Why the Confederacy Lives

Politico Magazine ^ | April 08, 2015 | EUAN HAGUE

[lqcincinnatus]

One hundred-fifty years after Appomattox, many Southerners still won’t give up.

One hundred fifty years ago, on April 9th, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House and the Union triumphed in the Civil War. Yet the passage of a century and a half has not dimmed the passion for the Confederacy among many Americans. Just three weeks ago, the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) appeared before the Supreme Court arguing for the right to put a Confederate flag on vanity license plates in Texas. Just why would someone in 2015 want a Confederate flag on their license plate? The answer is likely not a desire to overtly display one’s genealogical research skills; nor can it be simplistically understood solely as an exhibition of racism, although the power of the Confederate flag to convey white supremacist beliefs cannot be discounted.

Rather, displaying the Confederate flag in 2015 is an indicator of a complex and reactionary politics that is very much alive in America today. It is a politics that harks back to the South’s proud stand in the Civil War as a way of rallying opinion against the federal government—and against the country’s changing demographic, economic, and moral character, of which Washington is often seen as the malign author. Today’s understanding of the Confederacy by its supporters is thus neither nostalgia, nor mere heritage; rather Confederate sympathy in 2015 is a well-funded and active political movement (which, in turn, supports a lucrative Confederate memorabilia industry).

[rockrr]

Well done.

Sic semper tyrannis!

[DiogenesLamp]

The south went to war because they perceived the election of Abraham Lincoln as the death knell of slavery in America and they would do ANYTHING to keep it.

They went to "Independence" for that reason. They went to war because they were arrogant. As long as we are being picky, let's get it right.

They didn't care that he said that he wouldn't steer any effort at ending slavery - only keep it from spreading. The south's primary motivation wasn't independence - it was control.

Control of what? Their own States? Yeah, I think that's pretty much the point. They even were willing to give up slavery (toward's the end) to keep Independence.

There was no violent repression of anyone except for that which the south perpetrated against its neighbor.

And what violent repression of their neighbor did they commit? Who did they bloody or kill?

[DiogenesLamp]

But instead you had Jeff Davis.

Hard to see how he is relevant because his wasn't commanding the invading force. You see, Lincoln is roughly analogous to George III, not Jeff Davis.

But they did. And having done so then your complaint seems to be that the North just didn't surrender right off the bat.

Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone. The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.

Instead shouldn't your ire be directed at those who started the war in the first place?

The Confederates made a muck of it with their arrogance, but the larger principle involved, that people have a right to self determination, is more important than the hurt feelings from being kicked out of a Fort. No vital interest of the North was threatened.

One of the most ridiculous arguments in the Confederate arsenal. Nobody was killed, so no harm no foul. It was a deliberate attack on a federal facility, a conscious act of war. The fact that nobody was killed is meaningless. The Confederacy was certainly trying to force the fort into surrender, and kill as many as was necessary to accomplish that.

We've had attacks on our Warships during which our servicemen were killed, and yet we didn't declare war on those responsible. I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so. They certainly managed it in all subsequent campaigns.

Because they had been attacked.

You mean "hurt feelings." Yeah, that's about it. *THAT* is the most honest explanation for the war. It started with the arrogance of the South picking a symbolic fight, and the North retaliating excessively because of hurt feelings.

The Civil war started as a big Pissing contest.

[rockrr]

Hard to see how he is relevant because his wasn't commanding the invading force. You see, Lincoln is roughly analogous to George III, not Jeff Davis.

In your fevered brain perhaps.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I’m talking about the failure of the North to rebuild the infrastructure of the South which plunged it into poverty, ill health and bitterness.

Except the US did rebuild the infrastructure in the southern states, and in fact expanded and improved it. At the beginning of the war, the south had 9600 miles of railroad, in a hodgepodge of track gauges. In 1870 there were 11,000 miles of a uniform gauge and in 1890 there were 26,000 miles. Almost all built with northern money. The cities that were destroyed in the war were rebuilt within a few years.

That the south fell into "poverty, ill health and bitterness" was partly the result of economic conditions that pre-dated the war--an economy built on a couple of commodity crops at a time the world economy was rapidly industrializing--and partly the loss of the free labor and financial asset that owning human beings provided. The southern states are far more comparable in their economy to the other nations ringing the Caribbean than they are to the northern states.

[central_va]

Lincoln was the fork in the road where we started Separating from Federalism and Originalism.

I agree.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

They even were willing to give up slavery (toward's the end) to keep Independence.

Make me laugh. That simply never happened. Even when the confederacy passed a resolution, by a razor-thin margin, a couple of weeks before surrender to recruit black soldiers, they included a clause that "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners."

[DoodleDawg]

Hard to see how he is relevant because his wasn't commanding the invading force. You see, Lincoln is roughly analogous to George III, not Jeff Davis.

We were talking about rational leaders shortening the war. The most rational leader wouldn't have started the war to begin with. But the Confederacy didn't have a rational leader; they had Davis.

Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone. The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.

So then should the U.S. have left Japan alone, so long as they paid for the damage at Pearl Harbor? War was forced on the U.S., both at Pearl Harbor and at Fort Sumter. Once that happens then the prudent path is to do what it takes to keep the aggressor off your territory and to force him into as early an end to their aggression as possible. That is what Lincoln did. Again, your complaint is not over who started the war, you freely admit it was the Confederacy, but who ended the war, and the fact that your preferred side didn't win.

The Confederates made a muck of it with their arrogance, but the larger principle involved, that people have a right to self determination, is more important than the hurt feelings from being kicked out of a Fort. No vital interest of the North was threatened.

Being attacked is of vital interest to any country. You seem to think it would have ended with Fort Sumter if only Lincoln had capitulated. How did the North know that?

We've had attacks on our Warships during which our servicemen were killed, and yet we didn't declare war on those responsible.

Attacks on our ships led us into World War I, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars, and the Spanish-American War. It appears that attacking the U.S. has led to more wars than not.

I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so.

They bombarded the fort non-stop for over a day. The damage was extensive. I suggest that their failure to kill anyone was due more to the strength of the fort and the incompetence of the rebel gunners than through any intent on the South's part.

You mean "hurt feelings." Yeah, that's about it.

So what motivated the South to attack again? Arrogance, wasn't that what you said? Pride? Hubris? Or, to put it another way, hurt feelings? So...is your complaint that the Union, when faced with a Confederate hissy-fit worthy of a spoiled five-year-old, wasn't adult enough to ignore it? But if you ignore the badly-behaving child then doesn't the bad behavior tend to continue?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Surrender is not an appropriate substitute for the concept of leaving people alone.

So if you and your next door neighbor announced that you were now your own country, then started shooting at the local national guard armory because you claim that, too, the proper response of the government would be to leave you alone?

The North should have demanded reparations, but they shouldn't have sent an invasion force.

You can't invade your own country.

. I also would suggest that had the Confederates been trying to kill people, they most assuredly would have done so.

Confederate artillery not trying to kill people.

[DoodleDawg]

Well done.

Thanks. I wandered into these discussions based on curiosity and I find myself getting sucked into them more and more. Fortunately my dad was a Civil War fanatic and I picked up my interest in the war from him. And I'm learning a lot from the rest of you, at least those on the Northern side.

[DiogenesLamp]

So if you and your next door neighbor announced that you were now your own country, then started shooting at the local national guard armory because you claim that, too, the proper response of the government would be to leave you alone?

You are attempting to use a dishonest debate tactic in trying to equate "neighbors" with "States" as if we wouldn't notice.

Your metaphor would be ridiculous if applied to the 13 Colonies and it is just as ridiculous when you attempt to apply it to the Independence movement of the Southern States.

You can't invade your own country.

Tell that to the British. Our nation was founded on the principle that we could become independent from a nation to which we no longer wished to belong.

Confederate artillery not trying to kill people.

You are an unserious debater. I could draw cartoon stick figures showing bombs and explosions to support my position too, but the fact remains that nobody was killed.

Given that people were killed in every single subsequent conflict, I would take that as pretty good evidence that they weren't really trying. And why would they? They had no real animosity directed at those soldiers, they just wanted them to leave.

[DiogenesLamp]

In your fevered brain perhaps.

You need to take a deep breath, calm down and consider what you are saying. The analogy between Lincoln and George III is far more accurate than it is between Jeff Davis and George III.

Lincoln and George III represented the existing government. Both had command of overwhelming force compared to the other side. Both of them asserted that the states didn't have a right to secede, and must maintain perpetual allegiance to the existing government. Both of them sent forces to put a stop to this "Independence" nonsense.

Just how in the world could Jeff Davis resemble George III?

[DiogenesLamp]

Make me laugh. That simply never happened. Even when the confederacy passed a resolution, by a razor-thin margin, a couple of weeks before surrender to recruit black soldiers, they included a clause that "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners, except by consent of the owners."

I'm not even going to dispute you on this. What I am going to do is point out that you chose to rebut the most trivial aspect of everything I said, and ignore the tough parts.

Go for the low hanging fruit, do you?

[rockrr]

Just how in the world could Jeff Davis resemble George III?

Where did I ever make that claim? It would appear that it is you that needs some quiet time LOL

[DiogenesLamp]

We were talking about rational leaders shortening the war. The most rational leader wouldn't have started the war to begin with. But the Confederacy didn't have a rational leader; they had Davis.

Who was in no position to stop the war. Lincoln was. Again, George III thought 15,000 dead was enough. Lincoln held out for hundreds of thousands. George III could have won too, but he decided it wasn't worth it.

So then should the U.S. have left Japan alone, so long as they paid for the damage at Pearl Harbor?

If you are comparing Ft. Sumter to Pearl Harbor, you are really grasping at straws. How many men died during the attack on Ft. Sumter? Wasn't it NONE?

Being attacked is of vital interest to any country. You seem to think it would have ended with Fort Sumter if only Lincoln had capitulated. How did the North know that?

If you are suggesting that the South was going to Invade the North, you are insane. Why wouldn't it have ended with Ft. Sumter? Do you have info on Confederate troop movements massing along the border or something? My recollection is that the first battle caught them off guard. They really didn't expect it.

Attacks on our ships led us into World War I, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars, and the Spanish-American War. It appears that attacking the U.S. has led to more wars than not.

Oh geeze, looks like i'm going to have to cover some history for you.

The attack on the Lusitania is what you refer to in regards to World War I. The Germans did everything they could to advise Americans that traveling into the war zone was a very bad idea, which it was. (It was a British ship, by the way.)

As far as the war of 1812 was concerned, it was not just about the Chesapeake–Leopard Affair (1807, five years earlier than 1812) it was about the continued impressment of American sailors onto British ships. Apparently they felt as you do, that people don't have a right to independence.

The Barbary wars was the result of a continuous predation on American Shipping and the demanding of Ransom. Yes, American Interests *WERE* at stake in this example.

The Spanish American war was an utter Clusterfark. The Spanish didn't sink our ship, we ACCUSED them of sinking our ship, when in fact a boiler had exploded. We rushed to war, beat up on a weaker opponent, stole their possessions from them, and then ended up being as hated by the inhabitants as were the Spanish.

To sum it up, you haven't provided very good examples to support your claim.

They bombarded the fort non-stop for over a day. The damage was extensive. I suggest that their failure to kill anyone was due more to the strength of the fort and the incompetence of the rebel gunners than through any intent on the South's part.

I think you believe what you wish to believe. Again I note they managed to kill people in all subsequent contacts. "Damage" is not casualties.

So what motivated the South to attack again? Arrogance, wasn't that what you said? Pride? Hubris? Or, to put it another way, hurt feelings?

Yeah, pretty much. So you think responding in kind was a good idea? Two large powers both throwing hissyfits?

I guess it was too much to wish someone could have been the adult. The United States had certainly let people get away with provocations before and since. (Look up "Pueblo", and the "Liberty".)

[rockrr]

What I am going to do is point out that you chose to rebut the most trivial aspect of everything I said, and ignore the tough parts.

The "tough parts" (snicker) had already been dealt with.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks. I wandered into these discussions based on curiosity and I find myself getting sucked into them more and more. Fortunately my dad was a Civil War fanatic and I picked up my interest in the war from him. And I'm learning a lot from the rest of you, at least those on the Northern side.

People don't want to learn anything which doesn't conform to their biases. I was fortunate in growing up without any biases one way or the other. If anything, I was originally biased towards the Northern version of events. It was decades later that I began to realize all may not be as I had been led to believe.

You have given insight into your motivation in this discussion. Doubtlessly your father was very Pro-Union in his fanaticism and therefore you come by yours naturally.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where did I ever make that claim?

Message 404. Can this be taken any other way?

[rockrr]

Can this be taken any other way?

Of course it can....unless your bias so totally blinds you to the possibilities.

[DiogenesLamp]

The "tough parts" (snicker) had already been dealt with.

You and I have different understanding of the term "dealt with." In my lexicon, it doesn't mean "ignore" or "run away from."