Why the sympathy for the South?

2/18/2003 | truthsearcher

[Truthsearcher]

Why the sympathy for the South?

[ml/nj]

Prepare for this thread to be invaded by folks who attend Civil War Battle Simulations Weekends in finely pressed gray cotton uniforms.

Really you should prepare for a bunch of ad hominem arguments by some folks who fail to back up their assertions with references that you can check for yourself.

ML/NJ (Honest Yankee)

[The Iguana]

We are all agreed: The Civil War/War between the States/War of Northern Aggression (pick your poison) was not only about slavery.

However: it's quite clear that without slavery, the war would not have happened.

The other issues - states' rights, tariffs, homesteading, territorial organization - would have created friction for the young republic, but without the prism of the slavery issue, they would have been addressed without resort to war.

All conservatives and libertarians - let's be fair here - are concerned with the power of Leviathan. I think for many here the Civil War has become a handy anchor for tracing the growth of Leviathan and the deviation from the Founders' Great Design.

I understand the impulse. I just think it's misplaced.

I quickly and readily concede that Lincoln played fast and loose with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and oversaw a great expansion in the power of the central government. Yet two other realities stand out: 1) the same phenomena were just as apparent (if not more so) in Jefferson Davis's government (thus illustrating the truth that nothing aggrandizes government power in the modern era like full-scale war), and 2) the growth in federal power was sapped in the postwar era by business tycoons and anti-reconstruction southern Democrats.

It would not be until the early 20th century - beginning with the 16th amendment in 1913 and then the explosion of state scope and power necessitated by two world wars and FDR's New Deal - that Leviathan returned. Only this time it was for good.

[Truthsearcher]

Jefferson's America, is that the one that believes in the liberty of all people, or one that was okay with the enslavement of some by others?

If it's the former, than it didn't exist before Lincoln either, and Lincoln probably brought America closer to Jefferson's vision.

If it's the latter, then I do not mourn its death.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Where in the Constitution is the government given the power to clean up something or take land for preserves and parks?

Good question. It should also be noted that the BLM's use of the term "public lands" is a total joke. It's like Saddam Hussein saying that his opulent palaces "belong to and are for the people."

On the tail of this, I'll also ask: Where in the Constitution does it bestow the right of government agencies like the EPA and IRS to write and enforce their own laws?

[Bars4Bill]

It has more to do with the South's military prowess rather than the "cause."

[gitmo]

The Civil War was not about slavery, but about secession. Point in case: the nation of Mayland. Mayland seceeded from the Union and from the Confederacy at the same time. Mayland did not allow slavery. The North overan Mayland, plundered the tiny territory, and enslaved the men of the land forcing them to fight on the side of the Union.

[thinktwice]

Amongst the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20-8, are the words:

Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day ... No work may be done then either by you, or your son or daughter, or by your male or female slave, or your beast, or by the alien who lives with you ...

Add that to the 10th amendment, and ... you have the South's case.

[Senator Pardek]

I'm not taking sides in this ludicrous ongoing fight, but I stand by my statement.

[Truthsearcher]

I think I essentially agree with you. That our impluse against strong federal government is clouding our judgement on this issue.

[thinktwice]

We were the first to stop the policy.

Slavery was abolished in the British empire in the 1835-1845 timeframe.

[Cold Heat]

If it's the latter, then I do not mourn its death.

You cannot revise history. It is what it is, and slavery was a accepted practice. It was practiced in the North as well.(just more need in the south, not more acceptance of the policy)

Northern slaves did domestic work, black slaves as well as white indentured servants.

It is what it is.

[Truthsearcher]

Are you being facetious, or are you saying that the reason you support the South is because you actually embrace the institution of slavery.

[thinktwice]

Jubal Early -- Almost took Washington after leading a lightning cavalry expedition up the Shenandoah Valley.

[crz]

Th most ignorant and useless war ever fought. Fought by dirt poor boys for the wealthy southern plantation owners and the wealty northern manufacturing plant owners. And I go out of my way to say that to anyone who would glorify the thing. What a waste the whole thing was. As for the black slavery thing? Right, then again there were over 1500 Scotsmen shipped to the plantations after the English beat them in 1745. And thats was slavery not servants, not to mention the some 21,000 white slaves that were held to be sold in Barbados in the early 1700's.

The whole thing makes me sick to think about. Just go to any of the battlefields such as Gettysburg and imagine all those boys being butchered.
As for the southern state flying the Stars and Bars? I see nothing wrong with that at all. Many good southern brothers fought and died in that useless war and they should have the right to honor those dead.

[Conservababe]

The War of Northern Agression was of states rights. Period. I don't care if it was of slavery, tariffs or a dogfight.

LOL

My grandmother explained it to me, as her mother did to her and her grandmother did to her mother.

Yankees, and those that try to explain the War will never understand those stories and beliefs that have been handed down from generation to generation.

And the love for the bravery of the Confederacy will never be diminished as long as people care and listen.

[truth_seeker]

"We were the first to stop the policy."

Wrong. Britain outlawed slavery in the 1830s. I recall 1837 (but may be off a bit).

[Alberta's Child]

It would not be until the early 20th century - beginning with the 16th amendment in 1913 and then the explosion of state scope and power necessitated by two world wars and FDR's New Deal - that Leviathan returned.

One of the relatively unheralded things that grew out of the Civil War was the massive involvement of the U.S. government in the building of the transcontinental railroad. In that case, "Leviathan" arrived and never left.

In fact, without the Civil War it would have been impossible for the U.S. government to muster the support needed to build the railroad. And I suspect that one of the South's gripes leading to secession was that the early discussions in the 1850s about extending a railroad to the west coast made it eminently clear that the route would extend west from the Union and would be north of the Mason-Dixon line for almost its entire length.

[ml/nj]

Lincoln probably brought America closer to Jefferson's vision.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which Jefferson and Madison probably wrote, and certainly agreed with. Then come up with a single Lincoln action post 1860 that is consistent with these resolutions, or refrain from making similar assertions in the future.

ML/NJ

[thinktwice]

Hey, all I've done is let you know that the Ten Copmmandments says you can't work on Sunday and neither can your slaves.

Don't fight me, go read your Bible.

[Cold Heat]

The British abolition was in 1834, actually. They then changed the name from slavery to indentured servitude, which was more British.

They went on to indenture thousands of Indians, called coolies.

It was the U.S. that put a end to all of it.