Why the sympathy for the South?

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.

In general, regions can count on the populace to fight wars for just about any justification imaginable. Such is the nature of mankind. Southerners claim the war was just because the peasants supported it by fighting. Well, then the northern peasants also proved the northern side was justified by the same argument. In fact the ability to form an army has no bearing on the justness of the cause.

Even today, the northern states accept the slavery of illegal immigrants, because it is convenient, and financially advantagious for them to do so.

Good point and it would be interesting to know how many Americans who so piously denounce the old slavery in America make money off of forced labor camps in China. Out of sight out of mind as they say - and look at those profits!

(and not that I think all labor in China is forced but there are plenty of government run prison factories and not all of those prisoners are murders and thieves)

It seems to me you are trying to judge the South by standards in use today.

Slavery was abolished within five years of the south seceding. Clearly slavery was already adjudged to be evil outside the south. With the southern votes to maintain slavery gone, slavery was outlawed. The abolition of slavery was by Constitutional amendment. It required super majorities in the senate, the house, and ratification by the states. The whole process took little over a year. Amazing speed, really. Lincoln was instrumental in getting the House to agree with the required 2/3rds majority. He didn't live to see the states ratify it, however, as the south, The Confederacy of Peace (tm) decided they liked assasination as a means of electioneering.

In spite of revisionist history, Davis was an honorable man

How cheap honor, when it is bestowed upon the defenders of slavery.

We in the South blame Mr Lincoln to a great extent. Yes, he freed the slaves--in the South only.

Bull. He needed the 13th amendment in the free states and he push for it. His freeing the slaves in the slave states was certainly justified on the basis of their renunciation of all Constitutional protections upon seceding from the union.

The actual effect of the emancipation proclamation was that there were no slaves anywhere in the US by 1865 -- even before the 13th amendment was ratified. So the actual end of US slavery flowed directly from Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. The 13th amendment only made it official.

The South doesn't need any sympathy, as it turns out they have won. What's that saying, "the best revenge is living well." If that's true then the South has gotten their revenge and then some.

"In general, regions can count on the populace to fight wars for just about any justification imaginable....."

This statement is true but vacuous. The question at hand is: Why Did the South Fight? Your answer is equivalent to saying: "the South fought because they fought". I think we have already established that fact.

The most militarily inefficient fighting units throughout history have been those units where the soldiers were under some form of external coercion. This type of coercion can range from the outright slavery as in the Helot armies of the Ancient world or the various forms of conscription invented by various states in more recent times. In war, armies coerced to fight have almost always compare unfavorably to volunteer armies whose motivation for fighting was to defend personal property and other liberties.

The numerically inferior Greeks defeated the numerically superior slave armies of Persia. The Venetian coalition defeated the larger Turkish fleet at Lepanto largely because the Venitian commanders were free to improvise whereas the servile Turkish commanders were not. The historical record is unmistakable in showing the free men will outfight their less free counterparts time after time.

The neo-marxist interpretation of South's war motivation is, essentially, that evil slavemasters tricked their not too bright fellow Confederates into fighting in oder to "save the plantation". This interpretation is refuted by overwhelming historical evidence.

The South fought to "save their way of life" against what they considered to be an imperialist Northern government. The essential nobility of their war aim helps to account for why the numerically and industrially inferior South was very nearly able to win the Civil War. The South fought with an elan and espirit de corps only seen among free men defending their own personal liberties.

The South doesn't need any sympathy, as it turns out they have won.

Heh heh, sure, the south is a sovereign confederacy and slavery is legal again. Sure they won. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

The South fought with an elan and espirit de corps only seen among free men defending their own personal liberties.

... their "personal liberties" to be slave owners.

Both the south and the north were quite able to muster warriors. Proving nothing of moral significance. All wars have both sides able to muster armies. Proving nothing of moral significance.

"How cheap honor when it is bestowed upon the defenders of slavery"

How cheap a shot when it ignores the premise, which was that Jefferson Davis was a passionate States Rights advocate, a respected moderate Senator, a former Secretary of War, and an experienced soldier. He was honorable. This is what I mean by judging people of that era by today's standards.

"Clearly slavery was already adjudged evil outside the South."

Clearly! And by some in the South. Do you work at being snide, or does it just come naturally? Clearly, you think the thousands killed, the 138 years of villification and degradation of the South, the bitterness on both sides,the expansion of govt., was justified to get rid of slavery in five years.I don't. What came in its place has lasted 138 years, and is ongoing. Should the descendants of those who fought for the Confederacy line up to be shot, since their ancestors are dead;should they acquiesce in their detractors' reading of Southern history? What would it take for South haters to be satisfied?

As I said, and you ignored, the worldwide acceptance of slavery in civilized countries was coming to an end. You also ignored every historical context of slavery-the law, the economics, the beginning of the end for the myths justifying slavery. You ignored comments about slavery today and its being JUST as evil. South haters just want to look back.

But you really show your contempt for the South when you intimate the entire region assassinated Lincoln.

Vaudine

"History is written by the victors...."

In the short term that is true but after 100 years or so it becomes easier to get closer to the truth after the sectarian passions have abated. We don't now evaluate Napoleon based exclusively upon Wellington's memoirs nor should we. Any historian should avail themselves of materials from "the other side of the hill" as they become available.

"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 North's superior industrial base and raw numbers eventually did the South in but as to the legal and moral case it depends, as they say, on whose ox is being gored.

The North's legal case is astonishingly thin being based on the then novel legal theory of a pre-existing Union creating sovereign states. It is important to remember that in 1860 Slavery was not illegal and state right of secssion was the more well established legal principle. I think it is very informative that Nothern authorities refused to allow Jefferson Davis to defend himself based upon the theory of the sovereign State's right to secede after the war. If Davis had been given his day in court before a reasonably impartial magistrate I think he might have won.

The moral case is more complicated. Is Lincoln's repeated infringement of Constutional liberties (suspension of habeus corpus, summary imprisonment of political critics, supression of critical press outlets, the ordering of attacks against unarmed civilian populations) justified by by the eradication of the evil of Slavery? I would say not simply because the peaceful alternatives such as compensated emmancipation had not even been attempted before the onset of the War.

The progessivist, neo-marxist fog is starting to disapate around Lincoln's wartime conduct and it is not a pretty picture.

The progessivist, neo-marxist fog

Would you get off the laughable rant. Slavery is evil to moral men everywhere, not just to "neo-marxists."

The North's legal case is astonishingly thin being based on the then novel legal theory of a pre-existing Union creating sovereign states.

If the states actually seceded they had no legal rights, as they abandoned the basis of legality, the Union Constituion. The secessionists can claim no legal basis to complain about anything the north did.

If the states didn't legally secede, then the Union had a right to supress the unconstitutional governments.

Either way you look at it, the secessionists lose the argument.

Would you get off the laughable rant. Slavery is evil to moral men everywhere, not just to "neo-marxists."

If you consistently end up arguing your way into the same camp as Eric Foner and the other neo-marxists it is not my fault!

"If the states actually seceded they had no legal rights, as they abandoned the basis of legality, the Union Constituion..."

If a sovereign seceded, as the Confederate States did, then the Union had absolutely no legal basis to invade them. Lincoln did not even pretend to make such an argument.

Lincoln's entire legal position was based upon the idea that a sovereign state could not secede under any circumstances and that, in essence, the Union was conducting a police action in a subordinate political unit.

This legal doctrine represented a complete break with all previous leagl scholarship on this subject and is completely incompatible with a Federal government of "limited and enumerated powers". The Federal government envisoned under Licoln's theory has unlimited power over purportedly sovereign states.

The North's legal case is astonishingly thin being based on the then novel legal theory of a pre-existing Union creating sovereign states.

The Union case was very strong in light of the way the south chose to secede. A state may have the right to secede but not unilaterally. It should have been done with the approval of all affected parties and I believe that a strong case could be made that the Constitution would support that.

It is important to remember that in 1860 Slavery was not illegal and state right of secssion was the more well established legal principle.

Secession was never an established legal principle since it had never been tried before and had never been taken before the courts. The closest was probably during the nullification crisis and the president of the time, Andrew Jackson, made it clear how he felt on the subject.

I think it is very informative that Nothern authorities refused to allow Jefferson Davis to defend himself based upon the theory of the sovereign State's right to secede after the war. If Davis had been given his day in court before a reasonably impartial magistrate I think he might have won.

Davis never had his day in court because Chief Justice Chase made it clear that because of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, he believed that a trial and conviction would be a violation of Davis' Constitutional protections under the 5th Amendment. The government would have gone ahead with the trial given the opportunity and they would have won. The impartial jury you say would have convicted Davis would have been impossible to find so the government would no doubt have found one that would have supported their views.

Is Lincoln's repeated infringement of Constutional liberties (suspension of habeus corpus, summary imprisonment of political critics, supression of critical press outlets, the ordering of attacks against unarmed civilian populations) justified by by the eradication of the evil of Slavery?

You could just as easily ask if the Davis' repeated infringement of constitutional liberties in all the areas you mentioned, and more, were justified by his desire to form his own country? I think that it is telling that upon assuming office the president was not required to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the constitutiton. And throughout his term Davis seems to have treated the constitution as something to be followed if convenient. What future was there for a country founded in tyranny with a contempt for the law?

...the peaceful alternatives such as compensated emmancipation had not even been attempted before the onset of the War.

The south never gave President Lincoln a chance to propose any such alternatives. They began their rebellion literally the day after the election. But there is also a more basic question of whether compensated emancipation would have worked. It would have required the cooperation of the slave owners themselves and there is simply no evidence at all that they had any interest in ending the institution. Without there buy in the whole idea of compensated emancipation was dead on arrival.

The progessivist, neo-marxist fog is starting to disapate around Lincoln's wartime conduct and it is not a pretty picture.

And yet the neo-marxist fog around the confederate leadership remains. Go figure.

Too bad you weren't around then to advise him.

If you mean Jeff Davis then I wouldn't have made a difference. His own secretary of state warned him what would happen if he fired on Sumter and Davis ignored him. He no doubt would have ignored me too.

OK Yank:

Keep on believing your Northern Propoganda....
Next you will tell me Lincoln gave a d*mn about the slaves...hehe!

Deo Vindice!
Texas Forever!

Mayland was a nation formed from the Appalachian regions of NC and TN. Mayland seceeded from the Confederacy shortly after the Confederacy formed.

The territory was mainly a mining community, and had no slavery within its territories. The capitol was Kim's Thicket, NC.

Sorry, I thought you meant Maryland. I need new glasses, I guess.

"The Union case was very strong in light of the way the south chose to secede..."

The State right of secession is an extra-constitutional question. The issue is not addressed directly in the Constitution. Nevertheless there remains a substantial body of writings and historic state government acts that argue for the legitimacy of the State right of secession.

The United States of America was founded on a secessionist act. The philosophical underpinnings of this act was the Natural Law doctrine which condemmed the tyrannical acts of the British government. The Natural Law doctrine avers that rights, including governmental rights are derived from principles based on the moral sanction of Divine authority not the authority of a particular govenmental instutition.

The principles of justified secession are described in the Declaration of Independence. The first principle is that the causes impelling separation must not be trivial:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and
transient Causes;"

A second principle annunciates the moral oblibgation of those suffering despotic rule to throw off such rule:

"evinces a Design to reduce them under Absolute
Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government,"

A third principle obligates those considering separation to first seek redress within the mechanisms of the existing Government:

"In every stage of these Opressions we have petitioned
for Redress in the most Humble terms;" .

The Founding Fathers clearly felt that separation-secession was a Natural Right derived from God which should be exersizd if the conditions described above had been met.

There were a series of safeguards built into the Constitution (Separation of Powers, 2nd ammendment) as a check against executive tyranny. It is clear that the Founding Fathers considered separation-secession as another intregal check against tyranny.

There were a series of events and state government actions that attest to fact that secession was thought to be a natural right accruing to States. In 1848 Abraham Lincoln stated the following:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having
the power, have the right to shake off the existing
government, and form a new one that suits them
better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred
right--a right which we we hope and believe is to
liberate the world."

In view of Lincoln's later political career this statement may seem surprising; and yet he was merely articulating a commonly held foundational conviction of American politicians of that era.

After the 1814 secession crisis orchestrated by the New England Federalists Jefferson said the following:

"If any state in the Union will declare it prefers
separation to a continuance in Union, I have no
hesitation in saying 'Let us separate'" .

In the Fedealist Papers ( no. 81) Hamilton addressed the issue of whether it was permissible for the Federal Government to compell by force a State government to pay its debts:

" It is inherent in the nature of Sovereignty to
be amenable to the suit of any individual without
its consent.....the attributes of sovereignty is
now enjoyed by the government of every State in
the Union...To authorize suits against States for
the debts they owe could not be done without waging
war against the contracting State...a power which
would involve such a consequence,would be
altogether forced and unwarranted."

Clearly Hamilton, the Federalist par excellence, considered the use of force by the Federal government against a State to be beyond the pale. According to Madison, in Federalist Papers (no. 39) the ratification of the Constitution was ratified "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and indpendent States to which they respectively belonged." To Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson the Federal Government was a creation of the sovereign states , the Federal government did not create the states as Lincoln would later assert.

Not only was the right of secession asserted a number of times prior to the onset of the Civil War there was also an important secession movement in the North prior to the start of the conflict. These Northern secession movement existed in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The politicians leading these movements favored a peaceful separation from the South. These politicians were challenged on pragmatic grounds but not on Constitutional grounds. Senator Pearce of Maryland gave voice to these sentiments:

"I have no idea that the Union can be maintained
or restored by force. Nor do I believe in the
value of a Union which can only be kept together
by dint of military force."

Politicians in several middle states advocated joining the Conferderate states in a peaceful separation.

As Whig and later Republican politicians began to realize that they would not be able to implement the American mercantile system under the existing US constitution they invented a leagl doctrine that sought to undermine the concept of the sovereign State. This doctrine posited the existence of a "metaphysical Union" that created the sovereign states.

This doctrine, which began to circulate in Whig circles after Andrew Jackson refused to recharter the National Bank (a key objective for advocates of the American Mercantile System), was a brazen and audacious legal fiction. It was specically designed to allow a more powerful Federal to implement, by force if ncessary, the American Mercantile System.

The contrast between Licoln's avowal of the right of secession in 1848 and his adoption of Webster's concept of the "metaphysical Union" could not be more stark. What had changed in the intervening years was not a moral aversion to slavery but the rather a lust for power. Philosophically Lincoln had moved closer to a political philosophy of national greatness akin to the power politics of Europe and away from the philosophical ideas that informed Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison.

The State right of secession is an extra-constitutional question. The issue is not addressed directly in the Constitution. Nevertheless there remains a substantial body of writings and historic state government acts that argue for the legitimacy of the State right of secession.

There is also a substantial body which disagree, including the Supreme Court.

The United States of America was founded on a secessionist act.

The United States was founded through rebellion. The founding fathers did not pretend that their actions were sanctioned by law, nor did they complain when the British chose to oppose their actions.

"If any state in the Union will declare it prefers separation to a continuance in Union, I have no hesitation in saying 'Let us separate'" .

How about the quote in context? Or would that be too much to ask? What Jefferson said was:

""The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many;or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."

So if you are willing to admit that the confederacy was founded on the principles of licentious commerce and gambling speculations and eternal war then I have no problem with you using that quote. How about it?

These Northern secession movement existed in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland.

Nonsense.