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.
I think we've actually got quite a bit of agreement here. I have a degree in history, and one of the few things it really pounded home to me was that history is virtually never pure good versus pure evil. I agree with you that there was a large portion of northerners who just didn't care about the abolition of slavery, and that the majority of southerners never owned slaves either.
I also agree with you that slavery was not the only cause of the Civil War. Lincoln repeatedly stated that his overarching goal was to reunify the country, and he famously said that if he could reunify the country without freeing a single slave, he would do it.
However, my analysis of history is that the issue of slavery, particularly its expansion or abolition, was the primary reason the southern states seceded from the Union. Vice President Stephens famously stated that slavery was the cornerstone of the entire Confederacy.
For that reason, it is a Good Thing that the Confederacy was defeated, and that ultimately the 13th Amendment was passed and all slaves were emancipated. Even if it was done for the wrong reasons, even if the intentions of most confederates was noble, and northerners was to selfishly economically destroy the South, slavery is an evil. It cannot and should not be tolerated.
And I think this is where we disagree. I cannot separate the idea of the Confederacy from the promotion of a race-based slavery that treated other human beings as property. When thinking about symbols of the South, I picture Louisiana steamboats, Louis Armstrong's jazz and blues, fantastic ribs and barbecue, and great times I had in Nashville. To me, even if there were other, more noble and complicated reasons for the Confederacy, their primary aim was to protect their institution of slavery against encroachment and abolitionists from the North. To me, that makes the Confederate flag a symbol of an ugly period of our history that should be remembered, but not honored.
It seems to me after reading this post that we have much that we agree upon. I would think, though, as a historian, that would not only be able to separate the Confederacy from "the promotion of a race based slavery that treated other human beings as property," but that as a matter of integrity you would be compelled to separate two different things. I would think that you would be compelled to see the Civil War in a larger context, and to explore the multitude of difference between the two regions and how those differences contributed to the problems of the era. History that is being fragmented is not history, it's propaganda. The political and economic issues can not be ignored and only the social issues focused on. It's important to understand why non-slave-owning Southerners would fight on the side of a South, and the political and economic context make those choices comprehensible.
It's also important that we don't make the Civil War into some morality play. Because when we do this, painting a picture of the evil South, that depiction has resonance. Discrimination against the South is a very real thing. There is a lot of prejudice that finds justification based on events in the past. Prejudice is a shortcut. And it's a shortcut that's rooted in dishonesty. Because when we are prejudiced against a group of people, we are saying that a particular characteristic unifies that group of people. We know that that isn't true. No group of people are ALL lazy. No group of people are ALL anything. Groups are made up of individuals. And we need to relate to the people we meet, regardless of color or ethnicity, gender or sexual preference, origins or locale, we need to relate to the people we meet as individuals.
It seems to me after reading this post that we have much that we agree upon. I would think, though, as a historian, that would not only be able to separate the Confederacy from "the promotion of a race based slavery that treated other human beings as property," but that as a matter of integrity you would be compelled to separate two different things. I would think that you would be compelled to see the Civil War in a larger context, and to explore the multitude of difference between the two regions and how those differences contributed to the problems of the era. History that is being fragmented is not history, it's propaganda. The political and economic issues can not be ignored and only the social issues focused on. It's important to understand why non-slave-owning Southerners would fight on the side of a South, and the political and economic context make those choices comprehensible.
It's also important that we don't make the Civil War into some morality play. Because when we do this, painting a picture of the evil South, that depiction has resonance. Discrimination against the South is a very real thing. There is a lot of prejudice that finds justification based on events in the past. Prejudice is a shortcut. And it's a shortcut that's rooted in dishonesty. Because when we are prejudiced against a group of people, we are saying that a particular characteristic unifies that group of people. We know that that isn't true. No group of people are ALL lazy. No group of people are ALL anything. Groups are made up of individuals. And we need to relate to the people we meet, regardless of color or ethnicity, gender or sexual preference, origins or locale, we need to relate to the people we meet as individuals.
I think the way that I approach this question is that there's a disconnect between historical analysis and current political beliefs. You are right that historically, there was more to the Confederacy than slavery. Nothing takes place in a vacuum, and often some of the most important causes of a historic event are left unsaid.
Among the other issues that were key to North-South relations at the time were tariff rates, a rapidly expanding national borders, legal questions of federalism, changing immigration demographics, population expansion, increased industrialization and others. All of these things entailed regional differences that sharpened the divide between North and South. And they are important and worth time and effort to research. But in the end, none of those issues would have led to the Civil War had the regional differences in approaching slavery not been so clear to seceding southern states.
I agree with you that discrimination against the South is a real thing. Some people find it easy to stereotype southern accents. Some of the smartest people I've ever met have been from Virginia and Georgia. I've spent significant time in Nashville and had nothing but positive experiences there. I love jazz and play the sax myself. But from my perspective, people who are promoting and flying the Confederate flag today are promoting a symbol of an ugly era of American history.
I think the way that I approach this question is that there's a disconnect between historical analysis and current political beliefs. You are right that historically, there was more to the Confederacy than slavery. Nothing takes place in a vacuum, and often some of the most important causes of a historic event are left unsaid.
Among the other issues that were key to North-South relations at the time were tariff rates, a rapidly expanding national borders, legal questions of federalism, changing immigration demographics, population expansion, increased industrialization and others. All of these things entailed regional differences that sharpened the divide between North and South. And they are important and worth time and effort to research. But in the end, none of those issues would have led to the Civil War had the regional differences in approaching slavery not been so clear to seceding southern states.
I agree with you that discrimination against the South is a real thing. Some people find it easy to stereotype southern accents. Some of the smartest people I've ever met have been from Virginia and Georgia. I've spent significant time in Nashville and had nothing but positive experiences there. I love jazz and play the sax myself. But from my perspective, people who are promoting and flying the Confederate flag today are promoting a symbol of an ugly era of American history.
I actually think that a Civil War was inevitable given the profound differences between the South and the North. Whether a different Civil War would have been as widespread, or as bitter, is an interesting topic, but I think that we started out as a country divided, and that division eventually had to be dealt with.
As for the Confederate flag, and many other symbols, rather than projecting my feelings and interpretations upon it, I prefer to let the people using the symbol define that symbol. If I go around imposing my own feelings, rather than asking questions, I'm engaging in a subtle form of prejudice. I've pre-judged their motivations, I've pre-judged how the symbol is being used. Rather than do that, I'd rather engage people in spirited discussions where I have an opportunity to learn, and hopefully the exchange of ideas benefits us all.
It doesn't matter what Grant had. What matters is what he fought for, and the consequences of it.
He fought on the side of the union, because that's where he lived, that's why most of the people in the south fought on the side of the confederacy, because thats where they lived.
Slavery wasn't an issue until the emancipation proclamation, which ONLY freed slaves in the south, slavery was alive and well in the north.
In fact Lincoln during the Lincoln / Douglas debates said he was NOT in favor of Citizenship for negroes, he felt there was a disparagy between the races, that the whites were more intelligent..
DC - The reason the southe rstates seceded was because they didn't want the federal government regulating slavery. The fact that you defend the confederacy shows your moral character.
I live in Virginia. In my study of the secession of Virginia, from the Union, was done, because they felt that Lincoln's actions were in fact illegal.
" In President Lincoln's inaugural address of March 4th, he promised not to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed but condemned secession, stating that "the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy." Virginians wondered what fate would befall the Deep South states, and what the implications might be of a strong Federal government. The debates continued until April 15th, when Richmond newspapers reported Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to suppress the uprising. As a member of the Union, Virginia would be required to send 8,000 soldiers. This proved to be the breaking point for delegates, and the convention chose to stand with other southerners and vote for secession. "
The basis of secession for Virginians -
[SIZE=2]The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression.[/SIZE][SIZE=2]
The actual secession was based on the illegal actions of President Lincoln.
Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain that the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the Union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid, is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State. And they do further declare that the said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State[/SIZE]
I for one think its kinda tacky to have a big one on the back of yer car. But I think for museums and stuff its fine.
I don't think its bad.
What I do mind is some with hate who know nothing about the civil war and going to extremes using the confederate flag as if it made them powerful or to scare people.
Plenty of them in my area that tailgate and just about run people off the road with the confederate flag on the back of the pick up.
This is the point where somebody might quote the Cornerstone Speech, or the statements of secession from states which state explicitly that slavery was at the heart of their actions, that:
You are correct in that this (and many other) places are where one might quote the so-called "Cornerstone Speech."
Thing is, after "quoting it"? Why not keep on and see how many know much beyond simply quoting it?
As it was, -- let's be honest -- it expressed the sentiments of the time. Both North and South. I can find quotes of northern figures who articulated the same, even if in different actual wording.
But as may be, how many know that Stephen's remarks were not very well-received by other Southern delegates/officials when they met to form the provisional Confederate government. ("A Government of Our Own" by William C. Davis. pg. 294-295)? In a nut-shell, his "cornerstone" speech was repudiated as being a "cornerstone speech."
He (Stephens) later insisted (during a day and age he really didn't have to) he was misunderstood. Matter of fact, by the standards of the day and age, he appeared to be a "liberal" on racial issues.
My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned.
Anyway, you are also correct in that four Lower South states explicitly mentioned slavery in their "Declaration of Causes". (South Carolina, Georiga, Mississipi, and Texas). However, three others (Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana) did not. Why cherry pick?
Further, the four states of the Upper South (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennesse) would likely have remained in the Union had Lincoln not chosen to use military force against the departing states. As it was, they had turned down secession and, even when they decided on that course? They did not mention slavery as a cause. For sure the "questionable states" of Missouri and Kentucky didn't.
So does that make the score 7- 4 or 9 - 4?
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but if one is going to speak of "cornerstone speeches" and "declaration of causes" then let's at least give a fair balance on it.
The confederate flag is great if you like slavery.
Gosh, now THAT is a mature and worthwhile statement! Reckon that the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War are supporting slavery when they passed the following resolution?:
A resolution in support of the display of the Confederate Battle Flag.
WHEREAS, we, the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, condemn the use of the confederate battle flag, as well as the flag of the United States, by any and all hate groups; and
WHEREAS, we, the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, support the flying of the Confederate battle flag as a historical piece of this nation's history; and
WHEREAS, we, the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, oppose the removal of any Confederate monuments or markers to those gallant soldiers in the former Confederate States, and strongly oppose the removal of ANY reminders of this nation's bloodiest war on the grounds of it being "politically correct;" and
WHEREAS, we, as the descendants of Union soldiers and sailors who as members of the Grand Army of the Republic met in joint reunions with the Confederate veterans under both flags in those bonds of Fraternal Friendship, pledge our support and admiration for those gallant soldiers and of their respective flags;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the members of the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War in 119th Annual National Encampment, hereby adopt this resolution. Dated in Lansing, Michigan, on this nineteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord Two thousand.
He (Stephens) later insisted (during a day and age he really didn't have to) he was misunderstood. Matter of fact, by the standards of the day and age, he appeared to be a "liberal" on racial issues.
My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned.
From the "clarification," Stephens still says:
Quote:
I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
Quote:
Anyway, you are also correct in that four Lower South states explicitly mentioned slavery in their "Declaration of Causes". (South Carolina, Georiga, Mississipi, and Texas).
"Mentioned" is an extremely delicate way of putting it. "Made it front and center" might be slightly more accurate.
Quote:
However, three others (Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana) did not. Why cherry pick?
Florida, Alabama and Louisiana did not put forth declarations of secession. Those three passed ordinances without stating their reasons. If any of those three states did provide declarations like this:
Further, the four states of the Upper South (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennesse) would likely have remained in the Union had Lincoln not chosen to use military force against the departing states. As it was, they had turned down secession and, even when they decided on that course? They did not mention slavery as a cause. For sure the "questionable states" of Missouri and Kentucky didn't.
Again, from that same link, as far as I know none of those four states ever provided a declaration of the reasons for their secession in the manner of South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi.
Quote:
Not trying to be a smarta$$, but if one is going to speak of "cornerstone speeches" and "declaration of causes" then let's at least give a fair balance on it.
If you have a "declaration of causes" from any of those states beyond the four which explicitly put slavery front and center, please let me know.
What is your point here? You seem to be running from your own earlier assertions. I don't blame you.
I addresed everything you said, prior, as to the "cornerstone speech" and the declarations of secession and ordinances. It seems you cannot deal with another point of view, with a truth to back it up.
Last edited by TexasReb; 02-09-2011 at 09:57 PM..
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.