Why the sympathy for the South?

2/18/2003 | truthsearcher

[Truthsearcher]

Why the sympathy for the South?

[jlogajan]

Slavery was NOT considered immoral by most people at the time

Clearly had the vast majority opposed slavery, the southern concentration of slave holders would have been out of luck. But either rights and morality are fixed and permenant, or they are will'o the whims. You can't have it both ways. If rights come and go with the wind, then you slave holders have no complaints if someone came along and gave you a good whipping.

at the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, these "minorities" were considered 3/5 of a person, and had little or no rights

Slaves were denied freedoms, of course. The compromise in the Constitution was opposed by the south. They wanted slaves counted as full persons so as to get more representation in the congress, but not to give the slaves a vote. Very cynical. In unfortunately agreeing to tolerate slavery, the free states pressed to count the non-voting slaves as less so as to avoid giving the slave states additional congressional power.

[#3Fan]

Slavery was NOT considered immoral by most people at the time,...

So it's always best to look to what the majority thinks when it comes to immorality and not a higher authority? If majority decides something is not immoral, then it's not immoral?

...and YES, at the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, these "minorities" were considered 3/5 of a person, and had little or no rights, hence the answer to your question is NO...

Thank goodness for Lincoln and the Radical Republicans then, they fixed that situation.

[jlogajan]

Because: Southern rights were guaranteed by the Constitution. Slaves had no rights, as they were considered "property".

That's the "legal" argument. Not a moral argument. When the southern states seceded, the lost all Constitutional protection as well. Yet southerners gripe about their "rights" being violated. Clearly, Lincoln had not further legal obligation to the seceded states. Yet southerners still bitterly condemn the "immorality."

Can't have it both ways. If legal defines moral, then abortion is moral and anti-abortionists are acting immoral trying to oppose it. Etc etc etc.

[jlogajan]

If you want to understand history you need to understand what motivated them then

We do understand it, from their own words. They were losing power to the increasing number of free states entering the union. By the election of Lincoln, the south had lost the ability to control the government and protect slavery. Slavery was embattled and the south was losing footing. With the election of Lincoln without a single slave holding southern state, they could see the end was near.

Secession was meant to preserve slavery. After 300 years of the south fighting to maintain slavery, it seceded when the tide began to turn. Within the blink of an historic eye, just five years from the south pulling out of the union, slavery was abolished. Clearly only the south managed to maintain the institution of slavery.

[tet68]

. The compromise in the Constitution was opposed by the south. They wanted slaves counted as full persons so as to get more representation in the congress, but not to give the slaves a vote. Very cynical. In unfortunately agreeing to tolerate slavery, the free states pressed to count the non-voting slaves as less so as to avoid giving the slave states additional congressional power.

Let me get this straight, the south wanted slaves counted as full persons, but denied them the right to vote.
The "free states" considered them less than human as a ploy to dilute the southern voting bloc, not much honor on either side I'd say.

[jlogajan]

The "free states" considered them less than human as a ploy to dilute the southern voting bloc, not much honor on either side I'd say.

The unfortunate compromise was agreeing to tolerate slavery at all. Reducing the power of the southern slave holding states to maintain and spread slavery by any means was to the good.

[go star go]

The Civil war didn't have anything to do with states rights no matter what people say. The Civil war was about the utter immorality and evilness of believing one human being can own another human being. Only idiots argue otherwise.

[TexConfederate1861]

The end of Slavery was the ONLY good thing he did. period!

[Bob J]

Tonight at 6pm on RadioFR! Interviews with Grover Norquist, John Hager and Michael Zak! Plus, Doug from Upland interviews Ted Hayes, homeless advocate and strong supporter of military action in Iraq!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[TexConfederate1861]

Yes, when the South seceded they became a independent nation, Therefore they had their own Constitution, BUT...then Lincoln is guilty of acts of war that were unjustified. Don't try to turn the secession argument on me Sir...it will bite you in the backside everytime.

[ggekko]

The real problem is that Lincoln's status as an icon has been built up by a partial falsification and distortion of the historical record by cadre of neo-Marxist historians who worshipped his egalitarian persona rather than his actual accomplishments. Liberal historians have achieved similar "deifications" of FDR and JFK.

The childish dichotomy of "North-good South-Bad" has prevented a clearer understanding of what motivated Southerners to fight with such fury for five years in the bloodiest war in our history. In general, human beings will not endure the privations and miseries of war to make sure their rich neighbors will be allowed to keep their slaves.

What these threads about the Civil War show is that a more nuanced, balanced and accurate perspective about Southern motives and intentions is beginning to emerge in spite of the best efforts of the Lincoln deifiers.

[#3Fan]

The end of Slavery was the ONLY good thing he did. period!

And preserved America, not letting it be divided for the immorality of slavery.

[FreedomCalls]

Within the blink of an historic eye, just five years from the south pulling out of the union, slavery was abolished.

Slavery was abolished in the United States. It continued elsewhere. Saudi Arabia outlawed slavery as recently as 1965.

Slavery was abolished in the blink of an eye, true, but at a tremendous cost. It could have been abolished at a lengthier time scale without the military intervention of the federal government and the subsequent distortion of certain constitutional protections that we lost because of it. On the other hand, some slaves gained their civil freedom and to some people that end justified the means of achieving it.

[tet68]

the power of the southern slave holding states to maintain and spread slavery by any means

I see, they were FORCING people to hold slaves.

[FreedomCalls]

The unfortunate compromise was agreeing to tolerate slavery at all.

Without that agreement there would have been no United States to begin with. We would have probably ended up with two or more countries from the get go. France would probably have retained Louisiana. We would have had a Balkanized North America looking more like South America with a bunch of small ineffective powerless nation states (Mexico would be the largest retaining California through Texas). I shudder at the impact of that fragmenting of North America on the history of the 20th Century.

[FreedomCalls]

When the southern states seceded, the lost all Constitutional protection as well.

Huh? In the Constitution the federal government can only do those things the Constitution gives it the power to do. Certain "rights" that are innate in us as humans are explicitly listed to spell out to the federal government that they cannot do certain thaings that interfere with the exercise of those rights. So how can the federal government gain that power to interfere with those rights because some states secede? The federal government cannot establish a religion in the United States but it can in the Bahamas? The United States federal government cannot pass a law to shut down a newspaper in the New York but it can in Manitoba?

[vaudine]

It seems to me you are trying to judge the South by standards in use today. It is difficult for today's citizen to understand the interest and involvement, the thought, discussion, etc. of those who governed in the 1800's. Voting was not universal; the union was only 80 plus years old; the states, including most of the Northern ones acceded to the right of secession.

Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator when the South seceded, made his last speech in the Senate on States Rights. He received a standing ovation (by the way, he had many friends from No.and West and was considered a moderate) Ironically, Davis had been Secrertary of War only 7 years before the Civil War and had upgraded the union army, getting them repeating rifles and better pay among other things.

About slavery--when discussed in the US, one hearing the discussiion would think it was invented by the South, for the South, and practiced only by the South. This is not a promotion of the rightness or wrongness of slavery, but just some facts I believe surrounded the practice and discussion of slavery at that time.

Slavery has existed as long as the history of man, and was an equal opportunity phenomenon. The Romans enslaved the Greeks (both white races;Biblical tribes enslaved one another; Arabs and stronger black tribes captured and sold weaker tribesmen in Africa, having regular slaveholding ports where they were sold as a commodity; women of all nations were captured and sold worldwide. Slavery HAS NEVER CEASED to exist,i.e.Muslim Sudan enslaving Christians today and children being stolen, bought and trafficked in most of the world right now. I am constantly ticked off when people here today just want to rehash the horrors of US slavery instead of doing something about what is going on today.

But I digress. Slaves were imported by Yankee slavers, sold both North and South, but slavery proliferated in the South because of the enormous amount of land to be cleared and tilled. A lot of myths grew about slavery, I believe in order to justify holding slaves. Some myths--Negroes were an inferior race: they needed to be cared for-housed, clothed, fed; they were childlike and happy, etc.and could not make it as freemen.

The reality outside these comforting myths was that plantation owners were caught in an economic bind. The land and the slaves were used as collateral in bad years to make loans to keep the plantations afloat. Case in point-Thomas Jefferson, much castigated today for not freeing his slaves when his writings show he thought they should be freed. His holdings were so mortgaged that his family and holdings would have been sunk, and the truth is that his slaves would have been claimed by the bank(s) and resold.

There were people in the South who abhorred slavery, and some who did free their slaves. The various states felt that they had the right to govern themselves, and since most of the legislators(if not all) from the South were
slaveholders, they did not subscribe to the Union telling them how to self-govern, and when to declare bankruptcy. (Not ALL the South seceded. Here in Alabama, we had the Free State of Winston--Winston County, AL, just above where I live). The union was seen as a collection of self-governing states, not a strong federal governing body. When the South seceded, War might still have been avoided, but both sides felt strongly and metaphorically beat their chests. When the union reenforcements came down to Ft. Sumpter, Jefferson Davis had envoys in Washington trying to avert military action.
In spite of revisionist history, Davis was an honorable man and did his best after being drafted to be President to prevent the war. We in the South blame Mr Lincoln to a great extent. Yes, he freed the slaves--in the South only. I believe the South would have come to that action in time if not coerced, because the course of civilized countries was headed that way. Even the economic considerations were on the wane as an accepted way of life came under pressure to change.

Question: Many liberals today seem to feel that we as Americans have too much, consume too much, and don't do enough for the rest of the world (Not so, but they think so)
Would you resist if our legislators voted to go global with our taxes, and told us to give up all except what we actually need in order to do right by the starving, sick, etc. worldwide? Maybe that is how the governing Southerners felt.

Vaudine

[PhilipFreneau]

The Civil War generated the first war criminal: the Yankee General Sherman

[jlogajan]

Don't try to turn the secession argument on me Sir...it will bite you in the backside everytime.

Heh heh, the south suffered a trifecta -- they lost the moral argument, they lost the legal argument, and they lost the military battle.

[jlogajan]

The real problem is that Lincoln's status as an icon has been built up by a partial falsification and distortion of the historical record by cadre of neo-Marxist historians who worshipped his egalitarian persona rather than his actual accomplishments.

History is written by the victors. There's not much more to it than that. Jefferson Davis was among the first to attempt to re-write history and sanitize the south's position. Naturally he attempted to suppress the slavery aspect and trumpet the state's rights basis. In the process he had to essentially deny reality of what had been written in all the ordinances of secession, and all the preceeding history of slave/free state maneuvering for power.

In the end, though, the south didn't have a legal case, didn't have a moral case, and didn't have the military might to sustain their confederation of slave owning states. The war ended rightly, with the defeat of slavery and the slave holders.