Ruth: Slavery's reality contradicts Sons of Confederate Veterans, Civil War revisionists

It seems fitting that the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War, which some people might still be shocked to learn the North won, turned out to be "Dixie."

After all, since Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox there's been no shortage of looking away, looking away at the reality of history when it comes to the Civil War.

Nowhere is that full flower of denial more apparent than among the followers of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is upset about a proposal to erect a monument to Union soldiers who died in the Battle of Olustee, regarded by historians as the largest and deadliest engagement in Florida during the "wowrah." Related News/Archive

Next month marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Olustee, about 45 miles west of Jacksonville. Some 2,000 Union troops died in the conflict, while 1,000 Confederate soldiers also perished in an engagement that did not substantially alter the course of the Civil War.

The 3-acre Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park includes three monuments honoring the Confederate troops who fought and died in the encounter. But when the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War pushed for a memorial on the site to pay homage to the sacrifices of their forbearers, hostilities ensued. So did illiterate silliness.

Sherman Logan: "Their other option was to win their independence by force of arms.
At which they very nearly succeeded."

You are correct that Union victory was not preordained, given their dearth of effective military leaders.
General McClelland comes to mind.
Indeed, had the slave-power declared secession under a President Buchanan type, it may well have happened relatively peacefully.
But of course, they had no reason to secede under Buchanan.

Against expectations, Lincoln eventually proved a capable war-president, and found effective generals to lead the effort.
Yes, I'll grant you that any number of "what-ifs" might have changed the outcome, but one "what-if" would not change, short of Lincoln's assassination early in the war: Lincoln was not going to give up the fight unless completely defeated, and given the relative strength of the northern military-economy, that seems most unlikely.
Indeed, unlikely enough that I'd call Union victory more-or-less inevitable.

So, the Confederacy's fate was sealed because Lincoln (like Washington & FDR) was an "Unconditional Surrender" kind of guy.

I’m sure that our FRiend HamiltonJay was just simply a bit awkward in his phraseology and didn’t mean to lecture us from any declared point of superior knowledge. Just as I’m confident that he knows the difference between succeed and secede. We’re all here to learn and to offer our perspective, right?

The unfortunate thrust of HamiltonJay’s post is that it presumes an argument that none of us - including the author - has made. Once made, he then condemns the false argument without actually rebutting it.

I’ve seen no one here assert that southern slavery was the only issue that led to the war, but I would assert that it was the primary reason. Even the other contributory facts listed by HamiltonJay all redound to the practice and economics of slavery.

One thing I’ve learned about history - in addition to the fact that there’s always more to learn - is that history is complicated and often messy. Efforts to reduce the complex down to a sound-bite usually occur at the loss of accuracy and do a disservice to all of us.

It is true that there was a cultural divide between north and south. Some sought to capitalize upon the differences while others were seemingly oblivious to it. The founders recognized a need for a suitably strong federal government to repel our enemies. Southern democrats like Madison and Jefferson fervently espoused the anti-federalist, agrarian model. Jefferson, ever paranoid that Washington would assume a monarchy, opposed arming ourselves with a standing army and frustrated efforts to finance any such endeavors. I was taught that Adams was Jefferson’s ideological opposite but Adams and Jefferson held several things in common. The Quasi-War should have served as a wake-up call to America when we found ourselves unarmed and virtually defenseless against hostile enemies. Adams, a federalist, built up the navy and oversaw a successful campaign against the French only to disband the army at its conclusion - much to the dismay of Hamilton, who was his ideological companion but political enemy. Jefferson, who was at the time serving (or should I say self-serving) as Adam’s vice president, opposed the expansion.

Jefferson, the frugal agrarian, discovered the federal checkbook when president and, defiant of the prospect of impeachment completed the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson, who eschewed the concept of a federal bank (and thus a mechanism for the federal government to pay its bills) spend federal dollars to build a navy in response to the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson even opposed his fellow southerners when they sought his support for a federal bank in order to finance the purchase of new land and new slaves.

The democrat party under Madison gained dominance of the nation and ushered in the “Era of good feelings” - a curious euphemism which in truth meant the total expunction of the Federalist party. The perception of equanimity was a sham wherein only one portion of the political spectrum had any voice and only that selfsame side had any significant influence on events. A democrats dream, eh?

I mention these anecdotes to provide a backdrop for the influences at play. Democrats have always been more about the purchase than the payment. Conservatives have always understood the necessity to take responsibility and pay your way. Without a mechanism for generating revenue other than tariffs the government couldn’t pay their obligations. Exactly who was going to be stuck with the bill was a haggle-fest that began even before the creation of our nation (and continues unabated). Left/right, up/down, north/south, the maneuvering was always going on in the background.

That negotiation, as manifested in the form of the Morrill Tariff, was nothing new. On another WBTS thread a neo-confederate attempts to posit the Morrill Tariff as the proximate cause of the WBTS. He outlines the progression of events surrounding the event but fails to make the case for its prominence in the sequence of events. Passage of the Morrill Tariff was a setback for southern interests but it was not an act of tyranny. It simply did not rise to the the level of “abuses and usurpations” exhibitive of a despot.

The “simple truth” is that the southern slavers were the ruling class in the south. They had erected a way of life that made them fabulously rich. They did not want anything disturbing that way of life, even the march of time. They were effecting at swaying the “Low Information Voters” of their era to join them in the folly of a rebellion that resulted in a disastrous war.

“Now, to mock others ignorance, when yours is on display to see hopefully will make you go do some homework before you open your trap again.” Excellent advice and one that we should all practice.

rockrr: "Democrats have always been more about the purchase than the payment.
Conservatives have always understood the necessity to take responsibility and pay your way."

By the way, of the many false claims coming from our pro-Confederate brethren, let me add one to the list:

"Lincoln was the first president elected without carrying a single southern state."

In fact, both John Adams -- Federalist father (1796) & Democrat-Republican son (1824) -- were elected without carrying a single southern state.
Neither election caused the South to secede.

After the Civil War, several Republican presidents were elected without winning a southern state: Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft and Coolidge.
So, does anyone remember the last president elected without carrying a southern state?
No, sadly, not Barack Obama.

It was Herbert Hoover, in 1932.
Every president, Republican or Democrat, since Hoover has carried at least a few southern states.
Until 1964 Democrats always swept the South.
Since Reagan in 1980, Republicans have always won the majority of southern states.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.