Do Southerners Have the Right to be Described as "Native Americans"?

Southerners who celebrate their cultural heritage, are among the most misunderstood people in America. Italians who celebrate Colombus Day, and Irishmen who celebrate St. Patricks Day, never have to suffer the grief that Southerners who want to celebrate Robert E. Lee's Birthday have to endure.

Southern identity is partly about celebrating the Anglo-Celtic culture, which is the core culture that existed in America at the time of the founding of America in 1776. It is the culture that gave us the King James Bible, Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, and others. Most Southerners, both white and black, are descended from people who were in America before the Civil War in 1860.

It is often said that America is a nation of immigrants. Southerners are not immigrants to America. When the first Southerners came to Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, America did not exist as a nation. Southerners were the pioneers who built America. Southerners created colonial America in 1607, before the Mayflower folks arrived in 1620. Two sons of the South, the Virginians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, led America to independence as a Constitutional Republic in 1776. Why shouldn't Southerners be proud of such a great heritage?

Many of the Northerners who love to mock and insult the South, are people whose ancestors came to America as immigrants, after the statue of liberty was put up in 1886. They love to mock the people who created and built the America that their ancestors immigrated to. If someone could create a time machine, and we could go back to the 1890s, we would tell our Southern ancestors to stop those European immigrants from getting off their boats at Ellis Island. It is time that the Southerners who created American culture and the American nation, are shown a little appreciation by the Ellis Island Yankees, who just got off the boat the other day. If you are a pro-Southern Yankee, this complaint does not apply to you, of course.

You must be a yankee.

We prefer the term "Northerner." Just like I'm sure Southerners would prefer to be called by terms they choose, rather than others thought up for them by other people.

Seems you forgot that the Federal Govt removed the Cherokee not the south.

That was the government controlled by Jackson and Southern Democrats. And in fact, Georgia and other Southern states pushed for Cherokee removal before the federal government got involved. Pressure from Southern states and politicians was why the federal government got involved. Georgia sought authority over the Cherokee in order to expel them and began to deport Creek Indians before the federal government had anything to do with the matter.

At the same time this occured the states of MO, KY, MD, DE were also slave owning states.

Sure, and they were considered Southern states at the time. Later on they didn't join the Confederacy, but the Confederacy certainly wanted control over them. That's because they thought those states were Southern.

Further, the states of IN, IL, OH, MI had laws on the books outlawing blacks from their state.

Which may or may not have been enforced. Shameful laws by today's standards, but not worse than the slave codes of the slave states, which were enforced with a vengeance.

Just remember who had no experience with blacks in 1860 and you might find those who had very bizarre illusions concerning the realities of slavery and the black population at large.

Try reading some early Southern "sociology" and come back and tell us just who had "very bizarre illusions concerning the realities of slavery and the Black population at large.

So of the states remaining with the union in 1860, 4 were slave owning states, 4 had laws on the books outlawing blacks from settling in their confines, and all of 7 were non-slave owning states.

And I thought I was bad at math ...

Your anti-slavery crusade falls apart once you know the facts. Lincoln desparately used it to solidify his position to re-unify the union that he broke.

"The union that he broke"? Read a little history. Southerners could have put up with Lincoln and put their man in 4 or 8 years later. Instead they broke the union and killed the old republic.

This is the of yankee sainthood. Spare me the condesending projection.

I will spare you condescending projection.

Here's the thing. Whatever high and mighty attitudes you object to in Northerners you guys equal here everyday. Whatever self-righteousness you've been subjected to, doesn't exceed what I see here everyday from Confederate fanatics.

Saying every darned day about how awful Lincoln was and how the North destroyed liberty and made us all slaves -- doesn't that qualify as self-righteous and condescending? Or is it only true statements that sting?

RE: And what was Madison’s view on secession?

I believe that Madison, being a Federalist, wanted more than anyone else to preserve the union. Do I, who argue that states have the legal right to secede, want to see the USA splintered ? Of course not. Just as I do not want to cut my leg off simply because I have a wound, I will only consider cutting it off as a LAST RESORT.

We do not consider secession wily nily... we only consider it if and when all conditions become so intolerable and tyrannical, that a state has no choice but to consider it.

But why view the legality of secession only through the prism of one James Madison when we have history to show us what the original intent of those who signed on to the constitution was?

There is no evidence that secession was illegal or prohibited by the Constitution, and in fact there is almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that secession was a legal, constitutionally sanctioned act.

Historian Kenneth M. Stampp, in his book The Imperiled Union, maintains that it is impossible to say that secession was illegal because of the ambiguity of the original Constitution as to state sovereignty and the right of secession. He points out that “the case for state sovereignty and the constitutional right of secession had flourished for forty years before a comparable case for a perpetual Union had been devised,” and even then its logic was “far from perfect because the Constitution and the debates over ratification were fraught with ambiguity.”

It appears that the original intent of an unquestioned right of secession was established by the Founders, took root and “flourished for forty years,” then later a “perpetual Union” counter-argument developed out of political necessity when Northern states began realizing their wealth and power was dependent on the Union and its exploitation of the South.

RE: What your argument comes down to, in the final analysis, is that “states’ rights” are more important than the rights of individual human beings.

But here’s the more important question -— Did the states that secede do so while IGNORING the desires of the majority of their inhabitants?

Secondly, were the seceding states TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT that slavery should exist in perpetuity? Or were most of them aware that the institution was going to die eventually?

I argue that they were not unaware that slavery would die a slow death. Their intent was in fact to let it slowly fade away but NOT IMMEDIATELY so as not to cause a huge disruption in the economy and livelihood of the South.

Here is a snippet of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:

Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

We would like human rights to be achieved IMMEDIATELY but in real life, what we want and what can be achieved practically are two different things.

We want to protect the lives of innocent babies, which we consider to be murder and a violation of the constitution, yet we cannot achieve this in one big bang. We can only achieve this goal gradually.

So, the states that seceded and many of their inhabitants (most of who do not own slaves ), DO RECOGNIZE that slavery is immoral, yet, want to achieve its destruction through a gradual process.

Now, regarding the right for a state to secede (as opposed to whether it should have seceded during the time of Lincoln ) is a related but different question. Let’s set aside the issue of slavery — Does the constitution prohibit secession?

In other words, if and when your people sign on to a constitutional compact, are you FOREVER bound by it? Or is there an “out” intent?

There had to be a specific constitutional prohibition on secession for it to be illegal. Conversely, there did not have to be a specific constitutional affirmation of the right of secession for it to be legal. Why? Because the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There was no constitution prohibition on secession, nor was there a constitutional sanctioning of any kind of federal coercion to force a state to obey a federal law because to do so was to perpetrate an act of war on the offending state by the other states, for whom the federal government was their agent.

The Constitution made no mention of “perpetual union,” and it did not contain any prohibition against the secession of states from the union.

The point was raised in the convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution, which remains the U. S. government charter today.

After the election of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Party in New England was so upset that for more than ten years they plotted to secede. The party actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814.

Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession. In fact, the leader of the whole movement, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, said that secession was the principle of the American Revolution.

Even John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch unionist, said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”

Likewise, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union.

Some people see the Confederates as traitors to their nation because many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army.

However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. Remember, the Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but rather a confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this, and although it is frequently ignored, the 10th Amendment specifically states that the rights not given to the federal government are the rights of the states and of the people. But if states do not have the right to secede, they have no rights at all. Lincoln’s war destroyed the government of our founding fathers by the “might makes right” method, a method the Republicans used to quash Confederates and loyal Democrats alike.

Did the states that secede do so while IGNORING the desires of the majority of their inhabitants?

SC pretty clearly did. There was a significant majority of blacks in the state, and their voice was utterly ignored.

You can argue that if you like, but it is utterly contradicted by the history of the time. The root of the conflict between sections was the insistence of the South that slavery be allowed to spread, precisely because they believed it would slowly suffocate if kept in its present bounds. In fact, a very common idea in the South was that they would conquer Mexico, the Caribbean and perhaps South America and build a great, permanent slave empire, complete with renewed importation of slaves from Africa. This was called the Purple Dream. William Walker was one of those who tried to put it into effect.

Your take on souther attitudes towards slavery is accurate but anachronistic. This was the attitude of most at the time of the Founding, certainly of Washington, Jefferson, etc. At the time slavery was becoming less and less profitable.

As the 19th century came in and the Cotton Empire began to expand, slavery reversed its economic decline and became wildly profitable. In fact, the price of slaves, the best single indicator of the health of the institution and its perceived future, reached a peak in 1860.

By this time most southerners viewed slavery as a positive good and something that should be perpetuated and expanded in both time and space. The famous Cornerstone Speech is one of the best examples of this.

Lincoln would have been quite happy to work towards future gradual emancipation. The slaveowners rejected the very notion. In fact, slave owners even in the Union states were so idiotic they rejected Lincoln's offers of compensated emancipation in the last year of the war!

Anybody but a moron or an obsessive could see clearly that slavery was going down by this time, and in the very near future. Yet the slaveowners rejected the very idea of emancipation so fervently they gave up all chance of compensation just to maintain the illusion for a few more months.

Had the South truly wanted independence, all it had to do was announce a program of emancipation, even compensated and very gradual. Britain would have promptly recognized the CSA and broken the Union blockade.

But for the CSA slavery was more important than independence, as maintaining and expanding the institution was the main reason they wanted their independence.

I'm afraid you're suffering from a severe case of rose-colored historical review. Well-meaning, and I appreciate the politeness, but still mistaken.

RE: SC pretty clearly did. There was a significant majority of blacks in the state, and their voice was utterly ignored.

Let’s see this argument as it applies today and use this analogy — there are a significant number of babies being slaughtered, some even at the point of birth (over 40 million for the last 30 years). Therefore, what follows -— we kill abortionists because we believe they are murderers and the constitution protects the right to life ?

In every situation, we have to weigh the consequences. Not every problem we face (slavery included) requires a violent solution IMMEDIATELY.

Did saving the Union and the desire to free slaves justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? The Confederates posed no military threat to the North.

THAT is the question that we all have to ponder.

Even today, the United States lives in a semi-hypocritical state with a Federal government encroaching on our rights in total violation of the constitution.

What would have been the better choice, to let the South go, and see slavery slowly die, or to force them to submit and lose hundreds of thousands of lives?

Now in regards to economics, I beg to disagree with you.

Slavery was on it’s last leg long before the South’s struggle for independence.

It had already disappeared on the European front (for the most part). However, even after the war, the slave trading ships of the North still dealt in the supply of slaves to the Carribean areas.

Even in European waters where slave trading had been outlawed, non-American slave trading vessels would often hoist the American flag if threatened, because authorities would ignore the American slave trading ships.

The northern states had dropped slavery only when enough cheap labor became available from immigrants. They didn’t, however, drop racism.

Northern states passed laws forbidding Negroes from entering their states, working, owning property, etc. Most people loyal to the northern cause, were thus not because they wanted to stamp out slavery, but because losing the revenues from the southern states would cripple their economy. Many of those in the north who did not agree with forcing the southern states to remain in the union were jailed when Lincoln ignored the constitution’s habeas corpus. Many of these ugly facts of the war are not taught to the school children in their history lessons.

Virginia, a southern state, was the 1st to outlaw slave trading. Northern states still traded in slaves long after the war ended. Brazil was the last country to outlaw slavery.

If the Southern states had achieved their goal of independence, their economy, which had been ravaged by the northern states in unbalanced tariffs, would have blossomed. After cotton died out, the last remnants of slavery would have vanished.

The south would have become more industrialized out of necessity. Their constitution, had it survived, would closer resemble the constitution of the American forefathers than does present day America.

I will grant that slavery would have lasted much longer, perhaps close to the 20th century, but again the question is this -— is it better for it to have lasted till the 20th century, and let it slowly die as it DID (YES IT DID ) in all other countries, or is it better to kill 620,000 men to abolish it 40 years earlier?

THAT IS THE QUESTION WE ALL HAVE TO ANSWER. You say the latter, I say the former.

Take a look at Brazil, a country as big as the USA. Brazil made a “soft” transition from slavery to capitalism, no big revolution or inflection, but a long process of several decades and centuries. Why not the Brazilian way? Because we would have been a more hypocritical country that had a constitution recognizing the rights of all men while at the same time denying a large number such rights?

If so, we should condemn men such as Washington and Jefferson.

Race relations would undoubtedly be much better today, as southerners would not have suffered the atrocities of “reconstruction” where they were humiliated and ravaged by the victors. This, I believe, is the catalyst of the ensuing resentment.

The northern states, however, would had suffered great economical losses had the south won. They would have survived, but would probably pretty much resemble some of the present day northern industrial cities, filled with squalid living conditions, crowded tenements, and much poverty.

Chances are, the north and south would have eventually reunited, but would be more of a true “United” states with more state sovereignty as the writers of the constitution had envisioned, rather than a “Conglomerated” states with the federal govt. being the main governing body. The federal govt.’s main purpose would be defense, as was intended from the beginning.

It’s really interesting to study actual history, instead of the spoon fed kind of which textbooks are made. It’s important to remember that the victors get to write the history books.

I see you pretty much ignored my main points and went off on another rant about the war not being necessary to end slavery.

Yes, slavery was on its way out, but as I pointed out and you ignored, southerners did not believe it and were planning to forcibly extend the institution both in time and space. Who knows how successful they might have been?

I agree other countries abolished slavery with minimal violence. You seem to think any violence that was involved in our case is obviously by definition the fault of the winners. Why does the South, the only large body of people on the planet willing to fight and die to preserve and extend slavery bear no responsibility for deciding to do so? Takes two to tangle and all that.

Had southern slaveowners been willing to follow the laws as Brazilian slaveowners were, there would have been no war.

In actual fact, when you get into the numbers, the USA faced a situation with number of slaves, their financial value, number of slaveowners and their concentration and ability to form a political force that does not begin to compare with any other country. In all likelihood other countries' slaveowners would have been willing to fight to protect their property and position, but it just wasn't a practical possibility for them to do so.

Southerners were planning warlike expansion to the south and west had they secured their independence. They would have failed, of course. A united United States would have found conquest of Latin America to re-impose slavery difficult. A CSA faced with virulent British opposition and a hostile USA at its rear had no chance of doing so successfully. Any such expansion would have had to be primarily naval in nature, and the RN ruled the waves and had complete veto power on the water.

That popular southern leaders didn't recognize this fact is just another example of their delusions.

Actually I disagree that Southerners did not believe that slavery was coming to an end.

Here’s a book I recommend :

Dwyer, John J., The War Between the States: America’s Uncivil War. Texas: Bluebonnet Press, 2005

If you read the history of the American Civil War by John J. Dwyer, THERE WERE 4 TIMES ( yes, 4 times ) MORE Anti-slavery societies in existence in the South than in the North.

The two generals who fought for the South... Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee both called slavery a “moral and political evil”.

Dwyer himself quotes a few large slave owners who were seriously considering divesting themselves of their slaves through selling them because of the trouble of keeping them and the difficulty it was causing in their relationships with their Northern neighbors. Were there stubborn holdouts? Of course.... but then why believe that it would not slowly die because of outside pressure and because of the increasing UNPOPULARITY of slaverym YES, EVEN IN THE SOUTH?

Look at it this way:

If, in April 1861, it could have been known that the civil war would drag on for 4 years and result in 620,000 persons dead (1 in 50 Americans, and thousands more maimed for life, INCLUDING BLACKS), huge swaths of the country decimated (especially after Sherman’s March to the Sea), a President assassinated, and decades of military occupation of the South during reconstruction... if that could have been known, it is difficult to say that the fight was worth the staggering cost.

And yes I DO DISAGREE WITH YOU REGARDING THE ECONOMICS OF SLAVERY. Economically slavery was rapidly becoming simply not viable. We had already banned the importation of new slaves (though the internal trade was self-sustaining), and the problem could have been resolved legislatively within one generation or a little beyond.

In 1860 dollars the war cost in excess of 6 billion.

By 1860 there were apx. 4 million slaves in America. The average market price for a slave in 1860 was about $1500.

It would have been cheaper, and saved 620,000 lives, to have simply bought every slave and released him or her. AND YES, WE COULD HAVE DONE IT SLOWLY EVEN IF THERE WERE SOME STUBBORN HOLDOUTS.

When the facts are considered the Civil War becomes very difficult to justify. Legislatively a compromise could have been reached to ban all newborn slave children from being slaves, and to release all current slaves from bondage after X number of years, and in turn some financial payment made to the owners for loss of value.

The opportunity of returning to Liberia was rather popular, and would have eased the social tensions from so many new persons entering the work force. That, combined with the opening of the West, would have further reduced social tension from the event.

The war was unneccessary.

President Lincoln himself said that his “paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery” (John Dwyer, pg. 87). The President continued to say that if reuniting the Union meant freeing all, some, or none of the slaves, he would do it. Although the South was wrong in the slavery issue, that was not what the war was fought over. The war “was at root a debate over geographical equality and superiority in the Union… the slavery debate masked the real issue – the struggle for power and dominion”.

IF SLAVERY COULD BE ABOLISHED WITHOUT KILLING EACH OTHER IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD (in fact ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD), I SEE NO REASON WHY IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE UNITED STATES.

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.