting. Certainly all the top level political disputes, conflicts, and even battles leading up to the civil war were directly tied to slavery, but that is different than saying the average footman was fighting for that cause in particular.

[Megas Methuselah]

In that case, we should cancel 4th of July celebrations and American history as a whole should not be commemorated, as the nation was essentially created through aggressive expansionist policies and the destruction of hundreds of other nations.

I know, eh?

[Centurion1]

The civil war occurred because two diametrically opposed economic systems cannot survive together but must either merge or seperate.

In essence the Civil War was a bunch of poor white southern mountain boys fighting for something they could only dream of, plantation lifestyles. Slavery however was only the spark that blew up the US. Sparks within that spark were Harper's Ferry, Dred Scott Case, Republicans Election, Free Soil movement, etc.

I read an article in the Washington Post (hate it) where some guy name Andrez (sp?) Martinez is talking about how he refuses to go down lee street or something and how he doesn't want his kid to go to Washington-Lee high school.

Garbage.

[DisruptorX]

Well, recognizing that Slavery was the central issue of the time and that "states rights" is a euphemism for one right in particular doesn't mean that one should discard his heritage or deny it. No one alive today (or for quite a long time) is responsible for the institution of slavery or involved with it, why feel that you need to pretend that the the war was about something else? No one has any duty to either condemn or disguise the actions of their ancestors. What happened happened, and pretending that it didn't doesn't change that. Apologism seems just as silly as that man you mention. Southerners weren't ashamed at all of their institution of slavery, they strongly believed in it.

Hating on confederates seems to me the same as hating on various American leaders who enacted unjust policies as Indians, such as Jackson. Why bother? To seem edgy? No one denies it happened, or condones it, so why would one waste such effort?

You won't find a single person who is seriously pro-slavery alive today.

[Watchman]

You will, however, find only too many who are seriously racist alive today.
And for some strange reason such people seem to have a taste for the "stars and bars" as a decorative element... funny that.

Just sayin'.

[Strike For The South]

You will, however, find only too many who are seriously racist alive today.
And for some strange reason such people seem to have a taste for the "stars and bars" as a decorative element... funny that.

Just sayin'.

They yearn for a time that never was....Where I live people in schools were taught the justness of the souths cause not because of the more merited states rights reasons but because we were god fearing protestants and they yankees were godless negro appeasers.

And this was all the way up until the 90s in San Antonio, Texas. Which is the very edge of dixie (if one can even consider dixie at all)

In most places the lost cause narritive is still beaten into brains and with much sucsess

[DisruptorX]

The "Lost Cause" mythology is so divorced from fact, that I find it really hard to believe that just because some people actually believe that nonsense, everyone should treat the Confederacy like they were Nazis.

I don't know, though, thats just me. My ancestors were confederates but I don't really feel all that connected with them, and don't consider *myself* a "confederate" or agree with any of their views. I just find that you can go too far in either direction. I see no reason why anyone should vilify their ancestors just because some racists today make up stories about the South's history. Its kind of like this: acceptance of Jim Crow was based on the Lost Cause myth. Racists today cling to it. But the Lost Cause myth is its own thing, invented decades after the fall of the Confederacy. Of course, thats an entirely different discussion.

[Strike For The South]

I had men fight on both sides, and generally agree that the South was fighting unjustly, however,

The massive amount of casulties combined with utter destruction did lead to a Northern cultural and economic imperialism that lasts until today (of course now the tide is begining to turn)

[Beskar]

What is most hilariously disturbing about the United States, is that they had slaves in the first place. They built the nation on the backbone of Liberty and Freedom, yet, they were the biggest buyers of the slave trade?

[DisruptorX]

What is most hilariously disturbing about the United States, is that they had slaves in the first place. They built the nation on the backbone of Liberty and Freedom, yet, they were the biggest buyers of the slave trade?

Thats an entire different discussion that could go on for quite a while.

John Locke himself was a big player in the American slave trade.

[drone]

What is most hilariously disturbing about the United States, is that they had slaves in the first place. They built the nation on the backbone of Liberty and Freedom, yet, they were the biggest buyers of the slave trade?

Well, after the Revolution, what would you suggest we do with 600-700K slaves already imported when the States were British colonies? Close to 20% of the population, with no money or means to support themselves.

[Beskar]

Well, after the Revolution, what would you suggest we do with 600-700K slaves already imported when the States were British colonies? Close to 20% of the population, with no money or means to support themselves.

Not buy anymore. You could also set them free as well.

[Watchman]

And pretty much take floor away from beneath the entire plantation-owner class ? I think we all know how enthusiastically they took to that idea...

[drone]

Not buy anymore.
Pre-Revolution, several states/colonies tried to ban the importation of slaves, the British Privy Council overruled them. Post-Revolution, all states except Georgia banned importation by 1786, Georgia (which didn't allow slavery from 1735-1750) banned it in 1798.


You could also set them free as well.
And watch them either starve in the wilderness or turn to crime to survive? And watch the newly birthed nation dissolve in economic ruin?

And the States/British North America were not the main buyers in the slave trade. The colonies in Central/South America and the Caribbean bought way more slaves in the Atlantic trade. Climate, disease, and conditions for those plantations and mines chewed through laborers very quickly. The US South catches (rightly so) a lot of grief because they kept slavery legal longer than most, but if we are talking sheer volume (and body count), look no further than the Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English colonies south of the border.

[DisruptorX]

Those are the arguments that gradual abolitionists/slaveholders used back then, yes. I wouldn't say those are actually valid points, though. In reality, when freed, ex-slaves turned to agriculture, business, and politics, and were moderately successful in all before the big crackdown during "redemption".

I mean, they didn't take over the government of the South as pictured in "Birth of a Nation", but they didn't exactly sit around and starve to death like the gradualist/pro-slavery crowd claimed would happen.

[drone]

Those are the arguments that gradual abolitionists/slaveholders used back then, yes. I wouldn't say those are actually valid points, though. In reality, when freed, ex-slaves turned to agriculture, business, and politics, and were moderately successful in all before the big crackdown during "redemption".

I mean, they didn't take over the government of the South as pictured in "Birth of a Nation", but they didn't exactly sit around and starve to death like the gradualist/pro-slavery crowd claimed would happen.
No, they didn't. But the overall situation in North America was different in 1865 than it was in 1788. Of course we won't know for sure, but I'm guessing that westward expansion, industrial revolution/modernization, Reconstruction policies, and the buildup of national infrastructure helped the freed slaves in their new life.

[Megas Methuselah]

And watch them either starve in the wilderness or turn to crime to survive?

Yes. It was for their own good. Just like what you did to those dirty Indians.


And watch the newly birthed nation dissolve in economic ruin?

State or country. Not nation.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Pre-Revolution, several states/colonies tried to ban the importation of slaves, the British Privy Council overruled them. Post-Revolution, all states except Georgia banned importation by 1786, Georgia (which didn't allow slavery from 1735-1750) banned it in 1798.

And watch them either starve in the wilderness or turn to crime to survive? And watch the newly birthed nation dissolve in economic ruin?

Not that it was remotely likely to happen, but break up the plantations and divide the land up among the slaves. It would hardly have ruined the United States (especially counting the vast expenses of ending slavery as it did four score and seven years later).

[PanzerJaeger]

Not that it was remotely likely to happen, but break up the plantations and divide the land up among the slaves. It would hardly have ruined the United States (especially counting the vast expenses of ending slavery as it did four score and seven years later).

Land redistribution does indeed have a track record of success... err...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The slaves already did the work on those plantations, why shouldn't they be entitled to keep what they produced? It's quite a different kettle of fish from taking the land from someone and giving it to someone else who was never involved with the land in the first place.

I think it's quite clear that it is unjust to profit from another's work without contributing to the process, ala plantation owners. The easiest solution to that injustice is to limit the profit of that work to the person doing it.

Can you show me a historical example where what I described happened, and resulted in negative consequences? Because I'm not even sure I can name such a situation at all, nevermind the outcomes.

[PanzerJaeger]

The slaves already did the work on those plantations, why shouldn't they be entitled to keep what they produced?

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic politics.

Just because you may happen to believe that the plantation owners were acting immorally does not mean that they were acting illegally, and they should not have been punished ex post facto. The US government quickly came to this conclusion after the war and reversed the "40 acres and a mule" nonesense Sherman enacted.



Can you show me a historical example where what I described happened, and resulted in negative consequences? Because I'm not even sure I can name such a situation at all, nevermind the outcomes.

One only needs to look South of the border. :nice:

[Beskar]

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic Marxism.


What he said was more like hiring Slaves as paid Workers.

[PanzerJaeger]

What he said was more like hiring Slaves as paid Workers.

He said "Not that it was remotely likely to happen, but break up the plantations and divide the land up among the slaves."

And thanks for the pre-edit correction. :nice:

[Beskar]

The slaves already did the work on those plantations, why shouldn't they be entitled to keep what they produced?

I read this statement as Serfdom, basically. The slaves become peasants and they work the lands and they keep what they produce, but they pay/rent or give a certain percentage of the crop to the owner. Another way of doing it would be the employ the slaves as labourers, so they can continue working the land as workers, not as a slave.



And thanks for the pre-edit correction. :nice:

Had me confused at first at what you meant, then I remembered I made a comment that it wouldn't be Marxism as the state would just take the land and it wouldn't be owned by anyone.

[drone]

Slavery in the US colonies evolved from indentured servitude (both European and African). Once the debt was paid, the indentured servant was freed but generally did not become prosperous as the best land was already taken. The participation of former indentured servants in uprisings like Bacon's Rebellion led to the switch from indentured servitude to racial slavery. I'm surprised Megas hasn't brought this up, since the presence of the Natives led to the institution of slavery in the US. ~;) Slavery didn't become a legal reality in the US colonies until around 1650, about 150 years behind the rest of the Americas.

Politically, the plantations were not going to be broken up when the US was formed since many of the FFs were plantation owners themselves.

Look to Zimbabwe to see what happens when you split up a large working farm and give it to people that don't have the proper knowledge to run it. There is more to farming than dropping seeds in the ground and harvesting the results.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic politics.
That's a really creepy analogy to try to draw, as that's exactly the attitude the slave owners had to their "possessions", but your analogy wouldn't even be close to correct unless the dog was sapient and provided the labor that amounted for half of your possessions.

I'm aiming for precisely the analogy Beskar mentioned - the slavery situation was just a really cruel version of serfdom. The solution to serfdom is to grant full ownership to the land the serfs were already working. Why can't we do that for slaves? It is obvious that those who kept slaves should release them and be on the hook for providing for them, as the slaves provided for their masters previously.


One only needs to look South of the border. :nice:
Care to elaborate, because I don't know what you are referring to.


Look to Zimbabwe to see what happens when you split up a large working farm and give it to people that don't have the proper knowledge to run it. There is more to farming than dropping seeds in the ground and harvesting the results.
The situation there is quite different, as the confiscated farms were not given to people who had previously been working that land as slaves.

[drone]

The situation there is quite different, as the confiscated farms were not given to people who had previously been working that land as slaves.
I don't think the results would be any different, at least for the big plantations. What happens to the livestock and farm equipment? Is that confiscated as well? How is it divvied up? Small farmers with 1 or 2 slaves probably imparted more knowledge, and had to trust their slaves more (and probably treated them better overall), so these slaves would have more success on their own. The big plantations? A few bad harvests and then dead soil.

Since we are talking 1788 in this little hypothetical and not 1850s deep South, what would happen to slaves working as blacksmith help, or as a dockworker, or any other non-plantation related work throughout the 13 colonies? Would the freed slaves get the business? What about the slave labor gangs that weren't tied to a plantation, but rented out across several?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

They should be at least paid the wages they would've received had they been white laborers while they were slaves, maybe throw in the cost for some remedial education, and any physical damages received beyond normal labor such as rape or the lash.

Then the freed slaves could purchase their own land/means of production.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's a really creepy analogy to try to draw, as that's exactly the attitude the slave owners had to their "possessions"

That is because they were possessions under the law.


but your analogy wouldn't even be close to correct unless the dog was sapient and provided the labor that amounted for half of your possessions.

Then make it your plowing horse. The type of animal is not really important to the point I was making. Slaves were animals... property... under the law. It's great that the law changed, but punishing those who acted within the old law is in itself illegal.


I'm aiming for precisely the analogy Beskar mentioned - the slavery situation was just a really cruel version of serfdom. The solution to serfdom is to grant full ownership to the land the serfs were already working. Why can't we do that for slaves?

I feel like I made my point earlier, but I'll take a stab at it from another angle.

The land legally belonged to the owners, not the slaves. Neither morality nor the ability of the slaves to succeed on their own has any real bearing on the situation. In owning slaves, the owners were not violating any laws. Retroactively punishing the owners for acting in a completely legal fashion violates Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.


It is obvious that those who kept slaves should release them and be on the hook for providing for them, as the slaves provided for their masters previously.

Not really. While a perfect example of such a situation does not present itself, ex post facto case law suggests that the owners would not be oh the hook for providing for them, which is aligned with the historical outcome.



Care to elaborate, because I don't know what you are referring to.

Mexico.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That is because they were possessions under the law.

Then make it your plowing horse. The type of animal is not really important to the point I was making. Slaves were animals... property... under the law. It's great that the law changed, but punishing those who acted within the old law is in itself illegal.

I feel like I made my point earlier, but I'll take a stab at it from another angle.

The land legally belonged to the owners, not the slaves. Neither morality nor the ability of the slaves to succeed on their own has any real bearing on the situation. In owning slaves, the owners were not violating any laws. Retroactively punishing the owners for acting in a completely legal fashion violates Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Not really. While a perfect example of such a situation does not present itself, ex post facto case law suggests that the owners would not be oh the hook for providing for them, which is aligned with the historical outcome.

I don't have a problem with punishing people who were committing horrible injustices even if it was legal all the time, as such a legal protection would be unjust and thus no valid law at all.


Mexico.
Could you actually elaborate for those of us who don't know Mexican history very much? Was there a situation in Mexico where freed slaves were given the land they worked as recompense for being held as slaves?

[drone]

They should be at least paid the wages they would've received had they been white laborers while they were slaves, maybe throw in the cost for some remedial education, and any physical damages received beyond normal labor such as rape or the lash.

Then the freed slaves could purchase their own land/means of production.

You are obviously just trolling now.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't have a problem with punishing people who were committing horrible injustices even if it was legal all the time, as such a legal protection would be unjust and thus no valid law at all.

While such sentiments are admirable, "horrible injustice" is of course subjective. That is why the law exists; and under your scenario, your solution is unconstitutional.



Could you actually elaborate for those of us who don't know Mexican history very much? Was there a situation in Mexico where freed slaves were given the land they worked as recompense for being held as slaves?

Well, in Mexico after independence from Spain, various groups of people such as the Indians and country peasants were essentially endentured slaves to large land owners. While technically not slaves under the law, "debt slavery" was a common term among the populists of the time. After the Mexican Revolution in 1910, the politicians decided to correct this horrible injustice by simply taking land from the owners and distributing it among the workers through the ejidos system. Naturally, productivity and output collapsed due to the reasons Drone mentioned. (Laborers are not farmers; and it takes more than working on a farm to understand how to farm.) Worse, unlike America's black population after slavery was abolished who were at least mobile and could seek employment/opportunities elsewhere, those Mexican's were tied to their land and lives of subsistence farming. (With the exception of black sharecroppers, who shared much the same fate as the Mexican peasantry.) In a bid to increase productivity, the Mexican government abandoned further land distribution in the 90s.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You are obviously just trolling now.
Yes, being concerned about the welfare of those held in bondage is trolling. How is giving freed slaves "backpay" a bad idea, nevermind trolling?


While such sentiments are admirable, "horrible injustice" is of course subjective. That is why the law exists; and under your scenario, your solution is unconstitutional.
Slavery isn't a horrible injustice? Fascinating.


Well, in Mexico after independence from Spain, various groups of people such as the Indians and country peasants were essentially endentured slaves to large land owners. While technically not slaves under the law, "debt slavery" was a common term among the populists of the time. After the Mexican Revolution in 1910, the politicians decided to correct this horrible injustice by simply taking land from the owners and distributing it among the workers through the ejidos system. Naturally, productivity and output collapsed due to the reasons Drone mentioned. (Laborers are not farmers; and it takes more than working on a farm to understand how to farm.) Worse, unlike America's black population after slavery was abolished who were at least mobile and could seek employment/opportunities elsewhere, those Mexican's were tied to their land and lives of subsistence farming. (With the exception of black sharecroppers, who shared much the same fate as the Mexican peasantry.) In a bid to increase productivity, the Mexican government abandoned further land distribution in the 90s.
Were the lands given to the people who had worked them, or to peasants in general. And if we must defend slaveowner's plantations in the name of productivity, what do you think of my suggestion that freed slaves be paid the wages they should've earned if they were white laborers? Keep in mind that that is much less than the value the slaveowners received from having those slaves.

[DisruptorX]

Slavery isn't a horrible injustice? Fascinating.


He said that what is an "injustice" is subjective.

As for the other point, Ex post facto law is artibrary and tyrannical, the exact sort of thing a just system of laws is in place to prevent. If you were engaging in a perfectly legal activity today and then heavily penalized for it tomorrow when it was declared illegal, perhaps you would then see why it is not the basis for law. Being in favor of arbitrary government is...well....I don't know. I didn't think anyone is seriously in favor of that.

[drone]

Yes, being concerned about the welfare of those held in bondage is trolling. How is giving freed slaves "backpay" a bad idea, nevermind trolling?
What business do you know of that keeps, say, 10-20 years of back pay for the workforce just lying around?

This solution would lead to these cases:
Worst case, outright murder of slaves before they get freed, just to keep from going bankrupt.
Financial ruin for just about any business that owned slaves, if they pay. Economic collapse in general.
70 year head start to the KKK, throughout the entire country, with resentment towards African Americans lasting for a very long time.

Less than 5 years after it's implementation, the Brits would come back and clean up the mess, and the country would be a failed experiment, footnote to history. It's completely unworkable.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

He said that what is an "injustice" is subjective.
I disagree, but if that is true, the entirety of the law is subjective - how can we rely on it?


As for the other point, Ex post facto law is artibrary and tyrannical, the exact sort of thing a just system of laws is in place to prevent. If you were engaging in a perfectly legal activity today and then heavily penalized for it tomorrow when it was declared illegal, perhaps you would then see why it is not the basis for law. Being in favor of arbitrary government is...well....I don't know. I didn't think anyone is seriously in favor of that.
So if a country made a law saying that it was legal to murder members of a minority group, and you did so, and for whatever reason people realized how terrible that was, we shouldn't at least have you and other murders make restitution to the victim's families?


What business do you know of that keeps, say, 10-20 years of back pay for the workforce just lying around?
What kind of business do you know of that keeps slaves?


This solution would lead to these cases:
Worst case, outright murder of slaves before they get freed, just to keep from going bankrupt.
Slave owners were wonderful people, weren't they.


Financial ruin for just about any business that owned slaves, if they pay. Economic collapse in general.
Honest question, how much of business in America was dependent on slavery?


70 year head start to the KKK, throughout the entire country, with resentment towards African Americans lasting for a very long time.
So, we get a 70 year head start on the civil rights movement.


Less than 5 years after it's implementation, the Brits would come back and clean up the mess, and the country would be a failed experiment, footnote to history. It's completely unworkable.
A common enemy to unite against. Didn't the British offer freedom to slaves who fought for them in the War for Independence? Who knows, they might've been sympathetic.

[drone]

Alright, multi-quote time!


So if a country made a law saying that it was legal to murder members of a minority group, and you did so, and for whatever reason people realized how terrible that was, we shouldn't at least have you and other murders make restitution to the victim's families?
No. Look at why ex post facto laws are illegal. The time to realize how terrible a law is, is before it gets passed.


What kind of business do you know of that keeps slaves?
Your reply/question has no bearing on the argument, since none exist in the country today. What business do you know that has the cash reserves for 10-20 years of back pay?


Slave owners were wonderful people, weren't they.
No, they were people living within the law and with what was culturally acceptable at the time. Some were decent, some weren't. When faced with financial ruin, those that weren't decent would probably just kill their slaves to remove that financial obligation. Since slaves were considered property, this would be legal. Don't forget that slave owners paid for the slaves originally, fed them, housed them, clothed them. Slaves were an investment for the owners. Simple emancipation would cost the owners enough. Tacking on back pay and education costs would break them.


Honest question, how much of business in America was dependent on slavery?
An honest question, does this make the rest rhetoric? ~;) I have no idea of the percentages of GDP relied on it. There were almost 700K slaves in what became the US in 1788, roughly 20% of the total population. Mostly concentrated in Virgina, Maryland, and the Carolinas (~600K), with the rest spread out through the other states.


So, we get a 70 year head start on the civil rights movement.
There would be no civil rights movement. A pogrom maybe.


A common enemy to unite against. Didn't the British offer freedom to slaves who fought for them in the War for Independence? Who knows, they might've been sympathetic.
The British, the slaves, or the colonies? :inquisitive: I honestly don't get what you are saying here.

[PanzerJaeger]

Slavery isn't a horrible injustice? Fascinating.

That's not exactly what I said...

Certainly by today's standards slavery is an injustice; but by the standards of 1861, things get a bit murkier. Taking things all the way back to 1776, it becomes even more difficult for me to justify land redistribution and reparations without completely ignoring the historical context in which slavery was practiced. As I said, it become subjective.

That’s just me though. You obviously feel differently. That's why the law is important, and why the framers specifically wrote ex post facto language into the Constitution. You're arguing from an emotional level - essentially "the evil slave owners deserved to be punished". However, the question isn't about the morality of slavery - that was decided with the emancipation, but with the legality of retroactively punishing formerly legal behavior - that was decided in the Constitution.





Were the lands given to the people who had worked them, or to peasants in general.

They were given the land on which they lived and worked.


And if we must defend slaveowner's plantations in the name of productivity, what do you think of my suggestion that freed slaves be paid the wages they should've earned if they were white laborers? Keep in mind that that is much less than the value the slaveowners received from having those slaves.

I think that would be equivalent to cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Damaging the Southern economy more than it already had been during the war in the name of retribution would end up helping no one. Further, as can be seen in the Mexican example, land distribution schemes can have negative repercussions far beyond the immediate generation effected by them. I would venture to say that even after the North abandoned Southern blacks after Reconstruction, they still fared better than most of the Mexican peasantry during the land reform period. Their progeny certainly have.

If we’re looking to give the former slaves a boost after coming out of such conditions, may I suggest looking westward? America in 1865 still had vast tracts of rich, arable land that the government was literally paying people to settle. Aiding the former slaves in homesteading this land could have been the basis of strong and productive communities.

With proper government support in things such as capital investment, social organization, protection from the natives, and education in farming techniques, such a plan could have worked out well.

[Horatius]

I really think the perspective should be kept that the South was fighting for slavery, now I got all of this information from the BBC, but isn't it true that after the war was over the returning confederates with local support waged war against the freed slaves and often killed white supporters? Wasn't that violence even against the expressed instructions of Robert E Lee?

On the same documentary I also learned that the massacre was a favorite tool of the ex rebels, and that local police would massacre political allies of the North during their rallies as long as the military wasn't around in force.

For more see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalawag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

If slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war, why didn't the South just agree to radical reconstruction, and to step forward?

That said I freely agree and admit I know nothing at all about the American Civil War, it is not a field I have touched very much if at all, and I also know the BBC is not unbiased, and wikipedia shouldn't be relied on, so I invite anyone who disagrees with what I said to say why, I'm not trying to start a fight.

[Fisherking]

As for the causes of the war, slavery was not the primary reason. The reasons were economic. Slavery was the heated issue used to stoke the fires in the north for an otherwise unpopular war.

It was not much more popular in the south by the way. There were riots in both places.

As to compensation. Any former slave who asked for it received 40 acres and a mule to start a farm.

Lincoln had proposed sending them all back to their homelands, though no one was sure exactly where that was. Those few who chose to return to Africa founded the nation of Liberia.

I am not going to touch the aftermath of the war nor the causes of racism. But it should be sufficient to say that the people, mostly nonslave holders saw the former slaves as being placed above them for the purpose of retribution and political control.

[Strike For The South]

As for the causes of the war, slavery was not the primary reason. The reasons were economic. Slavery was the heated issue used to stoke the fires in the north for an otherwise unpopular war.
.

Slavery and the Antebellum economy are hand in hand.

The secession speechs bear themselves out, Slavery was the primary reason.

[Fisherking]

Slavery was the emotional issue. Just as abortion takes center stage in arguments over states’ rights today.

But only 10% or less of the population owned slaves. Why was it that South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter? I don’t think slaves were involved in that.

[Strike For The South]

Slavery was the emotional issue. Just as abortion takes center stage in arguments over states’ rights today.

But only 10% or less of the population owned slaves. Why was it that South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter? I don’t think slaves were involved in that.

Those 10% were the most powerful people though, and the most powerful people tend to get there way...

I was always under the impression the taking of Ft.Summter was for the weapons cache there....The CSA plea for surrender was ignored and the rest is history.

The point is you can not talk about states rights nor the south economy without talking about the slavery issue because those areguments stemmed out of things like the fugtive slave act (commonly reffered to in the ordinances of secesion) and tariffs (which really only hurt the south because they had created a false market by using slave labor)

[Fisherking]

No. They attacked Ft. Sumter because Lincoln would not with draw the troops from there.

They saw it as foreign occupation. The Union was sending reinforcements.

It was still a dumb thing to do. I am from one of the 4 states that didn’t join in until after the crises.

It also caused a civil war among the Cherokee but most of the tribes of what is now Oklahoma were friendly to the Confederacy.

I would agree that it was all about slavery as far as South Carolina was concerned but the causes run far deeper and farther back than 1861.

The rank and file were not concerned with slavery which was a rich mans problem but joined and fought for different reasons.

Even is the 7 deep south states there was lots of anti war sentiment from the beginning.

It is much more complicated than slave and free. It has been an issue of division for almost 200 years and there have been no slaves for more than 147 of those.

[Strike For The South]

No. They attacked Ft. Sumter because Lincoln would not with draw the troops from there.

They saw it as foreign occupation. The Union was sending reinforcements.

It was still a dumb thing to do. I am from one of the 4 states that didn’t join in until after the crises.

It also caused a civil war among the Cherokee but most of the tribes of what is now Oklahoma were friendly to the Confederacy.

I would agree that it was all about slavery as far as South Carolina was concerned but the causes run far deeper and farther back than 1861.

The rank and file were not concerned with slavery which was a rich mans problem but joined and fought for different reasons.

Even is the 7 deep south states there was lots of anti war sentiment from the beginning.

It is much more complicated than slave and free. It has been an issue of division for almost 200 years and there have been no slaves for more than 147 of those.

I agree that it is more complex but the centerpeice is still Chattel Slavery

[DisruptorX]

You could argue that the North was not fighting against slavery. As slavery in the Confederacy was only abolished with the emancipation proclamation and slavery in the Union with the 13th Amendment. The were fighting because of slavery, as disagreements over the spread of the institution led more or less directly to the secession, but they were not initially fighting to abolish it.

Arguing that the South was not fighting for slavery, however, is disingenuous. The conflict over territories becoming free or slave states upon admission was the biggest issue of argument between the North and South.

[Subotan]

Land redistribution does indeed have a track record of success
Of course. To pull a random example out of my History Hat, huge land redistribution in Japan post-WWII broke the power of the pre-war landlords and created a small-farmer class who were the backbone of the Liberal Democratic Party's support, thus leading to Japan's economic miracle.

I remember reading that the key to the United State's success as opposed to other post-colonial American nations which relied heavily on immigrants, such as Argentina, was the lack of a landlord class which could dominate politics and society.

Except, of course, in the South. Perhaps if radical redistribution had occured, and each black slave had acquired his 40 acres and a mule, then the Southern backlash wouldn't have occurred.

[Horatius]

Like in China and the USSR?

Lets also remember how heavily the North developed industry and commerce to, just in order to keep Land Distribution in perspective. That said everyone should have been given land, or at least some type of property to sustain themselves as a point of basic morality, recent freed slaves have been granted the same neglect in more recent times. However is it proven that smaller farms are more effective? Large industrial farming complexes are overwhelming today aren't they?

[Azathoth]

Because it wasn't theirs.

It is one thing for society to decide that slavery is not right and should be abolished. It is completely different to then simply take land from property owners who legally owned their land and distribute it to other people.

It would be as if the president emancipated your dog, and, despite the fact that owning your dog was legal yesterday, today the government decides to take half of your possessions and give them to the dog. It screams of banana republic politics.

Just because you may happen to believe that the plantation owners were acting immorally does not mean that they were acting illegally, and they should not have been punished ex post facto. The US government quickly came to this conclusion after the war and reversed the "40 acres and a mule" nonesense Sherman enacted.


Of course. To pull a random example out of my History Hat, huge land redistribution in Japan post-WWII broke the power of the pre-war landlords and created a small-farmer class who were the backbone of the Liberal Democratic Party's support, thus leading to Japan's economic miracle.

I remember reading that the key to the United State's success as opposed to other post-colonial American nations which relied heavily on immigrants, such as Argentina, was the lack of a landlord class which could dominate politics and society.

Except, of course, in the South. Perhaps if radical redistribution had occured, and each black slave had acquired his 40 acres and a mule, then the Southern backlash wouldn't have occurred.

Well, here's an interesting article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18gates.html?_r=1

Holy Jesus, why does posting on this site have to be such a hassle? When is this going to be fixed??!?!

[DisruptorX]

Given that Confederates didn't put down their guns after the Civil War, and instead turned them on blacks who didn't say "in their place", do you seriously think the North would even have considered land reform? They would have to have put the South under military rule for decades. This is something there was no popular support for amongst the Northern people.

[rotorgun]

Wow! This thread has been an interesting read. Many good points have been made. I shall add this point to consider. There is not a great nation in world history that has not had its time of exploitation of the weak, whether slave, poor, indignant, immigrant, or conquered in war. Should they all denounce their history, or the parts of it that are indigestible, and thereby deprive the world of the picture of the truth? I don't think that acknowledging the bravery of those who fought in the American Civil War for the South is wrong. There is no attempt in our country to deny the causes of the war in this act alone. While I find the acts of many countries in world history deplorable, I don't think I should take exception to a country, or a region within, of acknowledging its past.

We all, for the most part revel in our Total War games, many which "glorify" the conquest, enslavement, economic and social repression, and exploitation of the regimes of the past. Are we not somewhat hypocritical of the Virginian South for taking pride in there Antebellum past? I still can appreciate the French revolution, though it was a time of great depredation and murder. I still can wonder at the bravery of German soldiers fighting for survival against long odds, even though they fought for a deplorable regime. Slavery was wrong, will always be wrong, but is unfortunate; there are some ant species that practice this upon their brethren by the way. Forcing one's way of life down another peoples throat is wrong, yet it is still a common practice today.

I love my country, with all its failings, and hope that the young of my land will be able to learn the truth from such a celebration of the history of the Confederacy. I hope that such a celebration will engender more discussions such as this, so that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. If we don't are we not doomed to repeat it?

[Skullheadhq]

fighting to extend germany deep into Ukraine, it is undeniable that the Imperial German Government was.

Actually, Germany officially didn't get a sqaure inch of land. In every occupied State (Russian Poland, Baltics and the Ukraine) puppet regimes were set up. So no, the Imperial German Government wasn't planning to extend into Ukraine.

Also, Germany (Prussia) was the first one to abolish child labor (somewhere in the 1830's) and make education compulsatory, while the US did this more then 100 years later, in 1938.

[Azathoth]

Also, Germany (Prussia) was the first one to abolish child labor (somewhere in the 1830's) and make education compulsatory, while the US did this more then 100 years later, in 1938.

Always thought it was 1918.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Couldn't the same be said for the Northern leaders? What did your average Union soldier stand to gain from fighting?



Saving the Union.

:idea2:

[Skullheadhq]

Always thought it was 1918.

Nope, Prussia wanted education for all for a quicker industrialisation, and they thought child labour was morally wrong (which it is).
1918 was the year the republic was proclaimed, before that it was a Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy.
The kaiser wanted to do even more social reforms, which is the reason he fired Bismarck, but he couldn't finish his job after the (failed) revolution in Germany.

But back on topic: Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding? :clown:

[Azathoth]

Nope, Prussia wanted education for all for a quicker industrialisation, and they thought child labour was morally wrong (which it is).
1918 was the year the republic was proclaimed, before that it was a Constitutional Monarchy/Parliamentary Democracy.
The kaiser wanted to do even more social reforms, which is the reason he fired Bismarck, but he couldn't finish his job after the (failed) revolution in Germany.

But back on topic: Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

You misunderstand. I thought education in the United States was compulsory by 1918.

[A Nerd]

Didn't the south do the union a favor by seceding?

Perhaps, but that depends on who had the most to gain by the North winning the war. Surely the generation lost fighting all the battles gained little. Abolishonist civilians, perhaps. I think politicians who could enforce thier vision of what the south could be, did with war what could not be done in congress. They, in my opinion, gained the most. Sure, blacks were free, but it took another 100 years for any slight sense of equality.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Did the South do the Union a favor by seceding? No, but they did the Republican Party agenda a snot-load of good. Having a 70% majority will do that for your legislation ability.

In addition to the war, the Railroad decision was made (and the Southern Route discarded) and the homestead act was put into law, both sentencing Amerind culture to destruction. The Republicans also succeeded in shifting the American political "center" towards the West (then defined as Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, etc. and away from the brahmins of the Northeast.

[Ice]

Confederate history month... what a joke. What's even more of a joke is people defending slavery in the 1800s because it was lawful and culturally accepted.

[DisruptorX]

Hey now, slavery is very progressive.

"Government is the creature of society, and may be said to derive its powers form the consent of the governed; but society does not owe its sovereign power to the separate consent, volition or agreement of its members. Like the hive, it is as much the work of nature as the individuals who compose it. Consequently, the very opposite of the doctrine of free trade, result from this doctrine of ours. It makes each society a band of brothers, working for the common good, instead of a bag of cats biting and worrying each other. The competitive system is a system of antagonism and war; ours of peace and fraternity. The first is the system of free society; the other that of slave society. The Greek, the Roman, Judaistic, Egyptian, and all ancient polities, were founded on our theory. The loftiest patrician in those days, valued himself not on selfish, cold individuality, but on being the most devoted servant of society and his country.
......
The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism."

-George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, 1854.

Slavery is clearly the original form of socialism.