Why the sympathy for the South?

2/18/2003 | truthsearcher

[jlogajan]

The civil war was not about slavery. Lincoln justified it ex post facto on those grounds.

It was primarily about the right of secession.

Except they wanted to secede because of slavery. It seems that Bill Clinton didn't invent such parsing -- southern slave holders and their modern day supporters seem to be well versed in the technique as well.

"Oh, oh, we're just fighting for the right to secede."

"Why do you want to secede?"

"Oh, just because -- nothing to do with slavery, nope, no sir."

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I don't see your connection between The War For Southern Independence (use of the term "Civil War" for the conflict is inaccurate, insomuch as all other civil wars in history have been conflicts between opposing factions within one country for control of that country, whereas the Confederacy never sought to control the United States) and abortion.

There can be no legitimate right for a state to enforce slavery on her people, now, in 2003, after some 140 years of social evolution; back then such was not the case. Slaves were valuable property, and the protection of private property is the principle purpose of government. The institution of slavery was legal in several states in 1860, among which were Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, where slavery continued several months after it's abolition in the conquered states. Slavery existed legally in the British Colonies from their founding until 1833, and in the United States from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 until some time late in 1865, when the 13th Amendment went into effect, a period of 89 years. Slavery existed in the Confederate States of America from February, 1861 to June, 1865, a period of 4 years and 4 months.

The concept that slavery was not a natural condition of much of humanity is a new one in the history of the human race. Slavery was not invented in the American South, and the idea that slaves should be freed did not originate in the North. Repugnant as the idea is to us, today, in 2003, the concept of one man owning another human being just as he would a horse or any other species of livestock was not considered out of the ordinary anywhere in the world until late in the 18th Century.

The tendency to condemn the people of the past because they were not as enlightened as we are is all part of an agenda to trivialize the achievements of our Founders as the work of "dead White guys who were slave owners," for the purpose of generating more "white guilt" and quashing patriotism and reverence for the Constitution.

[jlogajan]

The tendency to condemn the people of the past because they were not as enlightened as we are is all

Total BS. Obviously the contemporaries who fought against slavery were well aware of its immorality. The south opposed the abolition on economic grounds, not moral grounds.

[Southack]

Do you want to know the truth, or do you just want to see a bunch of teeth-gnashing?!

The truth, which neither side ever accepted, was that:

1. The North was morally right (e.g. slavery was unethical) and militarily right (e.g. might makes right, a united America is better able to deal with European/Asian troubles, et al),

and

2. The South was legally right. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution reserve the right to secede to the states. Slavery was likewise ruled legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Thus, both sides marched headlong into war "knowing" that they were right and that their brothers were wrong; a dispute that sometimes still smolders even to this very day.

In fact, Leftists like to dredge up the issue in their many attempts to further divide America. They love to paint slavery and Confederate imagery as grossly evil on the one hand, and on the other hand they love to show the South in a sympathetic light (especially that the South was noble but "wronged") in their articles, books, and movies.

But they don't do so because they think that the South was right. No, they do so in the hopes to further drive a wedge between various Conservatives (North and South, Black and White) in America.

To the Lefties, the more that they can bring up this national wound, the better (as many useful idiots will jump on board various bandwagons to add yet more salt to the old wounds)...

[TexConfederate1861]

Excuse me, reenactors wear WOOL...no self-respecting Southron would wear a simulated COTTON uniform...

Geez.

[FreedomCalls]

On 11-06-1860 Lincoln was elected president.

On December 20 1860, just a month later, South Carolina secedes.

Would you care to guess how many popular votes Lincoln got in the South? Not electoral votes (he got none of those of course) but popular votes. How many people (individuals) voted for Lincoln in the states that seceeded?

[TexConfederate1861]

Oh..Ok...who made you the expert on Southerners, and the "War"...oh, you must have a PHD from Yankee B*stard U...

My oh My!

[takenoprisoner]

Why did South Carolina secede one month after Lincoln was elected? Lincoln did not make the Emancipation Proclamation til nearly two years later. So how could it have been all about slavery?

[cyborg]

The old testament provided a structure of how to treat one's slaves. Many people in the South didn't adhere to those principles, but then again many DID and they go completely unrecognized. Of course, these who did treat their slaves according to the principles of the old testament, freed them in the spirit of the New Testament where all christians are brothers in the LORD (see Philemon sp?). Slave masters who were kind to their slaves, and saw their slaves living out the model of Christ, found it hard pressed to keep owning them. Many were freed.

http://www.wallbuilders.com

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Do you think these slaves suddenly appeared out of no where onto Southern cotton plantations? The real villains who started it all were the New England slave traders, financed by New York bankers, who used specially constructed ships to transport slaves from Africa.

Countless slaves died before the ships reached America and their corpses were unceremoniously tossed into the ocean. Those who survived the harsh crossing were sold primarily to planters in the Caribbean; roughly 90%, and the South; roughly 10%.

New England’s exploitation of slaves was one of America’s best kept secrets until fairly recently. But now some historians refuse to comply with the conspiracy of silence and they are showing us New England’s dirty linen. One of these historians is Joanne Pope Melish and her recent book, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860 exposes what has been called "a virtual amnesia about slavery in New England."

America slavery did indeed begin in New England with Massachusetts being the first colony to legalize the use of slaves in 1641. Other colonies quickly followed suit and soon New England’s economy was almost dependent upon slave labor. At first, captured American Indians were exchanged for black slaves from the West Indies. But eventually New Englanders realized that slave trading was more profitable than harpooning whales. "At New England slavery's peak, around 1760, roughly one in four families owned slaves" which is the same percentage of families in the South owning slaves just prior to the War.

People who live in glass houses should take care when casting that first stone.

[azhenfud]

? You already have.

[the_rightside]

"Hey, all I've done is let you know that the Ten Copmmandments says you can't work on Sunday and neither can your slaves. Don't fight me, go read your Bible"

The commandment you are referring to is the 4th commandment.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. The sabbath day of the Old Testament, and New Testament is the day we call saturday today not sunday.

If you can't get that right, how do you except any creditability when you talk about slavery?

[billhilly]

Most of us will agree with you. It is long past time for the slaves to be set free. We can't tolerate this anymore.

[#3Fan]

Oh..Ok...who made you the expert on Southerners, and the "War"...oh, you must have a PHD from Yankee B*stard U... My oh My!

Reading their fringe-group rantings on FR for 4 years made me an expert on how this fringe thinks anyway. I don't know about the rest of the Southerners. I assume the rest are normal. From my travels down there, they appear to be and I get along with them great. The Lott affair proved that conservatives don't agree with the Dixiecrat agenda of neo-Confederates. We quickly kicked Lott out of the leadership when he admitted he was "immoral" in his segregationist beliefs.

[section9]

I suspect that Lincoln ran stronger in the South than is generally acknowledged.

But I digress. I strongly suspect that the reason for sympathy for my Southern brethren on this board lies not only with the principle of states' rights, but of greater import, reflects an affection for the valorous conduct at arms of the Confederate Army.

It is hard to find a greater American in that era than General Lee. I know of none, save Lincoln himself.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[u-89]

To agree that the southern states had the right to leave the union is not to support slavery or out of racial prejudice as many detractors contend, they do that either out of ignorance or to maliciously obfuscate from the facts of the matter. Many conservatives today see all the evils in this country all as the result of FDR but the trouble goes back much further, the country as set up by the founders was dealt a death blow by Lincoln. His success was the beginning of the centralized state and the decline of freedom as well as the birth of corporate welfare and the insidious relationship between big business and government. Of course many conservatives excuse the wrongs of the War Between the States because of its success at keeping the union together which they see as the greatest good. These people have a loyalty to the concept of nation and geography over the love of liberty. The idea of support for the south goes to the concept of liberty and self determination not that the south was correct in the make up of its society. Of course many conservatives defend Lincoln because they are loyal Republicans and see the party as representing limited government, they fail to see how the Republicans started out as the party of big government. BTW my grandfather's grandfather lost a leg fighting with the Union forces. My grandfather used to tell me how his grandfather had to sit down on the floor and shimmy down staircases.

P.S. The "Civil War" as you call it is a misnomer. A civil war by definition is when two or more groups vie for the sole control of the government of a country. The south seceded from the Union so a more correct name for the war could be the war between the states though I prefer The War of Northern Aggression myself. "Civil War" is more propaganda put forward by the winners so we could feel better about ourselves.

[Nucluside]

About 8-10 months ago Professor Walter Williams published a column entitled "The Civil War Was Not Fought Over Slavery".
The piece can be found in his archives at Jewish World Review. Not that it matters, but he is black. Would someone please go there, find the thing, and post it? I haven't the time, and well, uh, don't know how to post things on our site. Would someone do that, please?

[The Iguana]

Would you care to guess how many popular votes Lincoln got in the South? Not electoral votes (he got none of those of course) but popular votes. How many people (individuals) voted for Lincoln in the states that seceeded?

I do recall reading somewhere one remarkable fact: that Lincoln did not get one single voter - as in one voter - in five southern states.

A stunning fact if you think about it.

I imagine he got very few votes in the eight other slave states.

[takenoprisoner]

Would you care to guess how many popular votes Lincoln got in the South?

Was he even on the ballot in the south? Okay, I'll guess none. All I know is that he didn't win the popular vote but won with the electoral college...and that nearly twice as many popular votes were cast for others.