The Union And Confederacy Contradictions In Freedoms And Rights

The Sierra Times ^ | April 10,2003 | Dorothy Anne Seese

[canalabamian]

I never suggested that you were out to ovethrow anyone. But you did initiate hostilities by firing on Sumter and by declaring war afterwards. You should be prepared to accept the responsibility for your actions.

I wasn't involved in the firing on Sumter. I think your referring to the CSA...it doesn't exist anymore.

[canalabamian]

I believe Asan displayed his sympathies pretty well all by himself.

I'll go to work now, and let you continue to show your posterior. Please stop telling everyone that you were raised in Alabama, its embarrassing for the rest of us.

[XJarhead]

Did you miss the point about the war not being fought over slavery, but rather that slavery was a convenient cover to serve as justification for it? I suppose so.

I suggest you read the resolutions of secession from the southern states. And some of the speeches made in southern states in support of secession. Try this on for size:

Lincoln stands before the country the representative of the anti-slavery ideas and agitators of the times-- that his election or defeat must rest alone upon the people of the free States to carry out those ideas and to execute the purposes of the agitators, or to repudiate those ideas and arrest that agitation. The one idea of opposition to negro slavery brought the republican party into existence, and holds it together....

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/jfepperson/reagan.html

Or how about "A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union." The sentiment was hardly unique to Texas, but gives you a flavor of what those "misunderstood" secessionists were really thinking. How's this:

....In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

http://www.texassovereignty.org/texsec.html

It goes on and on like that for awhile. Seems like the southernors who were boting for secession had a much clearer idea of what they wanted than you do. Go ahead -- look up the other 10 confederate states, and read their debates. Then tell me that slavery was just a "cover" and not the real issue.

[XJarhead]

The North had the moral right to suppress forcibly the institution of slavery in the South, regardless of the right of secession. You keep other men as slaves, you lose your claims to sovereignity.

[an amused spectator]

The figures I've seen run between 620,000 and 650,000 dead on both sides from all causes.

"Over two hundred and fifty thousand Americans died on U.S. soil in the war between the North and the South..."

1. 600,000 dead IS "Over two hundred and fifty thousand", mathematically speaking - and I'm a mathematician.
2. The battle deaths for both sides were 200,000+, and I'd be inclined to count later deaths from battle-inflicted wounds, from an historian's viewpoint.

"No federal income tax could have been perpetrated on a confederacy"

You'll have to prove that Memminger's income tax was a "federal income tax", considering that the Confederacy was not the federal government. Please detail your proof with copious notes.

Hey, but one out of three ain't bad. ;-)

[SCDogPapa]

"It seems you can not accept the fact that people can partake in southern pride and still support the USA. "

You know Hacksaw,,,there are a lot of them, that can't even imagine that, out there.

[Illbay]

I doubt it's any more embarrassing than to constantly hear from neo-"Confederates" that we are living in an evil, tyrannical nation.

[SCDogPapa]

"I will question ANYONE'S patriotism, no matter who he is, when he makes statements like "the Confederacy was right, and the 'War of Northern Aggression' was the beginning of tyranny," blahblahblah"

Sorry you feel that way, but it's the truth!!

[Illbay]

Then get out.

[SCDogPapa]

Why don't you get out??

[dpa5923]

self-ping

[AnalogReigns]

The problem of this endless debate, and the Southern (and Northern, actually) revisionists is a failure to distinguish between the various State governments' reasons for secession and war, vs. individual officers and soldiers reasons--which of course were often different.

I think its unarguable, from what I've seen of official state secession documents, and the political debates at the time--POLITICALLY it WAS all about slavery. At the same time, men of honour like Lee, Jackson, and others, including most of the southern troops--it was about states rights, and thought of as a "2nd War of Independence." For many common soldiers the reason for fighting was summed up well by Shelby Foote, quoting a Confederate soldier's answer to a Yankee's question as to why, "I'm fighting 'cause y'all are HERE."

Of course after the War, Southerners remembering the hundreds of thousands dead--wanting to remember the best of them, skewed the memory, glossing over the political debates, and just remembering (the best) of the individual soldiers motivations--which like in most wars, on both sides, were unselfish and honourable.

I don't doubt that there are many Iraqi and Arab combatants in Iraq now (and many who were killed) who, being brainwashed by Saddam and Arab pan-nationalism, fought our troops with, in their own mind, honourable motivations...seeing us as infidel invaders, who would steal their land and their women. Of course that doesn't make it so, does it?

The same principle holds true for the "Lost Cause."

As the great grandson of a Confederate officer, I just wish more Southerners would get over it however--had the South not been so arrogant and stubborn, at the political level--perhaps the war could have been avoided, and slavery ended peacefully, without the needless waste of nearly a million good men. The USA would be more democratic and constituional today for certain, but for the evil of the War Between the States.

[Illbay]

I love the United States of America. I suggest that since YOU believe it is a horrible tyranny, YOU need to vacate.

I hear Papua New Guinea is pretty nice.

[canalabamian]

Very nice summation. Thanks.

[SCDogPapa]

"I suggest that since YOU believe it is a horrible tyranny"

but,,,I never said that, those are your words.

[Illbay]

Reread what you said. You stated that "it is true" that the victory of the United States over the rebels in the Civil War was that of "tyranny over freedom."

Such hatred of the United States is particularly vexing to the patriot in times like these.

And I invited you to leave our "tyranny."

[AnalogReigns]

Another thing....while the Southern governments fought the war to preserve slavery (contra Southern revisionists) the Federal government did NOT fight the war to end slavery (contra Northern revisionists) rather to put down a rebellion and preserve the Union. Lincoln's documented attitude towards slavery and the Union (union he said was more important) as well as the politically calculated Emancipation Proclamation (adding a moral morale booster to the Northern cause) (only covering states in rebellion...and only in late in the war) show that both sides had different, and not so noble, motivations.

It's interesting that the revisionists on both sides want the converse motivations to be true: ie. that the South was just about "states rights" (a positive spin on breaking up the Union) or on the other side, that the North was about "freeing the slaves" (the positive spin on the South protecting slavery). Yet both side's revisionists are wrong.

Neither side, IMHO, at a political level, had a justifiable cause for so much death and destruction. I,like Lincoln and Lee, view the whole thing as God's providential and just judgement--on both South AND North for promoting and allowing that evil "peculiar institution."

[canalabamian]

You've never read anything from this poster about tyranny in this country, so please stop lumping everyone together. Thats called stereotyping and is usually associated with a closed mind. Imperfect, yeah (anything involving humans IS)...but its still the best country going. The tyranny most discussed on these threads occurred during the 19th century...relax. The ability that we have to freely debate such issues is a tribute to the fact that we live in a country with very little tyranny.

[Illbay]

Maybe you can read No. 108, and explain to me what he means.

[Non-Sequitur]

600,000 dead IS "Over two hundred and fifty thousand", mathematically speaking - and I'm a mathematician.

Then as a mathematician you would appreciate accuracy. I could say over 50 people were killed on both sides of the civil war. That, too, would be mathematically correct but it would present an inaccurate picture of the total cost of the war.

You'll have to prove that Memminger's income tax was a "federal income tax", considering that the Confederacy was not the federal government.

I wouldn't know quite how to classify the confederate government. Given the lack of contested elections and the disregard for the constitution then I suppose that it most closely resembled a banana republic dictatorship. So can we refer to the Memminger tax as a banana tax?