It's Confederate History Month in Dixie

[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 - 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 - 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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.