Posted on 01/26/2007 6:05:29 PM PST by Dog Gone
Any attempt to judge our history by today's standards -- out of the context in which it occurred -- is at best problematic and at worst dishonest.
For example, consider the following quotations:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished."
"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
By today's standards, the person who made the first statement, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, would be considered enlightened. The person who made the second, President Abraham Lincoln, would be considered a white supremacist.
Many believe that the War Between the States was solely about slavery and that the Confederacy is synonymous with racism. That conclusion is faulty because the premise is inaccurate.
If slavery had been the sole or even the predominant issue in sparking the Civil War, this statement by Lincoln is puzzling: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it."
If preserving slavery was the South's sole motive for waging war, why did Lee free his slaves before the war began? In 1856, he said slavery was "a moral and political evil in any country."
Why was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863 rather than when the war started in 1861? And why did it free only the slaves in the Confederacy and not in Northern or border states?
If slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, how do you explain Texas Gov. Sam Houston's support for the Union and for the institution of slavery? In light of the fact that 90 percent of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, is it logical to assume they would have put their own lives at risk so that slave-owning aristocrats could continue their privileged status?
There are few simple and concise answers to these questions.
One answer, however, is that most Southerners' allegiance was to their sovereign states first and the Union second. They believed that states freely joined the Union without coercion and were free to leave.
You could say they really believed in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the "powers not delegated" clause. They believed that the federal government should be responsible for the common defense, a postal service and little else. They viewed the Union Army as an invader, not an emancipator.
I am not attempting to trivialize slavery. It is a dark chapter in our history, North and South alike.
However, I am a proud Southerner and a proud descendent of Confederate soldiers. I honor their service because, to me, it represents the sacrifice of life and livelihood that Southerners made for a cause more important to them than their personal security and self-interest.
I'm aware of the genocidal war conducted by my country against the American Indian, but I'm still a proud American. And I'm also aware of the atrocities that occurred at My Lai, but I am proud of my service as a Marine in Vietnam.
If the Confederate flag represented slavery, the U.S. flag must represent slavery even more so.
Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.
If the few hundred members of racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan want to adopt the Confederate flag as their symbol, over the objections of millions of Southerners, should we believe it has been corrupted for all time?
Given that the KKK has adopted the cross for its burnings, should churches across the country remove this symbol of Christian faith from all places of worship?
Should we diminish the service of the Buffalo Soldiers (black U.S. cavalry troopers of the late 1800s) because they were an integral part of a war that subjugated and enslaved the Plains Indians?
No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.
Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie. We should memorialize and commemorate all of our soldiers who served honorably -- those who wore blue or gray or served as Buffalo Soldiers -- whether or not we in today's enlightened world completely support their actions.
Good article. I wish the Republic of Texas would consider secession again. With our government becoming more and more intrusive into our lives and the oncoming default of Social Security, the time may be soon.
Quantrill may have had an ecomonic motive. Lawrence had banks...and whiskey. I don't think John Brown killed with economic systems in mind. Sure economics was there, and religion. These things ovelaid the fundamental problem, the issue of slavery. Slavery in the US stood in stark opposition to the expressed priciples of the founding documents.
I don't know about this guy's little logic lessons.
"Solely about slavery" is a straw man. If the war was about slavery -- largely about slavery -- that's enough to make people ill at ease about the Confederacy.
"Racism" is a 20th century concept. Most -- virtually all -- 19th century Americans, when they thought in racial terms, would qualify as racists today.
"Racism" wasn't a major issue dividing North and South. But slavery was. Of course it wasn't the case that everyone on the Union side was anti-slavery and every Confederate pro-slavery. But slavery was at the root of the North-South divide.
So what do we have: "The War Between the States had much to do with slavery, and the Confederacy had a lot to do with slavery as well."
That's logical, so far as I can see. It's historically accurate. Jerry Patterson doesn't say anything that refutes it. It accounts for what people feel about the Confederacy and its symbols.
It's not that the North or the Unionists were "pure" and the South or Confederacy somehow shamed or sullied by slavery, it's that the US was moving beyond slavery and the CSA was rallying around a "Southern Way of Life" based to a large degree on slavery. Some people find it hard to get beyond that, and denying it doesn't help.
If the Confederate flag represented slavery, the U.S. flag must represent slavery even more so.
Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.
But the US flag has represented what we might call "post-slavery" or "anti-slavery" or "non-slavery" for 140 years and "post-segregation" or "anti-segregation" or "integration" for 40 years. Confederate symbols haven't.
Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie.
I don't know if he's right about that, either. Every generation "cleanses" its history to some extent by making it conform to its own ideals. It looks like that's what Jerry's trying to do.
I really, really have to wonder about that. Lee had gone to West Point. He'd run West Point. He'd fought in the US Army in Mexico. He spent much of his adult life in our country's army.
Do you really think the young Lee thought of Virginia as his country, when he took his oath to become an officer in the US Army? When he was building the West with the Army Corps of Engineers or leading men into battle in Mexico do you really think he didn't consider himself an American?
I certainly don't think Lee should have fought against his neighbors, but it's way too convenient to be able suddenly to say that one's state is one's country and one's country is nothing.
DiLorenzo is no historian. He doesn't bother to study just how people thought in the past. He simply imposes his own conclusions on what happened. He collects every scrap of possible evidence -- proven or dubious -- and ignores whatever contradicts his point of view. He's also a monstrously bad writer.
Go here for a list of criticisms of DiLorenzo. If you're still taken in by that charlatan, I pity you.
There would have been no casualties. Unless, of course, one considers and enslaved human being to be a casualty. Nevertheless, I agree with your larger point. In 2007, most people who defend the "Old South" the are not defending slavery. It is unnecessary to attack them.
Well,we sure are getting along a lot better now than we did in Lincoln's time or even forty years ago for that matter.
I remember when I was a teenager,it was a rare sight to see friends of different races together.Now its such a common sight you don't even look or think twice.
Sure,there are jackasses like Reverend Jesse out there and you you still have the Stormfront dinosaurs beating their gums but all in all America is a much healthier place to live for all ethnic groups.
I think Patterson's main point is that the Confederacy was led by some good and noble men who felt they were doing the right thing. The simple 10 second explanation for the Civil War being about slavery is far too simple, as are all other 10 second explanations.
The war was fought and it is over. It does no good to demonize the Confederacy today. Heroic men fought on both sides and it was a tragic period in American history. I think it's okay to honor the dead on both sides. Southerners felt, rightly, that they were getting the short end of the stick with this new union.
I'm glad the South lost because the result was the end of slavery in this country, and slavery is unthinkable as a concept here today. It hastened the end of something which was barbaric but commonplace at the time.
But there is no good reason to deprive Southern families of having respect, not shame, for their ancestors who fought in the Civil War. They felt their cause was just, and they were willing to lay their lives down for it. And it's shameful that some people can't recognize that, or if they do, wilfully ignore it.
The Confederacy is not akin to the evil regime of Nazi Germany. It never had a new philosophy or dogma other than "we don't want to be dominated by you and forced to change our ways."
Right or wrong, we fought the deadliest war in American history over that. And the question ultimately was answered. The Confederacy was defeated which was probably inevitable given the manufacturing capacity of the North.
There's nothing honorable about telling southerners that they can't be proud of the sacrifices of their ancestors.
Say what?
Why not continue? Lincoln went on to say, "Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections."
Maybe it was all about delivering the mail?
The South opened the war by bombardment of Ft. Sumter. What is the importance of this federal facility? "Because it was a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs."
That flies in the face on known historical fact, and is makes no sense whatosever if you would only take a moment to think about it. Sumter wasn't staffed by anyone except work men and an officer supervising them prior to Anderson moving there in December 1860. So how would it be 'a major tariff collection facility'? Also, why would the tariff collection point be located miles away from the wharfs where the imports were landed? And what did they do in that Customs House located on East Bay Street?
Slaves that were not in the areas so designated were not covered by it.
Because Constitutionally Lincoln could not do that. And from a strict legal standpoint, Lincoln did not end slavery. He freed the slaves but it took passage of the 13th Amendment to end slavery in those states that had not already done so.
Of course, the winner gets to write the history of the war. And in this case the winner also runs all the schools and they are staffed by people who liked the winner's story. That does not alter the facts, or the real history of this war.
And judging from threads like this it's equally clear that the loser writes the myths.
Perhaps because the states didn't voluntarily form anything? With the exception of the first 13 states the states were admitted. They were allowed in, and only after obtaining the permission of the majority of the existing states as expressed through a vote of their members in Congress. Since they needed the approval of the existing parties to join why is it so hard to believe that the same would be needed to leave?
Had the south been able to ratify their confederate constitution we might have a more conservative government today and certainly a less centralized government.
Doubtful. Davis ignored his constitution at will. His constitution required a supreme court, yet one was never established. It explicitly outlawed protectionist tarifss yet one was implemented in May 1860. He taxed, drafted, nationalized, and seized private property at will. Hardly the conservative government you yearn for.
Anyone who relies of DiLorenzo alone to form his beliefs on the War of Southern Rebellion is depending on a single, increadibly biased source for their information. I suggest you expand your reading horizons a bit.
I believe you are incorrect in this. The Virginia constitution at the time, like all Southern state Constitutions I'm aware of, did not allow the legislature to pass any laws imparing ownership in slaves.
A compensated or gradual manumission would have been possible.
It would have required the one thing that wasn't available at the time. It would have required the Southern slaveowners to actually be interested in emacipation, compensated or otherwise. I'm not aware of any evidence that such desires were there.
And it's also interesting to note that none of the Democrat party platforms mention tairffs at all. If tariffs were such a bone of contention why didn't the Douglas or Breckenridge run against them?
Not everyone was as blood thirsty as John Brown. Some people fought to end slavery, but the war was about economics and tax revenues. If a state tried to leave the U.S. now, the same fate would befall them.
btt
Ever heard of the underground railroad, ever heard of the wealthy Southerners who bought slaves just to free them? Some slave owners let their slaves buy their own freedom(economics). Do you know of any well-known newspapers today that would condone anyone cheating on their income taxes or issuing a violent revolt against the current Eminent Domain laws? Money is always a more powerful issue than any human rights issue. Most wars are more about money issues than anything else.
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.