Why do we cheer for the Confederates now?
Did I miss when they suddenly reverted from evil?
shareThe Confederates fought for self-determination and independence. The Union fought for empire under the guise of ending slavery, nevermind the fact that slavery lasted longer in the Union than it did in the Confederacy. Don't lose sight that history is written by the victors.
shareTo the OP: It is not a simple thing. The Confederates were not uniformly slave-beating racists and the Union men were not uniformly altruistic slave-liberators. Most men on either side were neither of these. There is nothing wrong with showing the Rebel side of things now and again, as long as you show it realistically (as in Ride with the Devil) and not as some kind of revisionist apologia.
However:
The Confederates fought for self-determination and independence
Sort of. The average soldier saw it that way, or at least as "defending their homes" (granted if their leaders hadn't tried to leave the country by force, their homes would have been in no danger.) But secession was championed primarily by the wealthy slaveholding elite, who dragged the rest of the Southern populace along under the guise of "states rights." Without slavery, there would have been no serious drive to secession.
The Union fought for empire under the guise of ending slavery, nevermind the fact that slavery lasted longer in the Union than it did in the Confederacy.
First and foremost the Union fought for the preservation of the Union, not for Empire (neither side had any monopoly on the desire for empire, as the Southern filibusters of the 1850's, the Mexican war and the 1862 New Mexico campaign - the goals of which included conquest of at least some of northern Mexico "by blood or by gold" after the Yankees out west were dealt with - attest to.)
Abolition of slavery was not an initial war aim except in the minds of a small percentage of the Union volunteers (primarily from New England), but they did not set policy. Lincoln's anti-slavery philosophy was forged into abolitionism by the war, and eventually ending slavery became a parallel goal with preserving the union.
The fact that slavery lasted longer in the Union than the Confederacy is a blatant red herring, because the Union lasted longer than the Confederacy (the Union is still around, after all.) When the CSA ceased to exist the Union was in the process of ending slavery, but the process hadn't completed yet.
History is written by the victors.
Not only is this one of the most hoary and over-used cliches in existence, but I challenge anyone to name a war in which this is less true than the ACW. (OK, maybe Vietnam.)
From almost the start, the ex-CSA had a huge voice in the war's history. In fact, although the Neo-Confederate crowd in our time likes to charge "revisionism" whenever it is correctly pointed out that slavery was the key issue in secession, the original "revisionism" concerning the conflict was the largely successful attempt by the ex-Confederates in the late 19th Century (aided by a North tired of Reconstruction, and concommitant with a rollback of post-1865 Civil Rights gains) to establish the noble "Lost Cause" mythology and to downplay the role of slavery in the attempted secession. This was done at state-wide education levels (for example in Mississippi in the late 19th Century, the effort being led by ex-Rebel general Stephen D. Lee) and in various memoirs, the big one being Jeff Davis'.
Bottom line: The referenced cliche notwithstanding, the Confederacy had/has an ample share of the historical voice surrounding the ACW. This is of great benefit to historians and students alike. But when sifting through the voluminous primary-source writings, both sides must not only be taken into account but also taken with appropriate grains of salt.
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006 share
The average soldier saw it that way, or at least as "defending their homes" (granted if their leaders hadn't tried to leave the country by force, their homes would have been in no danger.)
By force? The states all held state conventions, many even had statewide referendums. Yeah, there was Sumpter, but that was in the heart of Charleston. Lincoln was the one who invaded the South.
secession was championed primarily by the wealthy slaveholding elite, who dragged the rest of the Southern populace along under the guise of "states rights." Without slavery, there would have been no serious drive to secession.
Probably not, but slavery wasn't the cause of this thing.
First and foremost the Union fought for the preservation of the Union, not for Empire
Six of one, half dozen of the other.
neither side had any monopoly on the desire for empire, as the Southern filibusters of the 1850's, the Mexican war and the 1862 New Mexico campaign - the goals of which included conquest of at least some of northern Mexico "by blood or by gold" after the Yankees out west were dealt with - attest to.)
1) The entire South can't exactly be blamed for the actions of a few individual filibusterers. Anyway, this was before the war.
2) The Mexican War was a result of constant interference in Texas.
3) The New Mexico campaign was just that, a campaign of the war.
Abolition of slavery was not an initial war aim except in the minds of a small percentage of the Union volunteers (primarily from New England), but they did not set policy. Lincoln's anti-slavery philosophy was forged into abolitionism by the war, and eventually ending slavery became a parallel goal with preserving the union.
Abolition was never parallel with the goal to preserve the Union. It was secondary at best.
From almost the start, the ex-CSA had a huge voice in the war's history. In fact, although the Neo-Confederate crowd in our time likes to charge "revisionism" whenever it is correctly pointed out that slavery was the key issue in secession, the original "revisionism" concerning the conflict was the largely successful attempt by the ex-Confederates in the late 19th Century (aided by a North tired of Reconstruction, and concommitant with a rollback of post-1865 Civil Rights gains) to establish the noble "Lost Cause" mythology and to downplay the role of slavery in the attempted secession. This was done at state-wide education levels (for example in Mississippi in the late 19th Century, the effort being led by ex-Rebel general Stephen D. Lee) and in various memoirs, the big one being Jeff Davis'.
Bottom line: The referenced cliche notwithstanding, the Confederacy had/has an ample share of the historical voice surrounding the ACW. This is of great benefit to historians and students alike. But when sifting through the voluminous primary-source writings, both sides must not only be taken into account but also taken with appropriate grains of salt.
I'm not talking about immediate post-war memoirs or schools of thought. I'm talking about history taught at the basic level in our schools and in our popular culture. And if you ask the average Joe on the street what the Civil War was about, almost all of them would say "Slavery" without moment's hesitation. I'll stand by my original statement.
share
By force? The states all held state conventions, many even had statewide referendums. Yeah, there was Sumpter, but that was in the heart of Charleston. Lincoln was the one who invaded the South.
A. Their conventions were of dubious legality, at best. I'm not going to hash over this for the umpteenth time, but in a nutshell while there was no definite staement in the constitution concerning secession, the balance of the secondary evidence falls clearly on the "illegal" side.
B. Armed mobs of citizens compelled the surrender of Federal institutions. In addition, Sumter was on Federal land not South Carolina land. I stand by "force." Once Sumter was fired on (really, even beforehand) any "invasion" of the Soth was justified.
but slavery wasn't the cause of this thing.
Slavery was the cause of secession. Secession was the cause of war. Ultimately, slavery was the underlying cause of war despite the fact that most on either side would not have seen it that way at the outset.
Period.
1) The entire South can't exactly be blamed for the actions of a few individual filibusterers. Anyway, this was before the war.
2) The Mexican War was a result of constant interference in Texas.
3) The New Mexico campaign was just that, a campaign of the war.
1) True enough, but the slavehilding elite - hte ones that also led the secession charge - also looked longingly at Cuba, Central America and Mexico as places to expand slavery. The filibusters' aims were in line with much of Southern leadership.
2) The War with Mexico was a land grab, plain and simple. The "spark" that led to war was as dubious a pretext as the Tonkin Gulf incident. People on both sides of Mason-Dixon were supportive of the desire for territory (Manifest Destiny knew no section) but the Mexican war more popular South than North.
3) If it was "just" a war campaign than why was the annexation of part of Mexico (I should say, even more of Mexico than we grabbed in the Mexican War) a corollary?
Again, not stating that the South was the only section interested in empire, justthat they were no less feee of the desire than the North.
Abolition was never parallel with the goal to preserve the Union. It was secondary at best.
Perhaps so, but it was a very close second. And by 1864 the two were inseparable - reunion would not have been accepted without abolition, at least as long as Lincoln won the 1864 election.
I'm not talking about immediate post-war memoirs or schools of thought. I'm talking about history taught at the basic level in our schools and in our popular culture. And if you ask the average Joe on the street what the Civil War was about, almost all of them would say "Slavery" without moment's hesitation. I'll stand by my original statement.
It's been a long time since I took any basic school history courses so I don't know exactly how it is taught (except that it was definitely taught differently in the South than the North, as I discovered when I went to college in the South.) But that does not invalidate the fact that the South had its voice from the start, and the pendulum of popular culture has often swung the South's direction (see for example Gone with the Wind, or many of the Civil War themes movies made in the 50's and 60's.)
And in any case, since slavery was the underlying cause, if someone is looking for one-word (or at least very short)answers on causes of the ACW, "slavery" is a better answer than just baout anything else.
So, again, "winners write the history" is anything but true about the ACW. Though I will at least give you credit for elaborating, rather than using that cliche as an answer in and of itself, as lazy debaters do. I appreciate the fact that (unlike far too many on these boards) you add some meat to the discussion.
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006 share
A. Their conventions were of dubious legality, at best. I'm not going to hash over this for the umpteenth time, but in a nutshell while there was no definite staement in the constitution concerning secession, the balance of the secondary evidence falls clearly on the "illegal" side.
The Constitution is quite clear that the power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Read your Tenth Amendment. Besides, do you really think the majority of the original 13 would have joined the Union had they known that they would be forever surrending their ability to one day leave should the Union no longer suit them?
B. Armed mobs of citizens compelled the surrender of Federal institutions. In addition, Sumter was on Federal land not South Carolina land. I stand by "force." Once Sumter was fired on (really, even beforehand) any "invasion" of the Soth was justified.
On federal land... within South Carolina. South Carolina was no longer in the Union and after asking the federals nicely to leave, the South was completely within its right to take it by force after previous peaceful offerings were ignored. But in the alternative, the taking of a fort in Charleston Harbor hardly justifies the complete invasion of the Southern states that had made it clear that it wanted nothing more to do with the government in Washington.
The War with Mexico was a land grab, plain and simple. The "spark" that led to war was as dubious a pretext as the Tonkin Gulf incident. People on both sides of Mason-Dixon were supportive of the desire for territory (Manifest Destiny knew no section) but the Mexican war more popular South than North.
It may have turned into a land grab, but it may have never gotten to that point had Mexico stayed out of Texas between 1836 and 1846 while it was a republic and then following annexation. War between the U.S. and Mexico was the only way to prevent Mexican harassment from continuing.
If it was "just" a war campaign than why was the annexation of part of Mexico (I should say, even more of Mexico than we grabbed in the Mexican War) a corollary?
The Confederate annexation of part of Mexico?? I'm afraid I don't follow.
Perhaps so, but it was a very close second. And by 1864 the two were inseparable - reunion would not have been accepted without abolition, at least as long as Lincoln won the 1864 election.
Probably not, but also keep in mind that by that point Confederate independence transcended slavery with Davis' offer to the UK and France of voluntary emancipation if the two would officially recognize Richmond.
And in any case, since slavery was the underlying cause, if someone is looking for one-word (or at least very short)answers on causes of the ACW, "slavery" is a better answer than just baout anything else.
I must disagree, although I would need two words. The cause of the war is best summed up as being over "states' rights." And before you reply back with "Yeah, the 'states' rights' to own slaves," that's not what I meant. Fundamentally, it dealt with the states' rights to secede. The Southern states believed that it was an intrinsic right; the Northern ones held that it was not, and the outcome of the war very much influenced how we see ourselves to this day. The majority of this country (Texans excluded) see themselves as Americans first and whatever state they belong to a distant second. Not so 150 years ago. Southerners' loyalties were first to their states, their homes. One could even argue the same for Northerners to a degree since Lincoln called on each of the loyal states' citizens to volunteer. Now, however, such priorities are by and large forgotten.
So, again, "winners write the history" is anything but true about the ACW.
Maybe I should have said that "winners write the more read history" instead.
Though I will at least give you credit for elaborating, rather than using that cliche as an answer in and of itself, as lazy debaters do. I appreciate the fact that (unlike far too many on these boards) you add some meat to the discussion.
I do what I can.
share
The Constitution is quite clear that the power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Read your Tenth Amendment.
It is/was anything but "quite clear." I've elaborated on this many times, so I'll give you the short version. One cannot assume secession as a "power" referred to in old Number 10. The original Articles of the Constitution considered the Union as pertpetual. The 1787 Constitution was originally intended as an upgrade of the Articles but instead became a whole new document - intended to strengthen the Federal government that had been too weak under th Articles, and create "a more perfect Union." It does not follow that, in an already-perpetual union where the central government was significantly strengthened at the expense of the states, that secession would be an inherent power. And if no power of secession existed, then said power cannot be reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment.
There are other indications against secession within the Constitution - the fatc that there is a mechanism for adding states but none for withdrawing them, that the Federal law is asserted to be the ultimate power of the land, that the Federal government has jurisdiction over Federal land (including Fort Sumter, which was not "within" South Carolina but on Federal land just offshore.)
But in the alternative, the taking of a fort in Charleston Harbor hardly justifies the complete invasion of the Southern states that had made it clear that it wanted nothing more to do with the government in Washington.
Federal troops and institutions had been fired upon. A state of rebellion existed. Invasion was thus justified - invasion of South Carolina and of any state in league with her and in defiance of the Federal government.
The Confederate annexation of part of Mexico?? I'm afraid I don't follow.
The intention, following a successful New Mexico campaign, was the annexation of several northern Mexican states (at the very least Sonora, Chihuahua and a couple of others) "by blood or by gold" in the words of Col. Baylor. This follow-up was discussed person-to-person with Jefferson Davis, though the record is silent on whether he officially endorsed it or not. But clearly it was in the air, and in the minds of at least some key participants. Despite Davis' claim to the contrary, the CSA did not necessarily just want to be "left alone."
Of course the campaign failed, rendering any subsequent such move moot.
I don't recall the exact title of the book (I have it at home but I'm not there at the moment) but a detailed account of the 1862 New Mexico campaign by an author named Frasier is one place you can find the details on the designs for expanding the empire.
Probably not, but also keep in mind that by that point Confederate independence transcended slavery with Davis' offer to the UK and France of voluntary emancipation if the two would officially recognize Richmond.
To an extent that's true - Lincoln, beseeched by Horace greeley and others to make peace in the summer of 1864, did send Greeley and a couple of others to meet with the CSA and offer reunion with slavery intact. Of course, as Lincoln knew (otherwise he would never have made the offer since he was already committed to abolition) Davis and much of the leadership, by this time, wouldn't have come back under any terms unless forced to militarily - and, as LIncoln intended, Greeley and company got a big dose of reality on their mission, and their delusions were cleared up straight away.
But the offer of emancipation was a desperate last-minute gesture, as was enlisting slaves into the army (and that latter measure had to have Robert E. Lee's public support to be enacted.) Davis was grasping at straws. The CSA was committed to slavery - specifically granting it protection in their Constitution.
The cause of the war is best summed up as being over "states' rights."
Only problem there is that "states rights" was a reversible concept - the South had no love for States Rights when it came to forcing slavery on free states, as in Dred Scott (where the principle that a slaveholder could transmit his property for extended periods of time in free soil) and the Fugitive Slave Act.
Slavery, however, was non-negotiable, and was at the root of every major internal political crisis of the 19th century (except 1832's Nullification Crisis, which did not have the power to actually split the nation.)
However, you do bring up an interesting qualification. Yet, again, without slavery the "state's right to secession" would never have been put to the test, so again it still comes back to slavery in the end.
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006 share
It is/was anything but "quite clear." I've elaborated on this many times, so I'll give you the short version. One cannot assume secession as a "power" referred to in old Number 10. The original Articles of the Constitution considered the Union as pertpetual. The 1787 Constitution was originally intended as an upgrade of the Articles but instead became a whole new document - intended to strengthen the Federal government that had been too weak under th Articles, and create "a more perfect Union." It does not follow that, in an already-perpetual union where the central government was significantly strengthened at the expense of the states, that secession would be an inherent power. And if no power of secession existed, then said power cannot be reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment.
There are other indications against secession within the Constitution - the fatc that there is a mechanism for adding states but none for withdrawing them, that the Federal law is asserted to be the ultimate power of the land, that the Federal government has jurisdiction over Federal land (including Fort Sumter, which was not "within" South Carolina but on Federal land just offshore.)
I'm not familiar with anything in the Articles of Confederation that stated the Union was to be perpetual, but even if there was, it was scrapped and thereafter void.
Federal troops and institutions had been fired upon. A state of rebellion existed. Invasion was thus justified - invasion of South Carolina and of any state in league with her and in defiance of the Federal government.
"Rebellion" to you, but to others, a conflict of one sovereign nation against another in which the U.S. was the agressor.
The intention, following a successful New Mexico campaign, was the annexation of several northern Mexican states (at the very least Sonora, Chihuahua and a couple of others) "by blood or by gold" in the words of Col. Baylor. This follow-up was discussed person-to-person with Jefferson Davis, though the record is silent on whether he officially endorsed it or not. But clearly it was in the air, and in the minds of at least some key participants. Despite Davis' claim to the contrary, the CSA did not necessarily just want to be "left alone."
I do believe you have your facts wrong there. Has the New Mexico Campaign been successful, Confederate troops would have likely either continued north into Colorado and rich mineral deposits or west to California, not south into Mexico. 1) To invade Mexico, Confederate troops would not have to go through Union-occupied New Mexico first. Furthermore, why would they? 2) Keep in mind that at the time Mexico was then occupied by France, who the Confederacy was courting as a possible ally. Why would the South ruin a potential alliance by invading and attempting to conquer one of France's colonies? 3) Davis absolutely did want to be left alone. No invasion from the North, no war.
But the offer of emancipation was a desperate last-minute gesture, as was enlisting slaves into the army (and that latter measure had to have Robert E. Lee's public support to be enacted.) Davis was grasping at straws. The CSA was committed to slavery - specifically granting it protection in their Constitution.
Just like the Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate gesture of sorts after the Union's inability to succeed in the Eastern Theater. The C.S. Constitution in its current form was committed to slavery, but so too was the U.S.'s.
Only problem there is that "states rights" was a reversible concept - the South had no love for States Rights when it came to forcing slavery on free states, as in Dred Scott (where the principle that a slaveholder could transmit his property for extended periods of time in free soil) and the Fugitive Slave Act.
Slavery, however, was non-negotiable, and was at the root of every major internal political crisis of the 19th century (except 1832's Nullification Crisis, which did not have the power to actually split the nation.)
I'm not so ignorant to think that the South wasn't hypocritcal on the issue as well. But 1) Dred Scott, Fugitive Slave Act,... were all before secession, and thus, each state was bound to adhere to the laws of the Union. That is why nullification is a faulty doctrine. If you're going to be in the club, you have to play by the club's rules.
However, you do bring up an interesting qualification. Yet, again, without slavery the "state's right to secession" would never have been put to the test, so again it still comes back to slavery in the end.
True enough. Slavery was a spark, but to call say it was THE reason for war is simply not true.
share
I'm not familiar with anything in the Articles of Confederation that stated the Union was to be perpetual, but even if there was, it was scrapped and thereafter void.
Not at all. It was the same country, the same Union (else we'd date ourselves from 1787 and not 1776.) The original intent for the 1787 Constitution was to "fix" the Articles, though ultimately the whole government had to be revamped. Again, you have an already perpetual Union (this was actually stated in the Articles) that is having its national government strengthened, and forming "a more perfect Union." Somehow I don't think the framers would have considered a Union in which any individual state could unilaterally break it apart at will to be "more perfect."
As I mentioned before, there was no direct rule either way on the issue. But the only indirect evidence that anyone can bring in favor of secession's legality is the Tenth Amendment, and that requires a questionable assumption about secession being a right to start with. Whereas I've alsready briefly summed up indirect Cnstitutional evidence on the ant-secession side. (For more concrete reading than I've posted, read Article IV and VI, for example. Some of it is contained therein.)
do believe you have your facts wrong there. Has the New Mexico Campaign been successful, Confederate troops would have likely either continued north into Colorado and rich mineral deposits or west to California, not south into Mexico. 1) To invade Mexico, Confederate troops would not have to go through Union-occupied New Mexico first. Furthermore, why would they? 2) Keep in mind that at the time Mexico was then occupied by France, who the Confederacy was courting as a possible ally. Why would the South ruin a potential alliance by invading and attempting to conquer one of France's colonies? 3) Davis absolutely did want to be left alone. No invasion from the North, no war.
First and foremost, the CSA would not have had to go "through Union occupied New Mexico." Since the campaign in this scenario would have been a success, New Mexico would have been under Confederate control. Second, the New Mexico Territory of the early 1860's encompassed today's New Mexico and Arizona - but instead of being split east-west like they are today, the New Mexico and Arizona dividing line (Arizona being a territorial subdivision) split them nort-south, with Arizona being the southern halves of the two modern states. Early in the New Mexico campaign the Confederates seized Arizona pretty much bloodlessly - and thus they already had territory adjacent to Northern Mexico.
The French presence in Mexico in 1862 was closer to the center of the country. Thus the CSA interest in annexing northern states such as Sonora.
Here is a link to the 1862 campaign study I referred to previously. The story of the desire for "by blood or by gold" annexation of Mexican territory is in there, and I'm sure can be found other place.
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Treasure-Confederate-Southwest-University/ dp/0890967326/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233872923&sr =1-7
Just like the Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate gesture of sorts after the Union's inability to succeed in the Eastern Theater. The C.S. Constitution in its current form was committed to slavery, but so too was the U.S.'s.
There was far, far less "desperation" in the EP than in Davis' last-ditch offer. In fact, Lincoln (as advised by Seward) issued the EP after the big eastern camapign had ended in Confederate failure, so as to issue it from a position of strength rather than weakness. It was first and foremost a war measure, intended primarily to positively impact the war both materially (by fatally weakining slavery in the CSA even more than had already been done) and politically. That it fell in line with Lincoln's increasing abolitionist bent was a side benefit.
Dred Scott, Fugitive Slave Act,... were all before secession,
Yes, but they were direct predecessors - in the decade that led directly to the split - and serve to illustrate that states rights was subordinate to slavery as a cause.
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006 share
I'll copy my response from the Cold Mountain board because it fits here as well and because I don't have all day: People, you don't have to be a slave-owning Confederate soldier or Hitler-loving German soldier to be evil. If you make the conscious decision to fight, risking life and limb, for a cause that is evil (i.e. slavery, racial supremecy) or for a faction that stands for something evil, than in my opinion you become evil yourself.
But this is all besides the point. This thread is titled: Why do we cheer for the Confederates now?; it's not titled: Where all Confederates evil? So my question still stands unanswered.
PeterCotton: How is a nation trying to regain control of its own territory imperial?
I'll get to Splat's latest reply when I have more time, but to answer your question, it was the South's assertion that the Confederacy was no longer U.S. territory. And to compare the Confederacy to Nazi Germany is just wrong on so many levels.
shareLet me try to make this a little more simple to understand. The South was a part of the Union until it seceded from it. After it seceded, the Union attempted to regain control of it. Hence my quote from the last post - "PeterCotton: How is a nation trying to regain control of its own territory imperial?"
About the Nazi Germany thing, first of all that was a response to someone else on another board who compared the two. And since when does a person comparing two things mean that that person believes those two things are equal? A comparison is an examination of how two or more things are similar, right? So why is comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany "just wrong on so many levels"?
By the way, I don't believe the evil of the Confederacy and Nazi Germany is that different anyway. Both stripped a group of people of their human rights and treated them like they were below human based on their ethnic backgrounds. Hundreds of thousands of slaves died under the Confederacy's control while over six million died in Nazi Germany's Holocaust. Yes, the numbers are very different and so were the goals, but both sides caused death and destruction on a massive scale largely motivated by beliefs of ethnic/racial superiority.
It is imperial because it is trying to exert dominion over territory that it no longer has authority over. That is the very definition of imperial.
As to the folly of Confederacy-Nazi comparisions:
1) The Confederacy fought for independence. The Nazis fought a war of conquest.
2) The Confederacy did not create slavery. In fact it existed later in the Union than it did in the Confederacy. The Nazis created the Holocaust.
3) Hundreds of thousands of slaves died during the four-year existence of the Confederacy? Really? Do you have any facts to support that statement?
4) The Confederacy was a republic with the same freedoms afforded to its citizens as the United States or any other republic of its time. Nazi Germany..., well..., wasn't, to say the least.
Is that enough or do you need more?
It is imperial because it is trying to exert dominion over territory that it no longer has authority over. That is the very definition of imperial.
I'm not going through the whole discussion again, but - just because the CSA had the opinion that they were no longer a part of the US doesn't mean that it was true. And even if (for the sake of argument) the CSA's secession WAS legit (though of course that is anything but an established fact) the Union's opinion - for which there is at least as much evidence as the CSA's - was that they WERE still in the US. Thus it was an attempt to keep the country together, and not some "imperialist" effort to conquer the independent South.
The Confederacy did not create slavery. In fact it existed later in the Union than it did in the Confederacy
Both sentences are true, but (as we've already gone over i this thread) the second is meaningless to this discussion.
Hundreds of thousands of slaves died during the four-year existence of the Confederacy
I agree 100% with you there, Peter - that info is flat-out incorrect. I'd be interested to see the source for that, because I'm sure no reliable source exists for it.
The Troika of Irrelevancy: bringing off-topic enlightenment to the masses since 2006 share
If the North only wanted to free the slaves why didn't they just buy their freedom. This was done in many other countries and would have cost less than the war itself (in human and monetary terms). You also never hear of the slave owners who were black. In the 1830 census the number of black slave holders was 3,777 that they knew of.
The largest slave owner on record in the county I'm from in NC (Cumberland) was a black man. I first heard this from our local historian (later researched it myself) who is descendant of a Buffalo soldier (and was dressed accordingly). In the 1860 census the percentage of slave owners in the south was 4.8%. So to state that the entire South was inherently evil is asinine and myopic.
To Nitro_Express's original point:
"Did I miss when they suddenly reverted from evil?"
In respect to Ride with the Devil, where did you see this movie, because I sure wasn't cheering for Confederates. The protagonist had his own very personal, non-political reasons for hating the North, clearly expressed no interest in owning slaves, and was at odds with the people with whom he travelled, hence the very meaning of the film title: Ride with the Devil.
Apart from that, if there be any one lesson to take from the above debate, it is that this American civil war was much more complicated than "the south was a bunch of evil-doers." I do not know your politics, nor do I care to, but such a simple statement couldn't have been better spoken but from the lips of former resident dubya Bush himself.
If you think I am a troll, report me.
And you'll note that in the film the Southern "patriots" also distrusted/hated Roedel -- because a "foreigner". As if they themselves weren't immigrants illegally occupying stolen lands.
And, of course, scalping blacks showed how Christianly humane and non-racist they were.
History ***IS*** written by the victors.
The US Civil War was a war for independence - the Southern States (or Confederacy) were seeking to create a new country independent from the USA.
The slavery issue was the straw that broke the camel's back.
The USA in the mid 19th century was split into the fast moving, industrialising North and the more backward, conservative, rural South.
The North was taking over through its increasing wealth - whether slavery was an institution with a positive or negative effect on the Southern economy is open to debate but when it was threatened it was the proverbial "last straw".
The Southern elite motivated through, that great power NATIONALISM, the people of the South (mostly dirt farmers who had no slaves) to rise as one nation and fight for independence.
They lost and were damned as traitors and some of the leaders were EXECUTED as CRIMINALS.
In 1776 the SAME thing happened - this time the issue was British colonial taxation.
The 13 colonies (soon to become states) sought independence from the colonial power, Britain.
The colonial elite (mostly Northern financiers, merchants) saw an opportunity to make more money and motivated through, that great power NATIONALISM, the people of the colonies (mostly dirt farmers who paid no real colonial taxes) to rise as one nation and fight for independence.
Difference is the "traitors" of 1776 won and are hailed as heroes.
The leaders of the 1776 secession were not hanged because they won.
The rebellion in 1776 is taught as a good thing.
The rebellion of 1861 is taught as a bad thing.
Keeping the British empire intact in 1776 is not taught as a worthy goal.
Keeping the union intact in 1861 is taught as a worthy goal.
The "bushwhackers" were the "minutemen" of the second US War of Independence.
If they'd won, Ride With The Devil would've shown them the same way Mel Gibson was portrayed in "The Patriot".
"History ***IS*** written by the victors."
Not if they have sufficient education to know the difference between, "This is the way I wish it was," and, "This is scholarship." The way President Obama answered the question about the Gates incident is the way SCHOLARSHIP is done: first, he directly admitted his bias -- according to your view, EVERYONE is biased (but DELIBERATELY so, OR incapable of transcending them; which only reveals your limitation) -- thus putting that on the table. By so doing he was able to -- as it is termed -- "bracket" it; put it off to the side while holding it in conscious awareness so one can prevent its influencing view and conclusion.
Second, he said, "I don't have all the facts" -- as ANY honest SCHOLAR would admit, were that the reality.
Third, he cited to SOURCE -- the media -- and EXPRESSLY said he was basing his answer on the facts AS REPORTED BY THE MEDIA.
The NON-SCHOLARS bash him for speaking at all, and specifically because he did so after admitting, "I don't have all the facts." They IGNORE the fact that he GOT IT RIGHT ANYWAY.
The US Civil War was a war for independence - the Southern States (or Confederacy) were seeking to create a new country independent from the USA.
1. The Southern states, no different than the Northern, VOLUNTARILY joined the Union -- which cannot be said of the colonies; thus your analogy is inapt, incorrect, and false. The Southern states also had a hand in framing the Constitution, thus the inclusion of express protection of slavery, AND inclusion -- this won't be known by those who get all their "facts" -- from the Internet -- of limits ON THE STATES, INCLUDING prohibition of their forming "confederacies".
2. It was a direct assault -- levying war -- on the United States of America, which is first and foremost a legal construct, a system of laws, constituted in its Constitution.
3. The Confederate constitution is essentially the same as the US Constitution -- you should read BOTH for the first time -- EXCEPT that it includes prohibition against enacting any laws adversely affecting slavery, and prohibition against amending the constitution in any way that would adversely affect the institution of slavery.
"The slavery issue was the straw that broke the camel's back."
Slavery was not a new "issue" with the South: they Southern slave owners -- "conservatives" -- opposed declaring independence from Britain, until they got what they wanted in exchange for their support of the "Declaration": the preservation of the institution of slavery. The North was also largely agrarian, so the South didn't have "industrialization" as an excuse.
"The USA in the mid 19th century was split into the fast moving, industrialising North and the more backward, conservative, rural South."
See above: industrialization wasn't the "reason" the South/"conservatives" insisted on the preservation of slavery when it came to the "Declaration," or when it came to framing the Constitution. It wasn't about "agrarian"; it was about a "way of life" called CLASSISM. Note in "Ride with the Devil" how one character criticizes the North for requiring "everyone" to get an education -- including those not of "correct" "station" to "deserve" it? They'd made it illegal for slaves to learn to read and write; and they'd brainwashed the majority of whites, most of them poor, to reject education in exchange for servitude, mischaracterized by such "deserving" characters as "learning to think ALIKE".
"The North was taking over through its increasing wealth - whether slavery was an institution with a positive or negative effect on the Southern economy is open to debate but when it was threatened it was the proverbial "last straw"."
Slavery was the "last straw" with the "Declaration," and with the Constitution, even though it wasn't "threatened" by industrialization.
"The Southern elite motivated through, that great power NATIONALISM, the people of the South (mostly dirt farmers who had no slaves) to rise as one nation and fight for independence."
To rise and fight for the Southern "way of life": a small aristocracy that owned everything and everyone was the only segment of the population deserving of education; everyone else, black and the majority of whites, not "good enough" to deserve education, were to be kept subjugated (and used as cannon fodder) as they always had been.
"They lost and were damned as traitors and some of the leaders were EXECUTED as CRIMINALS."
"Levying war" against the United States IS treason; and treason IS a crime; and the traditional sentence for it IS execution.
"In 1776 the SAME thing happened - this time the issue was British colonial taxation."
Your "analogy" is even more inapt, etc., than you yet realize. The "taxation without representation" "issue" was resolved during the 1760s -- BEFORE the "revolution".
"The 13 colonies (soon to become states) sought independence from the colonial power, Britain."
The 13 (actually 14) colonies sought to NOT share the colonial/New World "take" with the Crown -- exactly as the "taxation without representation" "issue" had involved the colonies NOT paying its share of the war debt accrued by Britain as consequence of defending the colonies against France, on the American continent, for which the colonies didn't pay a cent, and with which enemy -- France -- the colonies were trading during that defense.
"The colonial elite (mostly Northern financiers, merchants) saw an opportunity to make more money and motivated through, that great power NATIONALISM, the people of the colonies (mostly dirt farmers who paid no real colonial taxes) to rise as one nation and fight for independence."
They did NOT "rise as one nation" -- READ the Articles of Confederation (framed during 1776-77, and adopted in 1777) -- and had no intention of doing so. It was AFTER the "revolution" that the Constitution was framed and ratified precisely BECAUSE the Articles were based upon their being 13 (actually 14) INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER "nation-states".
"Difference is the "traitors" of 1776 won and are hailed as heroes.
"The leaders of the 1776 secession were not hanged because they won."
Except that it wasn't a "secession," because there was no agreement by the colonies, with Britain, to be part of the British empire, therefore no violation of agreement VOLUNTARILY entered into.
"The rebellion in 1776 is taught as a good thing."
And you think it wasn't? Aren't you NOW telling us that the victors DON'T write history SELF-servingly, which is your premise? Are there no histories of the "revolution" written which AREN'T limited to your popular-history "we-can-do-no-wrong" view?
"The rebellion of 1861 is taught as a bad thing."
And it was: it was an effort to destroy the Union by states which had not only voluntarily participated in making the legal framework -- the Constitution -- but had ALSO VOLUNTARILY AGREED to be BOUND by the terms of it, which -- again -- included limits ALSO on the STATES, such as the prohibition against their forming confederacies.
"Keeping the British empire intact in 1776 is not taught as a worthy goal."
And it is taught -- by those who don't limit their "history" larnin' to TeeVee and movies -- that the "revolutionaries" weren't "Gods Against the Sky" flawless, and with pure motives. The FACT is that history is only "written by the victors" to those who DON'T READ the actual histories written.
"Keeping the union intact in 1861 is taught as a worthy goal."
And it was: US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: "[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, [and suppress Insurrections . . . ."
"The "bushwhackers" were the "minutemen" of the second US War of Independence."
No, they were not. The "Minutemen" were the LEGAL MILITIA, its "members" ENLISTED in the militia, in keeping with the requirements of and UNDER the colony's "Militia Act," which had existed, and evolved, since the founding of the colony.
The "Bushwhackers," and the Northerners doing exactly the same things, were a CRIMINAL GANG operating OUTSIDE the law, and wholly without legal sanction.
"If they'd won, Ride With The Devil would've shown them the same way Mel Gibson was portrayed in "The Patriot"."
"The Patriot" is chest-beating emotional pornography pandering to the reptile brained "patriot" who has the capacity for loudly yelling slogans, and the illiterate enthusiasm to be used as cannon fodder for the convenience of wealthy and powerful chickenhawks.
Not if they have sufficient education to know the difference between...the way President Obama answered the question about the Gates incident...
This has nothing to do with presidential Q&A.
I'm talking about how history is written - before the internet, before TV.
Children are taught that the ACW was a "good" war and worth fighting. The slavery issue is usually raised as justification, as the holocaust is used to justify WWII in Europe.
People do need to make their own minds up and see through the propaganda.
The fact is that the confederates were fighting just a valid cause, if not more, that the union troops.
Hollywood, TV, media generally don't like to portray this - revisionism is coming in though.
The movie "Gods & Generals" did try to show the Southern POV just as 1970's Westerns woke up to the fact that the indians weren't the bad guys.
The Southern states, no different than the Northern, VOLUNTARILY joined the Union -- which cannot be said of the colonies; thus your analogy is inapt, incorrect, and false.
Not so. No plebiscite was taken they just formed the union (not all states even sent representatives to the assembly to form the Constitution) so you cannot argue that ordinary people joined the union voluntarily anymore than your average Ukrainian volunteered the join the USSR.
However people who went to be colonists in the "new world" did so voluntarily.
Secondly, those doing the fighting were not alive to "voluntarily" join the union - so your point is completely IRRELEVANT.
Either way, the rebelling colonists in 1776 & the rebelling confederates in 1861 were fighting for the same thing on behalf of others.
The Southern states also had a hand in framing the Constitution, thus the inclusion of express protection of slavery, AND inclusion of limits ON THE STATES, INCLUDING prohibition of their forming "confederacies".
Not entirely true, not all states sent delegates and even those who did could hardly argue that they spoke for the people within their states.
Slavery was not protected by the Constitution as was proven when it was ENDED.
The risk to the institution of slavery came about when a gentleman's agreement was seen to be breached.
New states entered the union as "slave" on "non-slave" states.
The idea was that for every "non-slavery" admitted a "slave" state would be.
This wasn't followed as a majority on "non-slave" states was being formed thus putting the entire institution at risk.
Secondly, who cares what was in the Constitution?
If you sign up to a club, you sign to abide the rules...if you leave that club, the rules no longer apply to you.
You may ponder that the rebellion of 1776 was in fact illegal under British law.
It was a direct assault -- levying war -- on the United States of America, which is first and foremost a legal construct, a system of laws, constituted in its Constitution.
The declaration of independence in 1776 was a direct assault on the British crown and the laws passed in its name.
So what?
Why is breaking the Constitution more important than breaking British law?
The Confederate constitution is essentially the same as the US Constitution -- you should read BOTH for the first time -- EXCEPT that it includes prohibition against enacting any laws adversely affecting slavery, and prohibition against amending the constitution in any way that would adversely affect the institution of slavery.
So what?
The US constitution has something about not quartering troops in civilians' houses. It was an important issue back in 1776 but if you were to write a fresh constituion now, would you include that?
Slavery - or rather the threat to it - was the spark that started the ACW.
It was NOT however why the confederate troops fought and died.
The North was also largely agrarian, so the South didn't have "industrialization" as an excuse.
The North is still largely rural in terms of land use but it was industrialising. The wealth was shifting northwards adn the South was threatened.
It wasn't about "agrarian"; it was about a "way of life" called CLASSISM.
That's a new word on me.
The way of life of the Southern dirt farmers was not actually threatened directly or immediately but as the balance of wealth shifted North, it would be.
"Levying war" against the United States IS treason; and treason IS a crime; and the traditional sentence for it IS execution.
And guess what, for a British subject to make war on his soverign is treason.
However it's NOT treason if you WIN only if you LOSE.
Your "analogy" is even more inapt, etc, than you yet realize. The "taxation without representation" "issue" was resolved during the 1760s -- BEFORE the "revolution".
Not really, it was still a slogan of the revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_taxation_without_representation
""No taxation without representation" began as a slogan in the period 1763–1776..."
The detail isn't actually important - the motivation for the rebellion came from the wealthier sections of colonial society who saw an avenue of advancement.
They waved the nationalism flag and stirred up the people.
The 13 (actually 14) colonies sought to NOT share the colonial/New World "take" with the Crown...
14?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies
Thirteen colonies - represented by the stripes on the flag.
And to compare: the 13 confederate states chose, in 1861, NOT to share their collected wealth with the Federal government. The federal government decided (as the British crown did) that it would rather not have the 13 confederate/13 colonies remove themselves from the respected empires/federations to which they belonged.
They did NOT "rise as one nation"
OK, they rose largely as one.
I daresay there were federalists in the South as well as loyalists in the colonies.
Except that it wasn't a "secession," because there was no agreement by the colonies, with Britain, to be part of the British empire, therefore no violation of agreement VOLUNTARILY entered into.
They were British (formerly English) colonies - founded by the English/British crown.
Colonists who went there we going to English/British crown territory.
OK there was no British constitution and never has been so yes, there was no political agreement in writing but that matters not because in those days few in the USA were registered to vote and fewer voted anyway.
And those that did were mostly dead by 1861.
In the 18th & 19th century the USA was not what you would call democratic.
1776 & 1861 were both rebellions and viewed as illegal by the counties being rebelled against.
Oh and making war on the USA isn't illegal I don't think. Not if you win - though it's true the USA (like many countries) does bear a grudge and treats those it vanquishes somewhat harshly.
And you think it wasn't?
Not saying it wasn't but if it was a good thing, why is the 1861 rebellion a bad thing since they were, to all intent and purpose, the SAME thing?
Oh and btw, the British crown seemingly thought it was a bad thing - can't imagine why!
And it was: it was an effort to destroy the Union by states which had not only voluntarily participated in making the legal framework -- the Constitution -- but had ALSO VOLUNTARILY AGREED to be BOUND by the terms of it, which -- again -- included limits ALSO on the STATES, such as the prohibition against their forming confederacies.
How can you say that?
It was NOT an effort to "destroy the USA". The confederates didn't want to conquor the Northern states anymore than the rebels of 1776 wanted to conquer Great Britain.
So what if they had voluntarily (or rather had a very small, select, non-representative selection of people agree for them) joined the union.
In 1861 they (the confederate states) wanted to leave it.
Why do you think that was so bad?
Please explain.
And again, few if any of the confederate troops were even alive when the US Constitution was signed.
Had the South won, and it might very well have, there would be Southerners arguing the same patriotic BS as you are now.
Oh and you could also argue that the signatories of the US declaration of independence had also voluntarily agreed to serve their legal soveriegn merely by accepting his protection for the duration of their lives up to that point.
Indeed George Washington (the 1st president of the USA) had VOLUNTARILY accepted a commision into the British colonial forces - he served as a Lt Colonel and as such would've been required to swear an OATH OF ALLIEGENCE to the British crown - argue that one!
And it was: US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: "[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, [and suppress Insurrections . . . ."
The Constitution provides for the federal government to crush rebellions.
But why is rebelling against the federal government any worse than rebelling against any other government?
The British government under British law, has the power to crush rebellions too.
Yet this doesn't make the rebellions bad (or good).
There were rebellions all over the British empire - some good and some bad.
The Irish rebellion of 1916 comes to mind. Completely illegal and Irishmen were executed for treason because of it - would it help if I researched which paragraph of which British law it violated to convince you?
No, they were not. The "Minutemen" were the LEGAL MILITIA, its "members" ENLISTED in the militia, in keeping with the requirements of and UNDER the colony's "Militia Act," which had existed, and evolved, since the founding of the colony.
The minutemen were illegal traitors according to the British government.
The bushwhackers were a militia - just not one with any history, but a militia nevertheless.
They were also somewhat more noble than the minutemen who would often shoot within another minute pretend to be a peaceful farmer again.
The same approach to warfare was, at the time demonised when used against the US military in Vietnam.
The "Bushwhackers," and the Northerners doing exactly the same things, were a CRIMINAL GANG operating OUTSIDE the law, and wholly without legal sanction.
The confederacy didn't consider them criminals and indeed some did have written orders from the confederate military and carried confederate ranks.
Strangely enough, the British government considered the minutemen to be operating without legal sanction.
"The Patriot" is chest-beating emotional pornography pandering to the reptile brained "patriot" who has the capacity for loudly yelling slogans, and the illiterate enthusiasm to be used as cannon fodder for the convenience of wealthy and powerful chickenhawks.
True, just saying the bushwhackers would've had equal treatment had the South won.
[deleted]
2nd civil war?
When was the first?
Not sure the ACW was the cause of a centralised government - the USA is more de-centralised than most political systems.
Thre federal response was pretty brutal but then again most civil wars are nasty affairs - the federal government was later to make efforts to heal the wounds of the civil war.
[deleted]
1776 was a Civil War?
It was a war of independence not a civil war - of course you can argue that the ACW was a war of independence (and it was) but the Confederacy and Union were parts of the SAME country.
The 13 colonies and the UK were not the same country. The Revolutionary War was no more a civil war that the Indian Mutinty was.
What betrayal in 1910, in SA are you referring to?
[deleted]
Of course it was a civil war - there were rebels and royalists on both sides of the Atlantic..it's anachronistic to see Americans of the 1770's as 'Americans' rather than British people in the Americas. Naturally the independence that followed from the end of the first civil war was as bogus as Irish independence - an indigenous oligarchy supplanted the one directed from London and screwed the masses much more ruthlessly.
Absolutely NOT a civil war.
There was no fighting on the Eastern side of the Atlantic (ie: Britain) so I'm not sure of the relevence of your first point.
All the fighting was in North America - not part of Britain and therefore a colonial revolt not a civil war.
The revolutionaries were fighting an administration based in Britain, not America.
The British Empire endured many colonial revolts, indeed I've heard said that every colony except Nigeria had some form of revolt at one time.
The British army's main function throught the period of empire was colonial policing.
I repeat, if the American Revolution was a civil war, so was the Indian Mutiny (and it wasn't) and every other revolt in the history of the empire.
They lost and were damned as traitors and some of the leaders were EXECUTED as CRIMINALS.
Only one person was ever hanged for the crimes of the Confederacy - Henry Wirz, commander of Andersonville prison. Aside from him and Jeff Davis spending some time in a military prison, not one of the Confederacy's military or political leaders were in any way punished for what they did during the war.
This is a flat-out lie and your employment of such shows how bankrupt your argument is.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!" share
Those who don't find what they want in the Constitution always invoke the 9th and 10th Amendments, as if those Amendments are infinite "tabla rasa".
In fact, the Bill of Rights was drawn from the existing state constitutions/bills of rights adopted during 1776-77, and 1780. Rights not found in those are not found in the 9th or 10th Amendments. Nor are any provisions in state constitutions/bills of rights that conflict with the US Constitution other than unconstitutional, null-and-void.
In addition to which, "State" is "gov't," not "area of land," and "people" is plural, as in "We the people," which is not instead "We the individual," or, "I the people".
The assertion of "states' rights" is a dumbnitude asserted by those who refuse to accept the Federal rule of law -- Constitution -- despite it being legally binding on their states.
And for the loons who believe in that which is nothing other than anarchy: the Founders/Framers were for "ordered liberty": liberty WITHIN the law, not in spite of it. The fact of prison is a symbol for the fact that there are LIMITS to "liberty" and "freedom". Those limits can be summed up in the word "responsibility" -- and in the word LAW when the former is ignored.
And as for the nonsense claim that the Southerners were fighting for its "homeland": their "homeland" was the United States, not one or another portion of it.
"A. Their conventions were of dubious legality, at best. I'm not going to hash over this for the umpteenth time, but in a nutshell while there was no definite staement in the constitution concerning secession, the balance of the secondary evidence falls clearly on the "illegal" side."
Except that there is a section of the US Constitution which imposes limits on the states -- including the prohobition against them forming confederacises.
So, yes, the secessions were, without question, unconstitutional -- illegal.
That is verified, also, by the legal process a wannabe state must go through in order to become a member of the Union. Demanding such doesn't cut it. Neither does the reverse.
"Peter Cotton" --
All of which ignores the Constitution, and the means by which states are admitted into the Union.
For one, the Southern states ratified the Constitution. That made it legally binding on those states. And as is expresssly stipulated in the Constitution, the it is the SUPREME law of the land, anything inconsistent therewith in state constitutions and laws being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
For another, despite the illiteracy of those who've never READ it, the Constitution includes clauses which impose LIMITS onto the STATES -- one of those being a PROHIBITION against states forming confederacies. The latter is sufficient in itself to render the secessions UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And that latter point is buttressed by legal process. In order for a wannabe state to become a member of the Union, it must PETITION Congress -- which represents the Union, which is SUPERIOR to any of its member-states (as states the supremacy clause already cited). If Congress votes against the wannabe state being admitted, it is NOT ADMITTED -- because the wannabe state is inferior to the Union.
Were secession Constitutional -- and it self-evidently is NOT -- it would require a seceeding state to go through the same process but in reverse: petition the Congress for permission; and if Congress says No, it cannot legally do so.
And to kill another, central lie: the central issue for the seceeding states -- as said every Senator from those states when announcing their secessions to Congress -- was preservation of the institution of slavery. In addition, the Confederate constitution was essentially identical to the US Constitution -- with one glaring exception: it (1) prohibited the enacting of any laws which would adversely effect the institution of slavery, and (2) prohibited amending the constitution in any way which would adversely effect the institution of slavery.
As made clear in "Ride with the Devil," the Southern "gentlemen" aristochracy was OPPOSED to educating anyone -- including WHITES -- outside their authoritarian class. And ludicrously, today's poor whites in the South reject education as "brainwashing" for fear they might actually learn to think, instead of making a religion of preserving a system which is a pox even on themselves.
As for your final falsehood: for the South preserving the institution of slavery was the central issue, as said the South's Senators, and as said the Confederate constitution.
Here is the CSA's Vice President Alexander Stephens:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
* * *
(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... 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.
share
The Emancipation Proclamation effectively added the issue of slavery as a component of the Civil War. However, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the states in rebellion. Slavery was not outlawed in the all important border states (Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) or in Delaware and Missouri. Lincoln’s sole intent was to reunite the Union. Slavery was primarily a secondary issue mainly used to make the war more popular (anti war/draft demonstrations took place in New York City as early as April 1861).
shareBoth assertions being false. Note the part in "Ride with the Devil" in which the North is criticized for making education available to everyone, instead of only the aristocratic elite in the South. That is directly contrary to the view of a Southerner named Thomas Jefferson, who knew that the only way a democracy can be preserved is to have an educated population.
But, the South being insecure in its manhood couldn't handle the increase in competition education would cause.
And, no: slavery didn't end later in the North than in the South. And you'd be hard pressed to name a state in the North that had slavery after the 18th century.