What Motivated Southerners To Defend The Indefensible?

The Virginian-Pilot | 23 April 2002 | Rowland Nethaway

[wasp69]

What can you say? This individual has obviously had the typical one sided, revisionist view of history spoon fed to him as have many others. This article was printed in the local Pravda here in Hampton Roads; a rag that never hesitates to pander to liberals, PC-niks, higher taxes, and never ever hesitates to take any shot it can at the South and the CSA. The writer of this piece of historical revision is the senior editor of the Waco Tribune. If you would like to complete this knucklehead's education, you can drop him a line at RNethaway@wacotrib.com. If you would like to share your opinions and/or displeasure with the Virginian-Pilot, you can drop these commies a line at letters@pilotonline.com

[wasp69]

Gentlemen, your thoughts?

[MsLady]

Beeeeeecause, the south didn't think the north had any right to tell them what to do. That is one of many reasons.

[2banana]

Have an invading army burn your house down, rape your women and steal what is left. Maybe then you might get motivated

[camle]

the south wasn't defending slavery, they were defending the right of a state to seceed from the union, a right that was accepted by all - until someone actually tried it.

slavery was a by-issue, partly used by the north to inflame passions and to convince the federals of the "rightousness" of their cause. that cause was federal tyrrany, and might makes right.

[AUgrad]

I read an account of a conversation between two privates, one union the other ,confederate. The union soldier asked the southerner "why do you boys fight so hard"? The confederate soldier replied "because ya'll are down here".

[Arkinsaw]

It doesn't make any sense when you go into the analysis with preconceived assumptions. If you break out of the bad assumptions its fairly simple to understand why the average Confederate soldier fought.

[Snake65]

The way this Minnesota bred Yankee learned it, slavery was at the root from which a larger political conflict grew. When Linclon promised not to interfere with slavery where it existed, but promised that he would prevent its spread, the South saw the handwriting on the wall. The Southerners saw slavery as a question that should be decided on a state-by-state basis. Of course you ended up with a lot of violence when the time came to decide it, with people like John Brown hacking pro-slavery men to death with a broadsword in Kansas.

If the Southern Confederacy had tested the secession issue in the courts instead of on the battlefield, they would of had a much better chance of winning.

It was a forlorn hope from the beginning. Considering the naval, industrial, and financial resources of the North I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. It's a testament to the skill of the (mostly Virginian) generals and the fortitude of her patriots in the ranks that it went until 1865.

[Spirited]

"Have an invading army burn your house down, rape your women and steal what is left. Maybe then you might get motivated."

I doubt that this type would feel the need/responsibility to protect its' women. I also suspect that it would expect to receive restitution from its' own government for the rest (as in tax my neighbors for my benefit; penalize others for my stupidity).

[regularAmericanWhiteMale]

I would bet that Washington, Jefferson, and very many of the founding fathers would have fought for the Confederacy had they lived in the mid 19th century.

[Robe]

I recall a quote by Ken Burns in his mini series "The Civil War"..He said.. (paraphrased) The cause which started the war was States Rights, the cause that finished it was slavery.....The latter was addressed at the end of the war, the former is still being debated today”

Although I don’t agree with everything stated in the series, it did a tolerable job of explaining things like Nullification and the Tariff issues that are generally obscure to most folks. Unfortunately although a lot of folks tuned in to the series, many just didn't/or want tounderstand the more complicated issues. IMHO

[Wolfie]

A New England blue-blood brings his Souhtern Belle fiancee home for dinner.

The Belle asks one of the female dinner guests "Where do y'all come from?"

The woman coldly repies "We come from a place where we don't end a sentence with a preposition".

The Belle responds, "Oh, I'm terribly sorry. Where do y'all come from, bitch?"

[Non-Sequitur]

Why did the poor southern farmer fight? They fought to protect their place in society. Governor Brown of Georgia summed up the position. Slavery, he said, "is the poor mans's best government. Among us the poor white laberor...does not belong to the menial class. The Negro is no sense his equal...He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men.. Thus yeoman farmers will never consent to abolition rule, for they know that in the event of the abolition of slavery they would be greater sufferers than the rich, who would be able to protect themselves." An Alabama newspaper wrote that the election of Lincoln "shows that the North intends to free the negroes and force amalgamation between them and the children of poor white men of the south." A Georgia secessionist asked, "Do you love your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter?...In ten years or less our children will be slaves of the negro." James Furman of South Carolina warned, "Abolition preachers will be at hand to consumate the marriage of your daughter to black husbands." In Alabama they were asked, "Submit to having our wives and daughters choose between death and gratifying the hellish lust of the Negro?...Better ten thousand deaths than submission to Black Republicanism." Those are but a few of the quotes that make it clear that southern secessionist leaders used the equality of white men and their superiority over the black man as their rallying cry. Southern men marched off in rebellion to protect their way of life and the biggest threat that they saw to it, regardless of their social status, was an end to slavery and freedom for the black man.

What, you thought that only the North was racist?

[d14truth]

What Motivated Southerners To Defend The Indefensible?

What is 'indefensible' about the Constitution and States' rights?

Today, without slavery, would a state be able to secede, in peace? Any volunteers?

IMHO, slavery became the 'justification' for the North to proceed against the South. Attacking the south for secession wasn't a strong enough motivator of the public sentiment, nor constitutionally based.

It should have been for each state to come to a knowledge of the 'truth' about ownership of persons/slavery; just as it should be the realm of each state to determine its 'religious' persuasion, should they 'choose' to be parochial.

[OldDominion]

"Those who win, write the history books".

Nowhere is this more evident then in this debate. The South defended the themselves against the North, primarily because of state right's issues (more specifically because of unfair tarrifs). One only has to read early Lincoln words to know that he did NOT lead the nation to war because of the slavery issue. Lincoln himself was obviously a racist and could have cared less about the fate of the slaves. He was a politition who used the slavery issue for self-serving reasons after 1862. There were better ways to end slavery then going to war...another indicator that this war was not faught over slavery.

[wasp69]

If the Southern Confederacy had tested the secession issue in the courts instead of on the battlefield, they would of had a much better chance of winning.

Thank you for your well reasoned response. I don't agree with all that you say and I have only picked one point to quote and discuss. I am curious as to why you think the seceding states had to go to the courts?

[Eagle Eye]

Have an invading army burn your house down, rape your women and steal what is left. Maybe then you might get motivated

Almost sounds like the FBI and BATF today. Some things never change.

[wasp69]

What, you thought that only the North was racist?

Who, me? No but I am also not foolish enough to believe that they were on a holy crusade to free the slaves. I am also not foolish enough to believe the North welcomed them with open arms. Furthermore, I am not foolish enough to believe I can judge a seventeenth through nineteenth practice and it's prejudices through a twenty first century perspective.

[Snake65]

Why go to the courts?

Let's us as an example Fort Sumpter. The state of North Carolina, instead of firing on it, goes to the Supreme Court as an independent entity and says "We're outta here, we want the Federal Government off our land."

Maybe it wouldn't have worked, maybe the South would still have had to fight. But it would have sawed Lincoln off at the knees if they had gotten anywhere, delayed the Union blocade while the courts were chewing it over, and perhaps made diplomatic recognition easier.

[Snake65]

us=use