How can a story of traitors be so compelling to some people around here? - Field of Lost Shoes (2015) Discussion

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amkatz 10 years ago

Victory in war is what creates new nations. The Confederacy lost, therefore was never a separate nation. Just as the United States, despite a flag & some flowery rhetoric, would never have been a separate nation from Great Britain if Cornwallis had not surrendered to Washington at Yorktown.

Rebels almost never think of themselves as traitors.

reply

[–] badwithsports 10 years ago

There were not two United States, there was a group of rebels calling themselves a Confederation of States until they lost. Just like Grant says to Alexander Stephens in the movie Lincoln, "there is only one nation and you and I are both citizens of that nation."

reply

[–] murad23 9 years ago

Except that was not really the case at the time. War settled the issue.

You do know the rest of the world uses "state" to mean country, right? Political division within a country are "counties" or "provinces."

Essentially the US started like the EU. All political power in the states, except a few limited power of the federal (as in federation or confederation) government.

The massive empowerment of the federal government to something "over" the states occurred as a result of the war.

I am glad slavery ended by calling the people who wanted to assert or reassert states' autonomy "traitors" shows a very poor understanding of history. They were on the wrong side of history because the issue at hand was slavery.

Do you believe Bosnians were "traitors" for wanting out of Yugoslavia? The US founders were traitors for wanting out of the British empire? Tibetans are "traitors" for wanting out of China??

reply

[–] rgec-859-85598 10 years ago

The true cause of the Civil War - Southerners just couldn't stand dealing with rude, self-righteous yankees like you anymore. Obviously, slavery was the scourge of humanity, but I would secede from the Union again just to get away from people like yourself.

reply

[–] RvaBread22 10 years ago

Because they weren't traitors. You can't be a traitor when you're defending your own homeland.

reply

[–] zeeboe82 10 years ago

RvaBread22 - The United States Constitution says otherwise:

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution places important restrictions on powers states might otherwise exercise. The third paragraph of that section in particular commands that -

"no state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state."

The first paragraph of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution is even more prohibitory -

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the national government to -

"guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government". Meaning that the Federal government has the constitutional power to oppose any monarchial or any other non-republican form of government that one or several of the states might attempt to implement.

In conclusion, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution says -

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

Here is a link to a transcript for the Constitution of the United States of America if anyone wishes to look up this data I posted for themselves.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

reply

[–] murad23 9 years ago

Your cites have been debunked.

1) In the first two cites:
a) States did routinely enter into compacts with the Us states. Several court rulings specifically said that refered to other COUNTRIES
b) the states in question in the civil war asserted they had legally seceded already when they confederated. Once they had legally seceded they were obviously not bound by article 10!

2) on -- "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government" -- this has nothing to do with seceding.

3) Article IV, Section 3, Clause has nothing to do with secession. They were not attempting to form new states within the US.

reply

[–] gsfsu 9 years ago

A traitor is someone who belongs to a society/government but works to defeat it. Southerners did not do that. State's Rights were at the heart of the Confederacy and most southern citizens first held allegiance to their State instead of a country.

reply

[–] bethebestforthejob 9 years ago

most southern citizens first held allegiance to their State instead of a country.

Really; you mean; future Confederate states held a referendum to secede?

Union allegiances were insignificant in Confederacy?

I could swear it was the elite's idea to secede as a way to secure their wealth and Jefferson Davis had to campaign a lot to convince "normal" farmers not to get in the way/join in.

I could also swear that double standards (slaveowners were not to fight; only yeomen were to join the Army) and paramount mistreatment of regular soldiers and trouble their families went through contributed to:

- massive desertions from the Confederate Army
- first-ever mandatory conscription
- civilian riots against the Confederate government taking place behind the frontlines
- divided loyalties of civilian population in almost all States, which contributed to covert - or overt support of the Union cause and Union Army.

Most rich, slaveowning, male Southern citizens held allegiance to the Confederate government; not the case with the rest.

Nearly all white Americans at the time, regardless of political sympathies (including abolitionists) were racists.

Don't explain with malice what you can explain with stupidity

reply

[–] amkatz 9 years ago

Of course they worked to defeat it. To defeat themselves as well.

Secession as a successful precedent would have led inexorably to ultimate Balkanization of the US, north & south. It's impossible to imagine a Confederacy remaining united given that secession is seen as the solution to seemingly otherwise irreconcilable differences between states, or even between counties within states. An independent Confederacy would have shattered in very little time, as would the remainder of the US.

reply

[–] kbarada 9 years ago

An independent Confederacy would have shattered in very little time, as would the remainder of the US.

I don't think so and here is why. If the south had been successful at secession, it would be but a few decades before technological advances in farming, manufacturing, transportation, communication, and many other advances would have negated the need for having slaves in the first place. Furthermore, the Union would likely fight hard against any individual northern state that would try to break away. I predict that as domestic and world events progressed towards the dawn of the 20th century, we would once again join together as one nation.

The United States was founded by many great southerners such as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We all shared a common history and language. It would make good economic sense for North and South to reunite as one nation. I believe the CSA would ask to rejoin the Union and would be readily accepted by the USA.

reply

[–] amkatz 9 years ago

No doubt many worthwhile historians share that view, & you might be correct, problem is that it begs the question of whether or not the two halves could remain united long enough for eventual reconciliation. The Confederacy was already showing signs of internal disunity prior to the end of the war, with individual governors withholding troops & resources from the central government. It's hard to imagine Richmond demanding that states with less interest in the slave economy such as Texas or Florida remain within the fold given the precedent of secession.

Willam T Sherman, before taking command of the Army of the Tennessee expressed the view that secession would leave the US like Mexico, in a state of perpetual regional conflict.

It's also hard to envision how a much smaller independent Confederacy would ever manage to absorb some four million freed slaves, especially given the difficulties of race relations throughout the entire nation.

True, a CSA that had disavowed slavery & requested readmittance would likely be welcome, but slavery at that point seemed like the south holding a tiger by the tail.

reply

[–] kbarada 9 years ago

Good comments amkatz. Well yes, I did skirt around the question regarding union of states north or south if the CSA prevailed. There is evidence of the crumbling of the CSA before wars end as it became apparent to many that it was a lost cause. In my scenario, the south was successful at secession when they won the great battle of Gettysburg and Lincoln lost support for continuing the fight. However, as history tells us, the war for the south was really heading south after that defeat there.

....Continuing on after the south's (imaginary) victory at Gettysburg ...Buoyed by victory and with the north quiting the war, the south would find many reasons to stay together as the CSA as long as the central government did not become too strong and overreaching into states affairs. Remember, there were several foreign nations that had put bets on the south winning. Cotton was still king and the economies would prosper as they rebuilt and expanded their infrastructure and diversified into a wide range of businesses. They only had to look to the north to see many things that would improve their lot. In fact, trade would resume with the north as each had things the other needed.

Now on to the question of slavery. It was that great question that the founding fathers had left coiled like a snake under their desks for future generations to deal with. As the slavery reached its natural conclusion, there would be the problem of what to do with them. For one thing, the south would not absorb some 4 million former slave. Why should they? The former slaves would be free to go, but they couldn't stay here. I believe there would be a great effort on the part of the CSA to repatriate them to their roots in Africa and to allow free movement to the north with a warning not to come back. Yes, the south would do all it could to remove people of color from their midst. Only a few skilled workers or domestic servants would be allowed to stay under terms that would make the "Jim Crow" laws look mild.

Would there be a mass migration of former slaves heading north? I think yes. The old underground railroad would be turned into a super, one way highway. The north would then be left holding as you say "the tiger by the tail". This more than anything else would stress the north and could even lead to secession of some northern border states and/or a petition to join the CSA.

Of course all this is just fanciful conjecture. Examine the state of affairs of race relations in north and south some 150 years after the Civil War and one can easily come up with many "what if the south won" scenarios. It is my observation that being black in America still has its problems.

My conjectures are just some that seems likely to me as to what really would have happened. I would be interested to hear what you think.

reply

[–] amkatz 9 years ago

Well, I think you raise some interesting possibilities. Certainly cotton trade would induce recognition for a successful Confederacy by Europe, but as you wrote unity would maintain "as long as the central government didn't become overreaching," & a cotton-based economy seems of importance only to handful of Confederate states. It's easy to imagine states such as Texas, or Florida becoming disillusioned & choosing to move one, perhaps even reunite with the north or even Mexico.

I know some prominent historians, Catton for one if memory serves, have insisted that slavery was dead--win, lose or draw--but it also seemed central to the beliefs of many of the Confederate founders & leaders--famously Stephens in his "Cornerstone" speech. So I don't think it's safe to assume that slavery wouldn't persist.

As for repatriation to Africa, how could a Confederate possibly afford the cost of moving that many people? Slaves were brought to the New World in increments over hundreds of years. Moving some four million back the other way would cost a fortune.

And sending them north....

The Underground Railroad moved small numbers, often ending up in Canada to avoid the Fugitive Slave Act. If the South is a another nation that would mean somehow sending foreign nationals, or stateless persons, across a national border in massive numbers. Not so easy.

Nor would it constitute hypocrisy for even the most die-hard abolitionist to oppose the movement of millions of freed slaves to compete in unskilled and semi-skilled labor markets for likely a fraction of prevailing salaries.

Such a movement might transform civil war into national war as the north opposed such an action.

I certainly agree that race relations remain fraught. I'm a photojournalist & I cover many Black Lives Matter & allied protests here in NYC. One would almost imagine that nothing has changed since passage of the 13th amendment, but that's not true. Progress is being made. It's a bit like the incoming tide: water ebbs & flows at times, but overall the level gradually rises.

I think Lincoln was wrong to assume that the Black man could never successfully become fully enfranchised into American society, but he was right in foreseeing just how difficult & prolonged the process would be.

reply

[–] kbarada 9 years ago

Thanks for your reply amkatz. Looks like you have put a lot of thought into our discussion as one thing seems to lead to others. It's one thing to talk about such matters but quite another to put "pen to paper" and actually write about it. Communication through the written word forces one to ponder before putting thoughts to paper. I appreciate your time and effort.

Well I believe you have convinced me on the unity issue for the CSA going forward after a successful breakaway. Each state would put their own self economic interest first. There would be no reason in that era to unite for mutual protection from foreign powers. If anything, I would guess Texas would once again become the "Lone Star State", a free independent country. I also agree that repatriation of former slaves to Africa would not amount to very much.

However, on moving former slaves out of the CSA north to the USA I would have to disagree. Like you said, the slaves were brought here incrementally and as their need diminished, they would be forced to leave incrementally. There would not be 4 million forced to leave all at once although there could be large numbers from time to time.

The real reason I disagree are two fold and based on current events. First, look at the millions of poorly educated, low skilled refugees pouring out of Syria and the Middle East into the European Union. There will be trouble for keeping the EU together and it may crumble. The EU seems to be powerless to stop it. Same thing could be said for the reconstituted USA after the Civil War.

Secondly, look at our porous border with Mexico today. Millions of poorly educated, low skilled foreign nationals have illegally crossed the border and the USA government seems powerless to stop it. I believe the same thing would have happen with former slaves and a new border between the CSA and the USA 150 years ago. The U.S. federal government would be powerless to stop it. You said that this would be "Not so easy". I believe it would be no different that what happens today with our border with Mexico...easy.

I agree with you that eventually race will not be an issue in our country. I was born and raised during the segregated south days in Mobile, Alabama. I never felt comfortable about segregation as I believed we as a nation could and should do much better in enfranchising all citizens so that everyone could achieve their God given potentials. The fact that this is taking so long bothers me. It is good for everyone to understand our history but not be anchored by it if we are to move forward.

Thoughts?

reply

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey Amkatz & Kbarada,

I have some thoughts on your discussion if you do not mind and would allow me to join you all. I would like to suggest some premises to consider:

If the South had simply declared their independence and never attacked the Union Army at Fort Sumpter, Lincoln would have had trouble sending troops to fight the South. If the South had elected to secede peacefully and offer no armed conflict, it would have been very difficult to justify sending Union troops to stop the secession. The US Constitution is very clear as to how a state or territory may enter the union, but it is silent as to a state leaving the union. If the Constitution does not give the federal government a specific right, then the federal government does not have such a right.

The same concept holds true today. Considering the great division in our national politics now, there is good reason for certain states to declare their independence from the union. Texas, Arisona, New Mexico, and Wyoming are good examples. These states are financially solvent and able to support themselves. States like California, New York, Mass, PA, and Ohio on the other hand take resources from other states to support an increasingly government dependent population.

It would financially behoove the former states to declare independence from the union, and either remain as independent states or form a new union under a new constitution. Again, I am not suggesting a violent overthrow of the current government. I am suggesting a simple declaration of independence from the government without any arms involved. Such a declaration of independence would include recognition of property owned by the federal government and call for negotiations for the proper disposition of such property. A negotiated distribution of property as one might find in a divorce negotiation.

How could the federal government stop Texas from declaring its independence and becoming an independent republic once again? Sending troops to fight them? Fight who? Texas would not be declaring war. The would be declaring independence with a recognition of shared property rights to be negotiated. I certainly would not want to send federal troops to stop a peaceful act of independence that is not outlawed by the constitution. I also would not want to be one of the troops sent to Texas to do... what? Occupy the state house? To what purpose?

If the South had seceded without firing the first shots, perhaps they could have formed a new Confederacy. Slavery would have continued for some time, but it would have eventually died of its own economic chains. As to what to do with the former slaves once slavery ended, there would be no need to get rid of them. They would still be needed to work the largely agrarian economy of the south. A new South that would have eventually freed the slaves might have provided a better life for them than that which was instilled during the Reconstruction period and the many years of Jim Crow that followed.

I like the idea of states being able to leave the union when they no longer agree with the policies of the federal government. If Texas would leave the union, I would emigrate there in a heartbeat. If the federal government no longer meets the needs of a state's constituency, then it is the right to leave that federal government and form a new government. I think that Thomas Jefferson said something to that effect in our great Declaration of Independence, and it holds true today.

I know it sounds impossible to most folks to conceive of states leaving the union today. We are too wrapped up in our thoughts that "we're number one" we neglect to see how our federal government has become so progressive that it has become a burden to its populace. It has used the commerce clause in the Constitution to do all manner of things never intended by our original Constitution. Our economic policies are so insolvent, we are doomed to an even greater economic collapse, and our political machines are no longer able to change the course. Only an awakening at the state level can make a change, and that is why I welcome the idea of states seceding and forming new constitutions which will minimize government and stand on sound economics.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

[–] athompson1508 8 years ago

This is a story of integrity and honor of these fine young men and not to glorify the south. Heroic actions are meant to be honored and it doesn't matter which side they fought for.

reply