The Confederacy Was Not About Slavery

Someone mentioned Ken Burns above, so it is interesting to note that initially, according to one of Burns documentaries I viewed recently, Lincoln didn't want the North erroneously thinking the war was being fought over aboliton. Later, as the North wasn't doing well in the War of Northern Aggression , abolition was used as a lightning rod to gain flagging Northern support.


Keep in mind, the South was already slowly doing away with slavery as it was becoming economically unviable.


What is interesting to me, just for fun here, is to compare the US position supporting former soviet satellite countries from seceding from the USSR, as matter of political rights, yet we can certianly know that no states in the south today would be allowed to secede, which would still be a violation of states rights and existing state constitutions, as I've read in some articles. Without actually having read the individual constitutions of states such as Texas, I really don't know for a fact that is accurate.


To me its amazing that the South ever thought they had an actual chance, but then the American Revolution defied the odds against the Crown, and the southern leadership performed devastatingly effective up until the time of Gettysburg.


A couple of other interesting historical tidbits about the Confederacy:

1.)There were black plantation and slave owners. Rarely does this get much press.

2.)Negroes served freely in the Confederate army against the North. Unlike the Northern army which had segregated black soldiers from whites, in the CSA blacks fought integrated with whites in their companies and divisions.

 

The only way the South could have won the war was to have a major victory against the Union in their terf (Antietam) then both France and Great Britain were prepared to mediate a peace between the US and the south. (If the US refused then it meant war with Europe as well). But the battle ended in a stalemate that the US called victory (it did afterall halt a major confederate advance) and with the win Abe Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The South was then doomed, there would be no way a major European power could have helped the south with out upsetting its own populists for supporting slavery.


I recommend everybody read the How Few Remain/Great War and American Empire trilogies by Harry Turtledove. It currently is set after the US/Germany defeat the CS/France/UK in the first world war and the after effects. The Nazi regime rising in the south and the Soviet style government gaining support in the North is very intriguing. The next trilogy deals with the Second World War, with Fascist Europe against the German Empire and The United Soviet States of America. Very intresting.

 

"2.)Negroes served freely in the Confederate army against the North. Unlike the Northern army which had segregated black soldiers from whites, in the CSA blacks fought integrated with whites in their companies and divisions."

That is open for debate, due to the fact there is no historic evidence that can claim it factual that this happened. I think the number was around 30,000 blacks may have fought on the side of the Confederacy. Whether they were free or not is something which hasn't be proven.

"Keep in mind, the South was already slowly doing away with slavery as it was becoming economically unviable. "

I would like to see your source on this, because I've read a dozen books or so on the Civil War and slavery and never once heard that slavery was on it's way out by the time the Civil War happened.

Lincoln made the bold step in 1862 to ennacipate the slaves, and it was so that the North had a common cause to rally around and it was a direct military/strategic decision on Lincolns part. This shows the south now that this war has been going on for little over a year and that the Union would be restored and would be done by force
and that means that by any means neccessary. The Union had been getting their butt kicked early on in the war and the Union needed the spark and this was the spark. Now when the North went into the south, not only could they take away property from the Southerners, but also use these slaves as a way to destroy the economic and labor force in the South and to use them in fighting. The North had enough of the South by 1862 and so the war turned from a non aggressive war to an all out war on not only the Confederate Army but it's citizens.

Sherman and Grant were the prime examples of this when Sherman inacted a stance on total war against the South due to the Guerilla resistance that Sherman and Grant were getting in the western part of the war.

 

How about calling it the War of Southern Treason? Or the War of the Southern Crapping on the Constitution? Is that better or worse than the War of Nothern Aggression?

 

I'm sorry to come in here without substantive information, but I recall in my studies of Civil War history an incident in the years prior to the war in which several Southern Senators had illegally made arrangements to purchase some latin American territory for the purpose of expanding the slave franchise (since a previous compromise had made it illegal to expand slavery into existing U.S. territories). Apparently these politicians were caught over the ocean en route to finalizing the deal and were forced to surrender.

I would appreciate if someone could help me out on this one. That would debunk claims that the South were slowly withdrawing from the slave agriculture business.

Or perhaps my memory is faulty

 

I remember hearing about this and I think it was dealing with Cuba, or somewhere along the Florida Keys. I can't remember exactly but I know something like that did happen.

 

So if it wasn't about slavery would the war have happened without it?

The north won, we get to call it what we want.

The war was as much about the rights of the states as it was about slavery. The Emancapaction proclamation did NOT free the slaves, it freed the slaves in the SOUTH. This fact makes it about the privledges of states as well as slavery. Lincoln violated the rights of the states although be it for something of a noble purpose.

 

There's an easy way to look at this. Say today Congress and Bush passes a law stating abortion is murder and any future practice of it will be treated as such. Then certain states withdraw from the union over the decision. Is the withdraw over abortion or personal rights?


It's both, and that's the situation we have with the civil war. The gov't was changing individual rights, and at the time those that left saw nothing wrong with it. However abortion is the catalyst and the fuel for the whole hypothetical conflict.

 

I agree with tenorjedi. It was over state rights. It's just the particular state right in question was slavery. Neither the South nor the North were so noble that they would go to war over slavery. As was mentioned above, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South. And while the North didn't exactly recognize the South as a separate country, the South was a separate country. What if Bush issued such a proclomation for Iraq? Would it really free the citizens of Iraq or only be a form of propaganda? Also, isn't Lincoln quoted somewhere as saying something along the lines of if could bring the union back without freeing a single slave, he would do it?

IMO, you get "the war was over slavery" because of the PC society we live. It sounds a lot better than "one side cared about state rights and the other cared about preserving the union, but no one really cared about the slaves one way or the other."

 

" Four-score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate ? we can not consecrate ? we can not hallow ? this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be here dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us ? that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion ? that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain ? that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom ? and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

It was over state's rights, true, but clearly it was about state's rights to slavery.

It'd be like if the south today tried to succeed because they were pissed that the US is pro-choice. They'd split cause they'd say they have a right to ban abortion because it's a state right.

But it (civil war) was still about slavery.

 

In other words: Potato; Pohtahto

It's all one in the same, you can call it something else but you've still got to admit slavery was the crux of it. They didn't see the moral dillemma, they only saw a ruined economy.

Seriously, you could argue economics had more to do with it than states rights. Both still revolve around slavery. It's the fly in the ointment that was the Confederacy's.

 

Though I do find it amazing that the same liberals who say its OK to burn the US flag are the same people who think that the Rebel Flag (southern cross) should be banned.

 

"Free speech till you start upsetting our support groups." I believe that's hypocratic oath. Oh no wait a sec......

Yeah, although I do not condone it, flying a flag is just as much free speech as burning one.

 

Flying your own Confederate flag = a form of personal expression; a way of letting everyone know that you're stuck in the past; protected by the 1st Amendment.

Flying the flag over a state capitol = not personal expression, very bad public policy, not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Fighting flag burning while burning a cross in your front yard = priceless.

 

Fighting flag burning while burning a cross in your front yard = priceless

LOL

 

irishjedi49, it seems from your first sentence that I angered you. That's good. I'm VICIOUS!!! Didn't the New England states threaten to secede decades earlier (I'm not sure why)?

To those who like to tell us history enthusiasts to "get over it because the war is over":

This topic can be fascinating, if approached with a stable attitude. Speaking for myself, just because I sympathize with the Southerners of the 1850s-to-1870s, doesn't mean I'm saying the war should start over or that the South should've won.

I don't think there's anything wrong with calling the southern states (south of Mason-Dixon) "confederate," because they are and have always been a slightly different culture. They're still Americans just like New Yorkers.

 

The war between the North and South was a civil war while the were both conjoined. But after the South suceeded from the Union, they were then their own separate nation, whether recognized from any other country or not. The Constitution allows States to suceed from the union, or replace the government, if they feel that the federal government has strayed from the truths and liberties expressed therein. And the federal government did just this...they were putting restrictions on the State's laws, and the states' ability to government themselves as they pleased...which was protected under the Constitution. After this happened, the South, rightfully, suceeded from the United States of America and formed their own nation; the Confederate States of America.
Please understand that the CSA did not condone, nor support, the acts of slavery. The whole point of its existence was to allow the States to govern and rule themselves as they please, as long as it was according with the Constitution; since the US government no longer supported its constitution in this matter. The CSA's states had the soul choice to either have slavery or not...it was their choice under the CSA's Constitution...not the federal government's decision.
The United States of America, after the south suceeded, had no right what-so-ever, to go in and place penalties on the Confederates, and charge them under their laws. It was an independent nation, and should have been left alone as such. US President Lincoln had no right to go and try and win his former states back. They were not his. They belonged to another nation, not the US...as he thought they did. They suceeded from his union with full authority and right to do so. Why couldn't the US see this?

The point(s) that I am trying to make is that the Confederate States of America existed in its own independence with the full support and authority of the US Constition. And they did not support slavery, but the Civil War was fought in order to allow the State's to have choice their own...also supported in the Constitution.

PS: However, the act of slavery is not under the protection of the US Constitution any longer, being how it was condemed(rightfully so) as against human rights...after the Civil War took place. But before that, it was completely protected by the US' own laws. Even more reason to explain the Confederate's independence.
PPS: Please note that as long as you are southern, "born and bred", you are a 'confederate' through the blood of your ancestors. One of my ancestor signed the US Declaration of Independence. And further down the line, fought for the Confederacy. So, by history and blood, I am both Confederate and US. And by nature and law, I am a US citizen.

**I hope this clears up some confusion about the Confederate States of America...and the United States of America.**

 

As for trying to buy parts of Latin America-they did more than that. William Walker in the 1850s (I THINK) actually invaded and took over Nicaragua, made slavery legal, made the official language ENGLISH and tried to make Nicaragua a STATE. Eventually he was overthrown and later executed.

 

The Constitution allows States to suceed from the union, or replace the government, if they feel that the federal government has strayed from the truths and liberties expressed therein.


Where?

I guess the reasoning is that it doesn't say anything abotu succession then teh 10th Amendment applies, but I think that's a pretty flimsy arguement.

I'm not trying to flame at all, I just can't find where in the Constitution it talks about succession.

Help?

 

Interesting question. It could be argued that without slavery as as issue, the war might not have happened. It certain wouldn't have happened for quite a while, and it probably would have to instigated by foreign involvement.

 

Although, remember, it was not the North that fired the first shot of the war, but rather the South. Technically, most of the southern states had already seceeded without meeting any military resistance from the Union. The war was, in fact, instigated upon assumptions that the North would never recognize an independent confederacy and would eventually abolish slavery, thereby destroying the southern economy. Regardless of whether or not these assumptions were true, the North did not start the war (remember, Lincoln was in favor of allowing slavery in states where it had already existed), and although eliminating slavery became a Northern goal during the war, it was not the direct cause of it.

 

[image=http://www.fotw.ca/images/us-csah.gif]

I'm Australian, btw. These people are proud of their heritage. Everyone has that right, though it may not seem that way.

 

Don't worry, epicauthor, it doesn't say anything about secession in the Constitution. Again, to quote Lincoln: "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." So neither does the law of the United States provide for its own termination. It follows that "no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

Please understand that the CSA did not condone, nor support, the acts of slavery.

Oh, goodness. This is patently false. The argument may have been clothed in states' rights, and undoubtedly they played a part (others have pointed out the multitude of factors that led to the war) - but slavery was key.

I am honestly surprised there's still room for debate on this issue - though of course most people on this thread understand the history, others seem to think it was wrong for the war to be fought in the first place, or that the South was in the right (!). Certainly the Civil War is a fascinating subject, with mountains of topics to be examined and discussed - I'm a history buff, too - but whether the South was right? Look, I'm a born Southerner, but emphatically not a Confederate. The two are not synonymous.

Speaking for myself, just because I sympathize with the Southerners of the 1850s-to-1870s, doesn't mean I'm saying the war should start over or that the South should've won.

If this is your position, I don't have any issue with what you say, bedada. I just read your first post as implying the South had been unlawfully "repressed" and some "right" to secede existed, which goes against established history.

EDIT: What is interesting to me, just for fun here, is to compare the US position supporting former soviet satellite countries from seceding from the USSR, as matter of political rights,

I realize you just said this to draw a light analogy, darth brooks, but it's not very apt. The Soviet satellite states had not voluntarily joined the Soviet Union, but rather had been forcibly occupied and were forcibly kept behind that 'iron curtain'. Try looking at the history of Ukraine in the 1930's (starvation of six million by Stalin to bring them in line with his "five year plan"), of Poland, of Hungary, of the Baltic states, etc. None of them chose to be a part of that union by any democratic movement, as far as I understand it, and so it is not at all analogous to the U.S. situation, where each state joined the Union knowingly and voluntarily. Territories like Puerto Rico have chosen not to be states, and so would have the option of becoming independent if they so chose by vote.

 

Interesting example about the Abortion thing.

I would have to say that if people tried to leave the Union then I would become the next Sherman.

I've studied Sherman and he always said "we cannot win the hearts and minds of the south, but we can make life so bad that they will come to the conclusion that war is not the way to go."

I would be fighting to get whomever leaves the Union back in and BY ANY MEANS NECCESSARY. Total war is the only way and Sherman is a prime example of that, because until the Union did this they were losing the war from 1861-early 1863.