The South Does It Again

[User 11148]

Theirs is the argument that the Southerners were simply fighting for states' rights. Ummm, yeah...

It really is a complicated question. The South was way the hell less homogeneous vis-a-vis that war than is commonly understood. Hell, some states considered seceding from the Confederacy! But to sum it up as "the Southerners were fighting to preserve slavery" isn't accurate, even though it's true that had the South won that war (which I think was an impossibility) slavery would have been preserved.

My ancestors, Scots-Irish from the foothills/mountains of Georgia and South Carolina, would not have owned slaves and would not have aspired to. Yet at least some of them fought for the South (others fought for the Union). It's very difficult for me to buy the argument that the rebels among them were fighting to preserve an institution they bitterly resented.

I do get a laugh at the flag fetish exhibited by people from my neck of the woods. Most of them are so ignorant of that region's mood/role in that war and don't realize that, likely as not, their ancestors who did fight fought for the Union.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Earlier this month, I got in a very spirited discussion with my in-laws (one of whom is from Ohio, the other Solano County, Calif.) on the subject of the Civil War's losing side. They were a bit too sympathetic I thought. Theirs is the argument that the Southerners were simply fighting for states' rights. Ummm, yeah...

I matter-of-factually argued the Confederates were NOT Americans, given their military fought AGAINST the United States military and their capital was not Washington D.C. And I don't think "Americans" would invade Pennsylvania.

We all live in El Dorado County, about 45 minutes up the hill from Sacramento and on the way to South Lake Tahoe. I never thought this subject would be this close to my front door, literally: Two houses up the street sits a garage with BOTH Old Glory AND the Dixie Flag hanging prominently on the wall. I see the Stars and Bars flapping from some idiot's pickup truck at least once a month.

The states' rights thing is partially true. Back then, with little communication besides letters and little travel, there was considerably loyalty to one's state, rather than a distant federal government hundreds and thousands of miles away. Robert E. Lee, for instance, joined the Confederacy when Virginia seceded, because he did not want to fight against his own state. Had Virginia stayed in the Union, he would have been leading the Union Army.

But at the same time, the main issue that got the southern states all in a tizzy was federal policies on slavery. So, in a way, slavery was the primary motivation for the states to claim that their rights were being violated.

"States Rights" also was used as a reasoning by the wealthy to motivate the rest of the non-slave owners, who were the vast majority, to fight for them.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Theirs is the argument that the Southerners were simply fighting for states' rights. Ummm, yeah...

It really is a complicated question. The South was way the hell less homogeneous vis-a-vis that war than is commonly understood. Hell, some states considered seceding from the Confederacy! But to sum it up as "the Southerners were fighting to preserve slavery" isn't accurate, even though it's true that had the South won that war (which I think was an impossibility) slavery would have been preserved.

My ancestors, Scots-Irish from the foothills/mountains of Georgia and South Carolina, would not have owned slaves and would not have aspired to. Yet at least some of them fought for the South (others fought for the Union). It's very difficult for me to buy the argument that the rebels among them were fighting to preserve an institution they bitterly resented.

I do get a laugh at the flag fetish exhibited by people from my neck of the woods. Most of them are so ignorant of that region's mood/role in that war and don't realize that, likely as not, their ancestors who did fight fought for the Union.

Yeah, states rights to preserve slavery. Sure, many of the lower class confederate soldiers were often forced against their will to fight for the cause, but that's what the cause was. No way around it without relying on revisionist history.

And yes, war criminals. What would you call someone claiming to be an American who turned arms against American soldiers? Even if war criminals goes too far in your mind, they're still treasonous bastards who should be remembered in shame.

 

[exmediahack]

Every so often, I will see a "Jefferson Davis High School" and wonder why the hell that's a good idea.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

In Virginia it's JEB Stuart HS, Lee Highway, you name it. The confederacy was a great idea! Dumbasses.

 

[Greenhorn]

For some prominent Southerners, the matter of states rights was superseded by devotion to the Confederate cause. Former Vice President of the United States, John C. Breckinridge gladly joined the Confederacy even though his home state of Kentucky remained in the Union.

 

[John]

While part of me agrees with the "they were treasonous bastards" thing, there's another side of me that remembers they were fighting on their home ground, to protect (insert whatever — slavery, states' rights, cotton money, to ward off northern aggression — here). These guys weren't John Walker Lindh, who went out of his way to turn his back on his country.
Most of the guys that fought for the South didn't have **** before the war and had even less after it. I have great respect for how hard those guys fought — and a few ancestors from Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia are among them — if not for why. And I think it's bull**** to look at and judge their reasoning through the lens of 150 years of history and progress.
I certainly hope that if I were around when the Star of the West made its way into Charleston harbor, I would have been wise and decent enough to object to the cause, or at least see the futility of the fight. But who knows? Maybe I would have wanted to kill some Yankee sumbitches and live on hardtack.

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Damn Southerners ...

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2013/09/confederate_flags_increasing_a.html

 

[Mark2010]

CSA Mark II will also include a good swath of the Great Plains and the Intermountain West. Probably how the Civil War would've broken down if they had all 48 contiguous states.

Correct.

 

[Mark2010]

I could see this happening in some other parts of the country but I've
never thought of The Richmond area as this backwards.

Ohhhhh hell yes it is.

It boggles the mind that a region that is supposed to be so darn patriotic and loves America so much is also so quick to celebrate war criminals and treasonous bastards who killed thousands of Americans.

With the appropriate "fools rush in ..." disclaimer ...

1) Is this little piffle (the park) the doing of "The South"?

2) "The South," in venerating Civil War heroes, celebrates war criminals?

One man's hero is another man's criminal.

 

[Mark2010]

Earlier this month, I got in a very spirited discussion with my in-laws (one of whom is from Ohio, the other Solano County, Calif.) on the subject of the Civil War's losing side. They were a bit too sympathetic I thought. Theirs is the argument that the Southerners were simply fighting for states' rights and that they were, above all else, Americans. Ummm, yeah...

I matter-of-factually argued the Confederates were NOT Americans, given their military fought AGAINST the United States military and their capital was not Washington D.C. And I don't think "Americans" would invade Pennsylvania.

We all live in El Dorado County, about 45 minutes up the hill from Sacramento and on the way to South Lake Tahoe. I never thought this subject would be this close to my front door, literally: Two houses up the street sits a garage with BOTH Old Glory AND the Dixie Flag hanging prominently on the wall. I see the Stars and Bars flapping from some idiot's pickup truck at least once a month.

The same argument can be (and has been) made about American soldiers who fought against the British in the 1700s. Most any war involves a split of loyalties.

The idea of loyalty to one's state, as opposed to a larger union, is very much alive. I know people who consider themselves, first and foremost, Texans or Louisianas or whatever, and Americans a distant second. Part of that stems, IMO, from a feeling of alienation by the federal government while their own state holds closer to their personal principles.

Civil War, as I understand it, started because the people of the southern states did not want certain things imposed on them by the federal government and felt it was in their own best interest to form a separate country. I can definitely see that happening again.... hopefully minus the war part.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Go ahead and fly your *^$^# rebel flag all you want. But if you do, you thereby abdicate any and all rights to fly the Stars and Stripes or to sing Lee Greenwood lyrics.

 

[britwrit]

If slavery had been banned early on - even perhaps when we were still British colonies - there never would have been a Civil War. And states' rights would have centered around arcane, who-really-cares issues like tariffs on candles and where to draw a boundary in the middle of a river.

In fact, without the South declaring itself a seperate nation, slavery would have lasted a lot longer. Lincoln didn't have the votes to make it unconstitutional and the Northern states never would have backed any sort of war to get rid of it.

 

[Drip]

The confederacy was a bad idea in 1861 and for those wanting to relive history, the outcome will be the same in 2013.

 

[Mark2010]

If slavery had been banned early on - even perhaps when we were still British colonies - there never would have been a Civil War. And states' rights would have centered around arcane, who-really-cares issues like tariffs on candles and where to draw a boundary in the middle of a river.

In fact, without the South declaring itself a seperate nation, slavery would have lasted a lot longer. Lincoln didn't have the votes to make it unconstitutional and the Northern states never would have backed any sort of war to get rid of it.

Probably. But I also agree with the person who said slavery probably would have died out within a generation or less as machines became more common in agriculture and there wasn't the same demand for physical labor.

 

[Morris816]

Slavery was at the heart of the Southern states wanting to secede. States right did get debated but not the way people think it was.

The northern states wanted the federal government to impose high tariffs to protect their industries, which the southern states objected to. They objected because the southern states produced a lot of raw materials and wanted to be able to sell them to European nations without high tariffs being assessed. For example, there was the ordeal over South Carolina attempting nullification of a tariff when Andrew Jackson was President (and even Jackson, known for positions that went against federal government being too strong, thought SC's move was absurd).

The debate over tariffs gets turned into the "states rights" argument, even though the Constitution gave Congress the power to tax, unless it was direct taxation (which tariffs are not).

As for slavery, the northern states weren't heavily in favor of abolitionism. Many of the northern politicians argued against slavery in new states for economic and political reasons. The economic reasons dealt with wanting more states that would be likely to develop economically so they would side with the interests of the northern states already in existence. The political reasons dealt with that "three-fifths" rule for representation.

How was that important, you say, if freeing slaves meant southern states could suddenly count the freed slaves as a full citizen for purposes of representation in the House? Because freed slaves might choose to live in another state and southern states would lose House representation. But as long as they remained slaves, southern states could find ways to control the slave population and get more House seats at the expense of the North.

To sum up: The reasons the southern states seceded were complex in nature, but the reason at the top of the list was slavery -- but it wasn't because the northern states were sympathetic to the slaves and wanted them free out of the goodness of the hearts. There may have been the abolitionists, but they represented the minority in the North. The sad truth is the majority of Northerners didn't give a **** about the slaves.

 

[Mark2010]

Good analysis. It just came down to a different way of life, with economics at the head of the list. Same as today. We are seeing a greater and greater divide between certain areas. Different values, different ways of life and hard to find a compromise that everyone can live with. The healthcare issue is just one of many examples.

That's why I predict the union will eventually split because of "irreconcilable differences". The difference this time is that I don't expect the more liberal states would fight to keep the conservative ones from leaving. More and more, they are considered obstructionist nusances. Maybe both sides will be better off.

From a sports standpoint, I don't think it would matter much. It wouldn't much different than a US team playing against a Canadian team.

 

[Stoney]

Slavery was at the heart of the Southern states wanting to secede. States right did get debated but not the way people think it was.

The northern states wanted the federal government to impose high tariffs to protect their industries, which the southern states objected to. They objected because the southern states produced a lot of raw materials and wanted to be able to sell them to European nations without high tariffs being assessed. For example, there was the ordeal over South Carolina attempting nullification of a tariff when Andrew Jackson was President (and even Jackson, known for positions that went against federal government being too strong, thought SC's move was absurd).

The debate over tariffs gets turned into the "states rights" argument, even though the Constitution gave Congress the power to tax, unless it was direct taxation (which tariffs are not).

As for slavery, the northern states weren't heavily in favor of abolitionism. Many of the northern politicians argued against slavery in new states for economic and political reasons. The economic reasons dealt with wanting more states that would be likely to develop economically so they would side with the interests of the northern states already in existence. The political reasons dealt with that "three-fifths" rule for representation.

How was that important, you say, if freeing slaves meant southern states could suddenly count the freed slaves as a full citizen for purposes of representation in the House? Because freed slaves might choose to live in another state and southern states would lose House representation. But as long as they remained slaves, southern states could find ways to control the slave population and get more House seats at the expense of the North.

To sum up: The reasons the southern states seceded were complex in nature, but the reason at the top of the list was slavery -- but it wasn't because the northern states were sympathetic to the slaves and wanted them free out of the goodness of the hearts. There may have been the abolitionists, but they represented the minority in the North. The sad truth is the majority of Northerners didn't give a **** about the slaves.

Actually not that complex. It was basically all about slavery. The "complex reasons" "states rights" stuff is a lot of blowhard BS. Yeah, they were concerned about "states rights", namely their right to maintain the institution of slavery, that was the only state right concern that they cared about enough to compel secession.

The reason they seceded was actually fairly simple: the handwriting was on the wall that they would eventually lose the slavery political battle as the new western states entered the union, so they tried to get out before that happened.

 

[Drip]

Slavery was at the heart of the Southern states wanting to secede. States right did get debated but not the way people think it was.

The northern states wanted the federal government to impose high tariffs to protect their industries, which the southern states objected to. They objected because the southern states produced a lot of raw materials and wanted to be able to sell them to European nations without high tariffs being assessed. For example, there was the ordeal over South Carolina attempting nullification of a tariff when Andrew Jackson was President (and even Jackson, known for positions that went against federal government being too strong, thought SC's move was absurd).

The debate over tariffs gets turned into the "states rights" argument, even though the Constitution gave Congress the power to tax, unless it was direct taxation (which tariffs are not).

As for slavery, the northern states weren't heavily in favor of abolitionism. Many of the northern politicians argued against slavery in new states for economic and political reasons. The economic reasons dealt with wanting more states that would be likely to develop economically so they would side with the interests of the northern states already in existence. The political reasons dealt with that "three-fifths" rule for representation.

How was that important, you say, if freeing slaves meant southern states could suddenly count the freed slaves as a full citizen for purposes of representation in the House? Because freed slaves might choose to live in another state and southern states would lose House representation. But as long as they remained slaves, southern states could find ways to control the slave population and get more House seats at the expense of the North.

To sum up: The reasons the southern states seceded were complex in nature, but the reason at the top of the list was slavery -- but it wasn't because the northern states were sympathetic to the slaves and wanted them free out of the goodness of the hearts. There may have been the abolitionists, but they represented the minority in the North. The sad truth is the majority of Northerners didn't give a **** about the slaves.

Actually not that complex. It was basically all about slavery. The "complex reasons" "states rights" stuff is a lot of blowhard BS. Yeah, they were concerned about "states rights", namely their right to maintain the institution of slavery, that was the only state right concern that they cared about enough to compel secession.

The reason they seceded was actually fairly simple: the handwriting was on the wall that they would eventually lose the slavery political battle as the new western states entered the union, so they tried to get out before that happened.

Some folk just can't accept defeat.

 

[ColdCat]

In Virginia it's JEB Stuart HS, Lee Highway, you name it. The confederacy was a great idea! Dumbasses.

In Jacksonville there's a high school named after Nathan Bedford Forest. Yeah, let's name a school after the guy who founded the Klan. Fantastic idea.