Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Actually, the Progressive Era more or less coincided in time with the Great Reconciliation between South and North, by which the War became sort of a Great Misunderstanding, not a world-historical conflict between two definitions of what America meant.
Progressivism of the time was entirely compatible with racism, as can be seen by Wilson, the great Progressive who was probably the most racist post-War President of them all. His racial attitudes lined up with the Confederacy, but he explicitly and openly rejected the limitations on federal power built into the Constitution.
Most people project modern political groupings and categories back into the past, and unthinkingly line modern groups up as being “the same.”
I used to do the same myself, till I was cured by a research paper on the English Civil War. You just cannot line the sides in that war up with anything resembling modern political groups. The basic concepts and alliances are just too different.
The concept of states rights has been tainted, but you and I disagree on why. Mores’ the pity because states rights are the answer to an out of control Fedzilla.
As opposed to the "untrammeled expansion of slavery which is what the South demanded and the North rejected?
No one in the Federal government or in Northern states demanded a damn thing from the South. But the South continued to demand the 'untrammeled' expansion of slavery to wherever the hell they pleased, including Northern states where it had long ago been eliminated. They did not care about the rights of the other states. They did not care about long established Federal prerogatives. Expansion was their priority.
Push met shove.
But please stop pretending that secession was not about slavery. It was --- 100% about slavery.
The South had their justifications which I acknowledge on both economic and social grounds, but both of those were entirely due to their total reliance on slavery. It was entirely rational to them at that time.
The United States wasn’t formed by secession from the British empire - It was formed after rebelling against the crown.
Absolutely correct Sherman.
The 'Progressives' -- in fact where pretty deep racists until they were co-opted by the hard left during the 1920s and especially during the Depression.
In the 1940s and early 50s the hard left infiltrated the Civil Rights movement hoping that the 11% or so of black Americans would become the foot soldiers of their hoped for the socialist revolution. (Yes, they really believed they could start a revolution)
They didn't give a rat's ass about civil rights for blacks, or anyone else. It was just an issue they could use to their advantage.
Read David Horiwitzes book "Radical Son" to understand what was going on in those days.
“untrammeled expansion of slavery which is what the South demanded and the North rejected?”
I’d love to see evidence that the South wanted to expand slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line. This is false.
“But please stop pretending that secession was not about slavery. It was -— 100% about slavery.”
Which is why the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in the north? No. It was about secession.
“Look at it this way. Suppose blond Americans launched a revolt and enslaved the rest of us, then announced that their revolt and enslavement was legitimate according to the principle of the Declaration of Independence because a majority of blonds voted for it. Would you buy that?”
I live in a nation that just finished executing a third of my peers. That same nation is telling me that I have to fund it.
Lincoln issued in his inaugural address that there would be no negotiations. Bad faith, yes, but not on the part of the Confederacy.
The ONLY reason why the Northern racists wanted to stop the expansion of slavery in the western territories was “to keep it lily white for all time”.
No they didn't.
What dictionary is that from? Or did you make it up for the occasion?
Do you honestly believe all the stuff you post?
The only reason why Southern racists wanted expand slavery in the western territories was to ensure the institution for all time.
He also said that the only way there would be a war was if the South started it. Would you agree he was right there as well?
Bad faith, yes, but not on the part of the Confederacy.
Not really. There was no interest in negotiations on the part of the Southerners either.
According to whom? You.
Lincoln wasn’t willing to negotiate. The Confederates were.
Yes, they did. I already cited where Virginia opted to meet with Lincoln prior to signing the articles of secession. Lincoln refused. Then Lincoln doubled down, and Virginia joined the rest of the Confederacy.
Well which paragraph are you referring to? If you mean that Lincoln said there would be a war only if the South started it then it's right there in his first inaugural, which you claim to have read. If you're referring to my statement that there was no interest in negotiations on the part of the South then that is right there in plain words as well, in Davis's letter to Lincoln introducing his minions. They were there to deliver an ultimatum; recognition of Confederate independence or nothing. And had Lincoln surrendered to their demands then they might be willing to talk, but only if it was a subject of interest to them. I doubt paying for anything would have fallen under that, because an admission that they were willing to pay would also be an admission that they were wrong to take property and repudiate debt in the first place. Wouldn't it?
What you're neglecting to mention is that Davis refused to participate in Virginia's peace convention as well, while Salmon Chase did attend. So stop hanging it all on Lincoln; by your own definition Davis wasn't interested either.
When did it do that? You must have us confused with Kampuchea.
The South offered to negotiate the terms under which they would leave the Union, the division of property if you will, with the implicit understanding that if the terms weren’t acceptable they would “appeal to arms,” as they frequently put it. IOW, it was a negotiation at gunpoint.
The South did NOT offer to negotiate WHETHER they would leave the Union. The Deep South considered the mere election of Lincoln to be so offensive they could not remain in the Union no matter what he said or did or agreed to. They were very clear on this point.
One of the issues that never seems to be discussed is that of division of the territories. The South had very specifically and intentionally fractured the Democratic Party over the issue of access to the territories, and now we are supposed to believe they would just accept the confining of slavery to the existing southern states, the whole issue over which they had fought for the last decade?
It seems much more likely to me that had the northern states agreed to allow the erring sisters to depart in peace, they would have started demanding a division of the territories, and quite possibly access to the Pacific via California.
IOW, I think a powerful group in the CSA had demands in mind that would have made war unavoidable short of utter and abject surrender by the Union. Of course, the same group had delusions (and that is exactly what they were) of the South conquering a slave empire at least to Panama and possibly Tierra del Fuego.
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.