The Confederacy Was Not About Slavery

The Civil War is misnamed, I believe. Sure, it's easier to say, but it wasn't a civil war. The South didnt' try to overthrow the North. It was a War of Secession.

Another nitpick: While slavery was an issue of the war, it was not the big one until Lincoln made it that way later in the war.

And I don't get why everyone gets so upset over the Confederate flag. It didn't represent hatred, it was a flag of people who wanted to run their own country.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a Yankee, and I'm glad the North won. And I'm not a bigot.

 

Darth Pigfeet,

"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."




One prominent case was in the news not long ago when an African-American family joined some group like the Daughters of the Confederacy recently. Their ancestor was documented member of the in the soldiery of the Confederate Army.

On a local am talk radio program a gentleman named David Teufel(sp.?) considered a very knowledgeable expert on the civil war and president of an organization involved in the study of the civil war (isn't that an oxymoron?), and a re-enactor, spoke on the documentation coming to light regarding black confederate soldiers. I can give you the radio program and station if you like and you can contact them yourself, or I can attempt to contact Mr. Teufel for you in order to get the information you request. Your choice.

Heh-heh, for those who see the Southern Cross as a symbol of white racism these facts coming to prominence might change their complexions from white to red, eh?


As far as slavery coming to an end in the south, if you doubt the inevitability of that then I suggest you bone up on your civil war history.

Firstly, historically it is very evident that slaves were becoming economically unfeasible, and the vast majority of southerners owned no slaves. Compare it to how many people drive automobiles over $60,000, because the vast majority of people couldn't afford slaves just as most people today cannot afford automobiles in the Mercedes or Porsche high end retail. Point being, there really weren't all that many southerners with any sort of vested economic interest in slavery continuing.

Next, slavery was objected to by numerous southerners, on political, ideological, and religius grounds, and as one example lets list the inimitable Gen. Robert E. Lee, who after remaining loyal to his state of Virginia in its secession in a sense of personal obligation, and refusing Lincoln's offer of a commission leading the northern army, freed his families slaves.
That's the proverbial tip of the iceberg, but an excellent example of the undercurrent going on in the south.


If you examine documents of the Confederacy you will see where limitations upon slavery were already being imposed. That's beyond any dispute. Restrictions were being placed upon importation of slaves. That isn't the act of a government or regime trying to promote the furtherance of something by instituting serious restrictions by constitutional mandate.

 

A subject dealt with in many well researched alternate history books and obviously talked about in many civil war studies, is that Britain and France wouldn't support the CSA if they kept slaves.

So, give or take a decade or two, the Confederacy would've been right on pace with the USA when it comes to racial stuff.

 

PigFeet -

You'd be the next Sherman? Remember Anakin killing the sandpeoplein AOTC, "not just the men, but the women and the children"? You studied the Gestapo? Or the Bosnian women who reported the way they were treated by prison wardens during the Bosnian war? That compares to what I've read about Sherman's total war (still, nothing compares to the Nazis - I'm just making a point).

On the other hand, that seems to be common practice in war today: force innocent people onto the front lines. The CSA was not trained in that method.

And IrishJedi, they could secede. And it goes against established history because they can't secede now (sorry I don't have any source to back that up). It's also established history that the Yankees were all virtuous and moral humanitarians and all racism begins and ends in the south.

For a while 'twas 'established' that Christopher Columbus departed from Spain in 1492 to discover America.

I hope everyone's enjoying this discussion as much as I am.

 

I'm a Southerner and I don't like the Confederate Flag, commonly known as the Rebel Flag too. Does that make me a Yankee collaborator, Warlord_Zsinj?


The Civil War was about Slavery and the Right to Own Slaves.

Another thing, about that definition on Civil War. According to that definition, you have put your own foot in your mouth. The Union was trying to force the Confederacy to remain with the Union. It was trying to force it's Government over the Confederate Government. It's laws over the Confederate laws.

So that war back in the 1860s was indeed a civil war.


HEY! Go read Harry Turtledove's AUH novels. He has a couple Civil War, Great War, and World War II series that ask the "What ifs!" of history.

 

(remember, Lincoln was in favor of allowing slavery in states where it had already existed),

Well, then he would have been in favor of allowing slavery to exist in all of the states. The South wasn't the only territory that had slaves. Even states in the north had slaves. It was just more common, and larger...therefore largly recognized and associated, with the south.

The Constitution gives the People the right to do away with, or reorganize the government. The southern states tried to ensure that the States had their proper rights. When they couldn't do this, since the north wouldn't let them, they had the right to suceed from the Union. They did, and then created, and were governed under, their own government. They adopted a Constitution very similar to the United States', only that the States had the right to either keep slavery or not, and the President served for 6 years...not four, and was not able to succeed himself. And Jefferson Davis was appointed as the provisional president until he was actualy elected to be the first, "true" president of the Confederate States.

The States did have the right to seced...since it was the will of the people of those certain states. And the United States actually accepted the Confederacy's independace, through the definitive Treaty of Peace, until the United States just presumed that they could move in and force the Confederacy to abolish their states' right to slavery. After the Confederacy refused, the United States no longer acknowledge their independence, and went on a rampage to reclaim what was supposedly "rightfully theirs"...even though it wasn't.

And whoever said it, you are right about Britain and France not recognizing the Confederacy's independence. But they, along with The Netherlands, Brazil, and Spane did recognize it as a belligerency. A 'belligerent' is noted as a "state or nation at war." in the Webster's Dictionary. But that didn't seem to stop them from buying confederate supply such as cotton and stuff...did it?

At the beggining, I guess the war could have been considered as a Civil War, but it wasn't after the Southerners seceded.



PS: As said before, the Confederate"Rebel" Flag does not represent hate at all. It represents a heritage of the South, that it was once a member of another country. The flag once flew over the capitals of Richmond Virginia and Montgomery Alabama and represented the Confederate government. It does not represent hate...only a nation, and a heritage.

PPS: Please note that I do not agree with slavery. And I believe it to be completely and utterly wrong. The point that I am making on the subject is that the Confederacy had the right to do what they wanted to do. It was not in the United State's authority to try and make them do anything. They were different countries in and of themselves. Like the US today. We have no right, at all, to go in and remove Saddam Hussein from his seat. He rules his won country. And the US shouldn't do a thing unless it is approved of by the United Nations. That is the only time, I believe, that it will be okay. But other than that, we have no right to make a move on him unless he does do something.

 

I don't like the flag because I think its about hate. I do see it as a piece of our history and heritage. I just don't like the design. My god, what were the Confederates thinking? Did they let an Englishman design the flag? It reminds me too much of England's flag.

I have nothing against England though.

 

Well, then he would have been in favor of allowing slavery to exist in all of the states. The South wasn't the only territory that had slaves. Even states in the north had slaves. It was just more common, and larger...therefore largly recognized and associated, with the south.

Well, the vast majority of northern states (save Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware) had already abolished slavery by this time. And Lincoln was a moderate Republican, running on the platform of banning the spread of slavery, particularly in California. And, although he was anti-slavery, he wasn't quick to sacrifice the Union in order to abolish it, because he knew the South would not want that. Therefore, he indeed promised to allow it where it was already legal (of course, he knew that slavery should not, and would not, continue) and only abolished slavery in the South as a punishment for the war. In fact, in the slave states that stayed loyal to the Union (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, etc.), slavery was allowed for a few years after the war.

 

Well, then he would have been in favor of allowing slavery to exist in all of the states. The South wasn't the only territory that had slaves. Even states in the north had slaves. It was just more common, and larger...therefore largly recognized and associated, with the south.

No. The entire crux of the issue was that slavery was not in the Northern states, and it was in the South. Questions existed as to whether Southern slaves were still "property" of their masters once they had escaped to the North, but it was clear that the Northern states were free states. That was the whole reason for the uproar over Dred Scott - Scott was a Missouri slave whose owner took him to Minnesota and Illinois (if I recall the places correctly), where he claimed he was free under those states' laws. Chief Justice Taney ruled that he was still under Missouri law and so still a slave, then went much farther and said that slaves were property and not citizens of the United States at all, according to his own flawed reading of the Constitutional definition, and so had no rights. The egregious decision was one of the major points leading up to the war. Also, as I recall, the Missouri Compromise had been designed to make sure that the Senate balance did not shift to slave states by the admission of Missouri as a slave state, by also admitting Maine at the same time. Point being, no slavery in the North.

Lincoln supported keeping slavery confined to the Southern states at the beginning of the war, though he personally was opposed to slavery, because he recognized that the right for slavery in South existed in the Constitution; and he maintained this position because his aim was to keep the nation together. Only once war had begun (started by the South) did Lincoln become more convinced that slavery was fundamentally wrong, and he waited for the appropriate time to promulgate the Emancipation Proclamation. But even he realized that slavery had been at issue all along, as he stated very clearly in his Second Inaugural.

It's also established history that the Yankees were all virtuous and moral humanitarians and all racism begins and ends in the south.

Oh, baloney This is not on the same order as secession, though.

Sherman's an interesting question, and one that actually is good fodder for debate. The man wasn't lining people up and shooting them at will; as I understand it his purpose was to utterly demoralize the civilian population but not to physically abuse them. He really felt that total war was necessary to end the war, that he had to raze the land and take the fight to the people so they would eventually give up. I'm not sure it wasn't necessary - it certainly achieved its intended end. On the other hand, how much longer might the war have lasted in any case? Now I'm a bit out of my depth.

On a side note, I always found it slightly amusing that Underground Atlanta (parts of the burned city) is now more or less a shopping mall, right near the Coca-Cola museum

Terr Mys - Interesting information. You had a bit more information than I did on the 'border' states. Was slavery really still allowed after the war, though? That doesn't sound right.

 

Lincoln was in favor of allowing slavery in states where it had already existed

Missouri comprimise...

irishjedi49 beat me to it...

forshame...

 

"I don't like the flag because I think its about hate. I do see it as a piece of our history and heritage. I just don't like the design. My god, what were the Confederates thinking? Did they let an Englishman design the flag? It reminds me too much of England's flag."

The model was St. Andrew's Cross, from the Scottish flag.

 

"You'd be the next Sherman? Remember Anakin killing the sandpeoplein AOTC, "not just the men, but the women and the children"? You studied the Gestapo? Or the Bosnian women who reported the way they were treated by prison wardens during the Bosnian war? That compares to what I've read about Sherman's total war (still, nothing compares to the Nazis - I'm just making a point)."

If you bothered to read some history on Sherman in general. I would suggest the book called "The Destructive War" by Charles Royster. It's a biography on both Sherman and Stonewall Jackson. However early on in the war Sherman did not condone looting or the destruction of property by Union soldiers when engaging the enemy in the South. However Sherman and Grant both got tired of the Guerilla warfare happening and so the only way you can fix this problem is treat everyone as the enemy. However it must be noted that Sherman didn't target citizens or homes unless you were in his path. So lets say a 50 mile radius. If you were in that 50 mile radius then it was 50/50 that you would have problems, however outside that range then you were safe. Also I would like to point out that if the Union hadn't been aggressive in this nature then the war could have gone on longer.

Also Jackson was twice as brutal. He fought under a blag flag. However war is hell and it happens unfortunately.

Also I would like to add that I still don't think Slavery was going anywhere in the South. Just because most Southerners didn't own slaves didn't mean it was going anywhere from the too factual standpoint.

1. The elite who owned slaves made sure slavery wasn't going anywhere, and so the policies handed down was to control who could get slaves, and who didn't.

2. Many lower class whites didn't complain about slavery from the mental standpoint that even though they were poor they could always looked down on black slaves. One of the biggest and most popular institutions was slave bounty hunters/police force which was done by lower class white males who cowered the countryside who would track and capture runaway slaves.

The Confederacy was not totally about keeping slavery, but it was also fighting against "Northern Aggression" by that it means that many Northerners didn't appreciate or want them telling them what to do and how to live.

 

If you bothered to read some history on Sherman in general.

What?

 

Whoa!

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but there's been some heated discussion here. I'm too tired to type a very coherent response, but I'm going to try to post what I know from my own experience and studies.

I was born and raised in North Carolina. So was my entire family--not a Yankee among us anywhere. My first solid food was grits and red-eyed gravy. I was shooting a .22 when I was seven years old.

My great-great-great-grandfather on my father's side--who, BTW, was half Catawba Indian as opposed to being a full-blooded white plantation owner--fought for the Civil War on the Confederate side, and was killed in 1863 in a small battle that is barely mentioned in records--the Battle of Ball's Bluff (not even sure that's exact). He was not a slave owner, was not friends with any slave owners, and was definitely not fighting for slavery. He was an illiterate farmer struggling to raise a family of seven when he heard the call for volunteers to fight the war for secession and, without questioning, signed up. He had nothing personal to gain from it, but felt it was his duty to fight for his country.

Here's the contrast: on my mother's side, my ancestors were wealthy slave owners in eastern North Carolina. However, none of her relatives fought in the Civil War (and, yes, I believe that is the appropriate word for it). My father teases her about it--"We poor white trash had to fight the war while you rich slaveowners got to stay home?"

Pigfeet is right--slavery was not an issue in the war until Lincoln decided to make it an issue. He used the Emancipation Proclamation as a bargaining chip. Racism is not exclusive to the South, folks. There were, and are, plenty of racists in other areas of the country, and there are plenty of us Southerners who couldn't care less what color your skin is.

The South lost the war because Lincoln had all the Southern ports blockaded so they couldn't get supplies. Then Grant cut down the Missippi River, sieging cities, and Sherman cut through South Carolina and Georgia. The Confederate Army was starving, cold, and didn't even have cloth to make uniforms with, and too many of them had died. They simply couldn't fight anymore.

Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, they probably wouldn't have lasted very long--they were strictly an agricultural society and did not have the means to build a new economy and government from scratch. More on why I believe that later--I'm too tired now.

And Warlord, assuming you're back from being banned, and anyone else who calls themselves a "Confederate"--it's been mentioned on here already. The war was over 140 years ago. We lost. Get over it. I am proud to be an American now--and I am a huge fan of Abraham Lincoln. He is one of my greatest heroes for holding the country together during this time.

 

"If you bothered to read some history on Sherman in general.

What?"

Sorry about that. I apologize if that was being too harsh. Didn't mean for it to be taken that way. Read the book I suggested on Sherman and you will see what I mean that total war was the only way to win the war against the South. Destroy the homes, destroy the property and take their property by taking slaves, burn the fields, burn the railroads and bridges. Blockade the ports, and make them feel uncomfortable and starve them out. That is basic military strategy. If they don't have the supplies to fight, then they will not and cannot fight.

Another book I would strongly suggest even though it's a tough read is a book called "Slavery and the American West" by Michael A. Morrison. This book dives into this subject and creates sort of a prequel to the Civil War in his book he examines the 25 years prior to the Civil War to show you how the powder keg was getting closer to explode and the events which triggered these events. The issue of slavery was a big part but not the whole story. The big chunk which needs to be explored is how politics about moving out West was handled, and which states would be free and which ones would be slave. Now the Northern and Southern politicians fought just as hard for representation in the House and Senate back then just as the Republicans and Democrats do today, and this was the big deal. Who would be the majority and who would be the minority. Who was in the White House was a big deal too. When Lincoln came who was a radical by Southern standards. So it comes down to money and power. Add to this the very different economic policies going in the North and South. One cannot exist without the other. The South needs Northern investors and buyers of their crops, and Northerners need the raw materials from the South.

So who was going to get the represenation in the future states of America was very much a big issue, which to me debunks the idea that slavery was leaving, because it was very much still a big issue in Kansas and Nebraska. Hense the Kansas Nebraska act in which violence erupted between both sides over this very issue.

So I would define slavery as being the wallpaper covering the big wall of States rights issues, representation in the House and Senate, Radicals fighting on both sides about slaves and freedom, Constitutional rights, etc.....

Another book which I would suggest and it's a very good read is "Slavery and Freedom" by James Oakes. Great book dealing with Slavery and how societies define their freedom.

 

Was slavery really still allowed after the war, though? That doesn't sound right.

Indeed, it was. I don't think it lasted too long, though. Perhaps I can find some more info on this...

 

I'm positive there were small pockets of it going on in areas of the South in which the federal troops authority was not present. However did it last? Probably not, but lets remember by 1877 after the Compromise of 1877 which was a very shakey deal to get Federal Troops out of the south so Hayes could be elected, started up bigotry and racism which existed prior to the Civil War. So basically the condition for blacks in the South turned to crap again the minute the federal troops left in 1877.

 

Well, the war could have been called the Civil War or the War of Confederate succession. And no, slavery was not why the confederacy hated the north. It was because the confederates believed that each state had more rights and did not have to take as much influence from washington as they did.

 

As KR previously said, any attempt to deny the role of slavery both in establishing the Confederacy and in causing the Civil War is nothing but wishful thinking.

 

OK, to the guys on the last page, the confederate flag should be banned from UNITED STATES PUBLIC BUILDINGS because it symbolizes the southern states BETRAYEL OF THE UNION.

Flags can be burned in private, and you can hang your dirty confederate flag wherever you want to in your home. There is no hypocrasy, liberal theory is always sound, it's just in practice it can get twisted.

 

Indeed. Typically you've got 3 causes of a war that one can attribute to a war. Political Economic and Social (pick a war and I can show you how, from the Crusades to Iraq). No surprise all 3 are linked to slavery.

Political- The south's political powerbase were wealthy slaveowners. Remember only male landowners were allowed to vote. The majority of landowners were cash crop farmers. In the south the only cost effective way to be a cash crop farmer was to own slaves. Just because only a minor segment of the population were slave owners, the voting demographic was much much larger. And those that weren't slave owners were typically business men who had ties to slave owners and would be bad for business but this is verging on economics.

As for states rights. The government had infringed on numerous occasions on "states rights" without the threat of leaving the Union. Not to mention the specific states right in question was slavery.

The last point was that slavery had not even been abolished when the south left. They knew Lincoln wouldn't have the backing to outlaw slavery outright, it was just a loss of their parties power they feared through new free states entering the union, which eventually could have ended slavery. No right had been infringed to claim that it was "states' rights".

Economic- This is huge. The souths economy was dependant on slave labor after the invention of the cotton gin (One could argue that Whitney's invetion caused slavery in the US to be a problem). The freeing of slaves would have required cash crop farmers to pay their laborers, which would have driven up their costs, or they would loose their labor altogether. Then that would hurt the cities which would downspiral into a deep recession as labor costs soared as the open jobs exceeded the labor supply. The abolition of slavery would have killed the south's economy.

Social- There was a huge division because of slavery amongst the North and the South. It was there even in 1776 when a paragraph was removed by the south because it compared Englands yoke to slaves oppression (this coming from a slave owner, ableit one who released his slaves upon his death) This division continued to grow over the decades till there was a hatred and loathing over this issue that made the south feel divided from the north. Slavery caused this social division that allowed the South to leave the union.

 

Just to clarify, I was talking about slavery being legal in the border states for a short time after the war, I wasn't talking about the limited continuing existence of it in the south.

 

The Confederacy was not about slavery. It was about something else that is horrible: anti-Americanism.

The confederates were American citizens that betrayed their country, left it, and fought a war against it.

Sound a lot to me like Johnny Bin Walker.


What the confederates did was not the same as what the Americans did in the Revolutionary War. The Americans had no representation in England, which is why we fought for our independence. The confederate states could vote for the president of the U.S., and were represented by two Senators and House members. But the confederates were like little babies throwing a tantrum in the store when they couldn't get their way. So, they tried to leave our great country.

 

the confederacy wasn't about slavery or anti-americanism. it was about money and ideological/political disagreements. the states of the south felt that the north was going to lose their rights, ideologies, and lifestyles to the north.

cheers!

 

Exactly. The south wanted to maintain it's anachronistic economic system based on slavery. They feared progress. So rather than go with the flow, like good Americans, they betrayed their country.

trai-tor Pronunciation Key (trator)
n.
One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.