Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The major "states' right" claimed by the Confederacy was the "right" to hold slaves. So whether or not slavery or states' rights was the major cause of the Civil War needs to take into account how closely entwined the issues were.
To me, it sounds like two ways to express pretty much the same thing.
I would venture to say that the topic of slavery addresses one issue whereas states rights has many facets.
However I can see where the two have converged in common use over the years... https://www.historynet.com/states-rights-civil-war
I'm certainly not an expert and the topic has probably been examined to death (like a horse) many times over. Above are 3 different views on the topic.
Anyway, I think the statues have a place among the everyday public areas of the people- places they will readily be seen... maybe someone will become curious, and learn some history... but if not, then I tend to agree with the suggestion of museums and graveyards and battlefield parks.
Last edited by Achi WaWa; 10-01-2020 at 02:25 PM..
The major "states' right" claimed by the Confederacy was the "right" to hold slaves. So whether or not slavery or states' rights was the major cause of the Civil War needs to take into account how closely entwined the issues were.
To me, it sounds like two ways to express pretty much the same thing.
I think slavery was the immediate issue. But I think the Civil War was the inevitable outcome of two distinct regions struggling for power. You had the North, small states, more urban, industrializing, founded by people who wanted to escape Europe and its influence. And the South, large states, very agrarian, founded by people who wanted to extend Europe's influence. There was a lot of negotiation to get the Southern states to join with the Northern states to begin with, and those negotiations were about assuring the South that it would have a say, that it would have power. While George Washington may have been a universal choice for our first President, the choices thereafter were really matters of negotiation. The South had an important role in those negotiations. We didn't have candidates running on a national ticket. Candidates ran in regions. The regions then negotiated, either in the electoral college, or in Congress itself, to decide who would be our President. When Abraham Lincoln won, he won the electoral college without reference to the South. And this was a signal to the South. If they were irrelevant to the election of the President, they were irrelevant to a lot of the decision-making by the federal government. They had been outnumbered. And if they didn't have power in the federal government, why support that federal government?
Slavery was the immediate issue, but it wasn't simply that the South wanted to keep their slaves. It was that they were an agrarian economy. The South were borrowers. They borrowed capital in order to plant their crops, in order to buy their slaves, in order to make their land productive. Then, when the crops came in, they paid the loans back, until planting season came around again. The North were lenders. They lent the capital, and they did so with the understanding that if a Southern farmer defaulted, then his property would revert to the lender. His property included slaves. If the abolitionists succeeded in freeing the slaves, then the farmer would not just lose the slave labor that they relied on, they would still owe money to the lenders which had been secured by the slaves. The South was effectively looking at a Great Depression times ten.
In the rest of the world, governments had reimbursed slave-owners when slaves were made free. And that had allowed the slave-owners to transition to paid workers. The United States was a new country, it didn't have those sorts of resources. And the lenders, the people who controlled the capital, were not going to contribute to any government fund to help the farmers. Why would they? They stood to gain control of lots of property and resources.
It was a perfect storm. A distinct geographical region feeling threatened financially, socially, culturally and geographically by the rest of the nation.
And just a point, we don't have that today. We still have a divide, rural versus urban, states' rights versus federal rights, but the Mason-Dixon line is irrelevant. That geographic divide is gone. There are urban centers throughout the nation, and the federal government is infinitely more powerful today than it was in 1860.
I just want to add, that in terms of the confederate monuments, that the crux of the issue, again, is power. You have one group arguing that the monuments should come down because they honor the Confederacy and slavery. And you have the defenders saying that the monuments should stay up, because they are a part of our heritage and history. What it is really about is power. The power to control what symbols mean, and whether those symbols should stand or fall. In our more urban areas, the issue is largely decided. In rural areas, there continues to be a struggle.
As far as Virginia was concerned, the issue was slavery. In January, 1861, Governor Letcher called a special session of the General Assembly to consider secession. Governor Letcher laid out six conditions for Virginia remaining in the Union as reported in the Richmond Enquirer:
1) "The Northern States must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their consitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved, and desperately wicked men come into slave States to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free States, they must be given up for trial and punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those States whose laws have been violated."
2) Guarantee of slavery in DC (I eliminated the rhetoric).
3) Right to have slaves in any territory, existing or in the future (again, I eliminated the rhetorical flourish for brevity).
The list goes on, and only the first have I quoted in its entirety since it gives the flavor of the mood - but all the conditions are about slavery. There is not one mention of state's rights and Governor Letcher was considered a moderate. In the end, NC and GA were both debating openly leaving the Confederacy due to the oppressiveness of the Davis government.
As far as Virginia was concerned, the issue was slavery. In January, 1861, Governor Letcher called a special session of the General Assembly to consider secession. Governor Letcher laid out six conditions for Virginia remaining in the Union as reported in the Richmond Enquirer:
1) "The Northern States must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their consitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved, and desperately wicked men come into slave States to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free States, they must be given up for trial and punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those States whose laws have been violated."
2) Guarantee of slavery in DC (I eliminated the rhetoric).
3) Right to have slaves in any territory, existing or in the future (again, I eliminated the rhetorical flourish for brevity).
The list goes on, and only the first have I quoted in its entirety since it gives the flavor of the mood - but all the conditions are about slavery. There is not one mention of state's rights and Governor Letcher was considered a moderate. In the end, NC and GA were both debating openly leaving the Confederacy due to the oppressiveness of the Davis government.
The immediate cause. But to understand why the South was so committed to slavery requires researching what the end of slavery meant to the South. If the South was trying to avoid a Great Depression, then that explains a lot, doesn't it? The result of the Civil War for the South was a Great Depression that lasted decades and was so oppressive that the economic depression of the 1930's is a cakewalk in comparison.
I just want to add, that in terms of the confederate monuments, that the crux of the issue, again, is power. You have one group arguing that the monuments should come down because they honor the Confederacy and slavery. And you have the defenders saying that the monuments should stay up, because they are a part of our heritage and history. What it is really about is power. The power to control what symbols mean, and whether those symbols should stand or fall. In our more urban areas, the issue is largely decided. In rural areas, there continues to be a struggle.
Yet again... we agree! (If all liberals were as pragmatic as you, we would ALL get along
Well-said. The Civil War was fought between brothers, sometimes literally, as in my Arkansas ancestral family. The eldest son enlisted in the 1st Arkansas Light Artillery, CSA. His two younger brothers stayed at home, being underage. However, when a bloody skirmish was fought within less than a mile of their rural home and the two teens, then 17 and 14 went exploring on the battlefield immediately after, as teenagers will, they were told by the victorious Union officers to start helping the wounded and after that, to dig graves and help bury the dead.
A harrowing experience, no doubt, and one which very likely contributed to the middle brother's decision to enlist shortly after his 18th birthday - enlist in the Union Army, that is. The remainder of the family saw deserters and bushwhackers from both sides as well as commissary officers deplete their stores of corn, wheat, and livestock. The youngest brother went hunting for rabbits and squirrels in the shot-up woods near the emptied out farm, to help feed his many young siblings. Eventually the family accepted the Federal government's offer of shelter in nearby Fort Smith, as did many other civilians. This was followed by evacuating the civilians via steamboat down the Arkansas and up the Mississippi Rivers to southern Illiinois, where the refugees spent the last winter of the war before returning home.
In my family's case, the eldest (Confederate) brother eventually returned home, uninjured despite having seen a great deal of action at Chickamauga, the Atlanta campaign, and other eastern theater battles. The youngest brother never did enlist, but recalled his family's experiences many years later in his regular column in a local paper. But the middle brother - the 18 year old Union private - never saw battle but died of disease in a federal hospital shortly after he turned 19 - died on the same day Lincoln was assassinated.
So - it's not all black and white or good and evil when it comes to taking sides in our contemporary views of the Civil War and the motivations and character of those involved in it. Most people like my ancestors did the best they could with the information and other resources - intelligence, education, a little land - they had. Some felt a stronger attachment to their native states than to the national government - Robert E. Lee is of course the classic example of this. Others fought for the Union's integrity, though they were slaveholders. Yet others cast their lot with the Confederacy, though they never held slaves - my own family had no slaves, as far as I can tell from family stories and actual records, and they were a family of divided loyalties.
So - what do we do with all those Confederate statues? Educate people to learn more and look for nuances, for starters, rather than automatically condemning all who supported the Confederacy during those four years as traitors and criminals. They did not fight to overthrow or to conquer the United States government, but to secede from it. Jefferson Davis would have been quite content to have the Confederacy exist peacefully alongside the remaining portion of the United States. George Washington's portrait appeared on Confederate money.
The two embattled sides were deeply, inextricably tied to one another, and hopes of peaceful coexistence were pipedreams that never could have come to fruition. But understanding that many Confederate officials and sympathizers hoped for this amicable outcome rather than Civil War is crucial. During the war, Union troops were generally viewed as invaders by the South's civilian population, and many Confederate soldiers were motivated by that invasion and occupation far more than by fighting to continue slavery. Many of those soldiers never owned slaves. They fought for their homes. And some, being inexperienced and callow young men, joined up to see a little excitement and to broaden their horizons and be with their neighborhood friends who also were enlisting.
So. "It was all a big mistake", to quote my Confederate Major g-g-grandfather from the other side of my family. He was in Pickett's Charge. He also signed the pledge and became a successful community and state leader after the war and did much to support reconciliation.
And his wartime enslaved body servant who accompanied him throughout the long four-year journey through the war wound up running successfully for the state legislature after the war - with the full support and encouragement of my g-g-grandfather, on an interracial ticket.
The times then were far more complex than is generally understood now.
Put the statues in museums and/or cemeteries instead of on courthouse lawns and town squares. Make them memorials for a tragic time rather than monuments to those who fought for a very flawed cause, yet who may have had a great deal of personal integrity and who thought of themselves as honorable. Tell the whole story, as far as it is known, when teaching our children about that tragic time. Encourage them to learn and read more, on their own. Visit museums, historic homes, and battlegrounds. Don't fall for the easy, presently all too common meme of considering everyone associated in any way with the Confederacy as Nazi-like, traitors, etc. That's not who the vast majority of them were. It's a lot more complicated - and a lot more interesting. So do yourselves a favor, and learn. You won't regret it.
I just want to add, that in terms of the confederate monuments, that the crux of the issue, again, is power. You have one group arguing that the monuments should come down because they honor the Confederacy and slavery. And you have the defenders saying that the monuments should stay up, because they are a part of our heritage and history. What it is really about is power. The power to control what symbols mean, and whether those symbols should stand or fall. In our more urban areas, the issue is largely decided. In rural areas, there continues to be a struggle.
g for power. You had the North, small states, more urban, industrializing, founded by people who wanted to escape Europe and its influence. And the South, large states, very agrarian, founded by people who wanted to extend Europe's influence.
Extend Europe's influence how!? Slavery wasn't prevalent in Europe. The South was agrarian because of the longing farming season, plentiful land and water. Maybe there is some truth in that those people were hypocritical in escaping persecution and poverty to only become like those who abused their lower class/caste/peasant life in the old world. They relied on the industrializing north for the technology that assisted their lifestyle, basically, more hypocrisy for without which things would crumble as we saw. It was an economy built on flimsy ideals.
g for power. You had the North, small states, more urban, industrializing, founded by people who wanted to escape Europe and its influence. And the South, large states, very agrarian, founded by people who wanted to extend Europe's influence.
Extend Europe's influence how!? Slavery wasn't prevalent in Europe. The South was agrarian because of the longing farming season, plentiful land and water. Maybe there is some truth in that those people were hypocritical in escaping persecution and poverty to only become like those who abused their lower class/caste/peasant life in the old world. They relied on the industrializing north for the technology that assisted their lifestyle, basically, more hypocrisy for without which things would crumble as we saw. It was an economy built on flimsy ideals.
Extend Europe's influence....
There's a reason why the states in the South were named for British monarchs. Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas. The cultural and social structures of those Southern states were an extension of European culture and social structure. The large estates in England were translated to plantations in the South. The fashions of Europe were emulated in the South. The land grants from the king meant that the land-owners were loyal to the king. They weren't escaping persecution and poverty. The North was settled by people escaping persecution. Not the South.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
