Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Motivated Southerners To Defend The Indefensible?
The Virginian-Pilot | 23 April 2002 | Rowland Nethaway

Posted on 04/24/2002 9:33:49 AM PDT by wasp69

RICHMOND - It's only a two-hour drive from the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House here on Clay Street.

It took four years and more than 600,000 lives to make that same journey during the second American Revolution, now officially known as the US Civil War.

It's odd that this nation's bloodiest war, a war between brothers, stretched from 1861 until 1865 when the capital of the COnfederate States of America in Richmond is only 100 miles south from the capital of the United States of America in Washington.

Thousands of Americans annually visit Civil War battlefields, museums and monuments.

Enthusiasts study in passionate detail the leaders, military strategy and battles of the Civil War.

My fascination with the Civil War has less to do with military engagements than with the motivations of up to 1.5 million Southern men and boys wiling to die to tear the nation in two in defense of slavery, an utterly indefedsible institution.

Had the conflict, also known as the War of the Southern Planters, been fought only by Southern slave owners, it would have been over in weeks rather than years.

As it was, brilliant and charismatic Confederate Generals such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson led armies of poor, non-slave-owning Southerners into battle and came dangerously close to winning the war.

My mother's and father's ancestors were Southerners who fought for the Confederacy. I'm pleased that their side lost.

As a young man I fought for passage of civil rights laws that would eliminate the vestiges of slavery and the continued denial of equal rights to black Americans. What, I wondered, could my Confederate ancestors have been thinking?

I did not find the answer during my tour of the White House of the Confederacy or in the next-door Museum of the Confederacy.

A curator at the museum understood my state of perplexity but could only tell me that it's impossible to judge the decisions of my Confederate ancestors based on todays standards.

Although slavery was central to the decision by the Southern states to break away from the Union, many causes over the years led to conflict.

Sectional rivalry developed as the North became industrialized and gained population with European immigration.

The North wanted to build roads, canals and railroads to accommodate growing industries. Without personal or corporate taxation, revenue was raised by tariffs, which protected Northern products and increased prices of imported goods needed by the nonindustrialized South.

Southerners felt they were being gouged by their Northern brethern. They also felt that the states, not the federal government, had the authority to regulate commerce and other affairs. They also felt that the states had the right under the Constitution to separate from the Union, an idea that had strong supporters in both the North and South.

Deciding whether new territories and states would be slave or nonslave became a North-South fight for power in Congress and within the federal government.

Northern abolitionists demonized the Southerners and backed them into their own regional corner. Many Americans in the early years of the nation felt stronger regional and state pride than national pride.

Lee, who did not want to break up the Union, declined an offer to command the Union Army. He chose fight for Virginia and the South.

There must be lessons to be learned from the Civil War that can be applied to current and future conflicts.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: confederacy; csa; slavery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-248 next last
To: Titus Fikus
Oh yes, but it is Goppy who has been chirping out a one line argument for nearly two weeks now with the persistence and focus not unlike a toad in heat in March.

Really? I seem to recall that a week or two back, the poster formerly known as LLAN-DDUESSANT (at least before that persona got banned from posting here) questioned the authenticity of the source I used in a couple posts, primarily to other posters than himself. Following his embarrassment, Llan-ey (aka Titus Fikus) hid his face and avoided me during the time between then and now refusing to address his embarrassing and dishonest attempts to discredit my source on pure fabrications. Therefore I find it odd that this same poster could profess with a straight face to posess an understanding, much less basic knowledge, of what I have been saying in between.

So, by all means, let's not limit ourselves to just a few lines. Consider this from the above in Adam's 'The Great Secession Winter of 1860-61'

You are more than welcome to post all the lines you want, Llan-ey. But simply posting lines left and right is not argumentation, a distinction you seem to have had great trouble grasping dating back to the days of your now-banned former posting identification. Therefore, do not be surprised when I make the reasonable decision to classify your posts as little more than randomly quoting Adams' pro-northern statements without regard to the specific historical issue I addressed with a specific quote of his on that issue. I do take humor though in the fact that I have so easily frustrated you with a simple quote from one of your own conceding a fact about the war many on your side, including apparently you, would rather keep quiet. If nothing else, your quotations of Adams, which demonstrate his authenticity as a credible yankee, help my cause more than your own. There's no better way to bolster the credentials of the statement I quoted to yankees than establishing similarly to yankees their affiliation with the source of that quotation. Not that you would realize such things in all your short-sightedness and irrational incoherence.

In short, your postings are without consequence or coherence to the issue at hand, yet give credibility to my use of that issue by virtue of the fact that they establish the yankee credentias of its source. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

81 posted on 04/28/2002 3:24:42 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
There is no direct warrant in the Constitution prohibiting secession in so many words. The whole document does so.

There are also no explicit prohibitions against rape, murder or abortion in the Constitution either. You lay out all these detailed arguments that simply will not be compelling to any fair minded person.

On the contrary – you make my point for me. Why does the Constitution contain “no explicit prohibitions against rape, murder or abortion in the Constitution?” Because most points of law were left to the States – in the words of Mr. Madison, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” The States outlawed “rape, murder or abortion.” Until, that is, the your favorite federal court stepped in and announced that abortion must be legal in every State. But let’s refer to the words of one of the (few) conservative justices on that court:

“(W)here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people [of the States].”
Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton, 1995

The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession, my friend. Read the Tenth Amendment – the Constitution nowhere ‘delegates or prohibits’ secession, no matter how hard you try to “to deduce [such a prohibition] by implication:”

Really, all your argument does is give life to the words of George Washington in 1796:

Yes, let’s review a few of Mr. Washington’s comments while we’re at it:

“Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it...It is well worth a fair and full experiment.”

”I can not but hope that the States which may be disposed to make a secession will think often and seriously on the consequence.”

”I should be astonished if [North Carolina] should withdraw from the Union.”

It certainly appears from his comments that Mr. Washington viewed the new union as an “experiment” from which some States might (unwisely, in his opinion, if not illegally) secede.

Even more succintly, you are condemned from the mouth of Thomas Jefferson...

“Condemned?” Really? Let’s review Mr. Jefferson’s words from a few short years later:

“Whether we remain in one confederacy or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederations, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part.”

Hardly looks like a ‘condemnation’ of State secession to me. And shall we review his Kentucky Resolutions - yet again? Hmm?

Your opinion is in error.

Quote a “direct warrant in the Constitution prohibiting secession,” and I will admit to being “in error.” But I am not a believer in ‘unwritten law,’ as so many ‘unionists’ appear to be. Rather, “I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that ‘the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people’”...

I don't see how anyone can fault Abraham Lincoln and the brave Union soldiers, or the people of the United States, for preserving the government of Washington.

You failed to answer my questions in Post #64. You declared that you “firmly believe that the Government has the right simply to maintain its own existance.” I asked “where, precisely, is that right delegated to the federal government by the Constitution? Or have you decided that the federal government’s own court is 'supreme,' and that the Constitution, the States, and the people ‘can go fish?’” Care to answer now?

I like guns. I like 'em fine.
think they especially come in handy when the government of Washington and Lincoln are threatened.

Did you swear an oath to defend “the government of Washington and Lincoln” – or did you swear the same oath I did?

82 posted on 04/28/2002 3:27:22 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Hey Walt. Just out of curiosity, I'm awaiting your take on the Corwin amendment.

Are you still of the belief that, as of March 4 1861, Lincoln had not yet seen the three-line constitutional amendment he had helped draft back in December, promoted through January, convinced the House to substitute in place of an alternate language in February, lobbied congress to pass through March 2nd when it did just that, and paraphrased in his inaugural address only seconds after he denied having ever seen it? So much for "honest abe."

83 posted on 04/28/2002 3:29:02 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Titus Fikus
(By the way - you never answered my question. Did you most recently get banned for insults, or for posting your 'Woodrow Wilson / Ivy League College Conspiracy to Post Doctored Historical Documents on the Internet' theory? The world wonders... ;>)
84 posted on 04/28/2002 3:30:38 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Are you still of the belief that, as of March 4 1861, Lincoln had not yet seen the three-line constitutional amendment he had helped draft back in December, promoted through January, convinced the House to substitute in place of an alternate language in February, lobbied congress to pass through March 2nd when it did just that, and paraphrased in his inaugural address only seconds after he denied having ever seen it? So much for "honest abe."

I know that you expended a lot of energy and only showed youself a liar, not Mr. Lincoln.

Walt

85 posted on 04/28/2002 3:39:03 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

To: WhiskeyPapa;Titus Fikus
As a matter of curiosity, I thought it interesting to observe the posting tendencies of the two (three if you consider Llan-ey's two personas, one of them now banned) of you.

- You both rely heavily on cut n' paste style quotations of others.

- While cutting n' pasting, you both often appeal to the authority of that from which you quote - sloppy argumentation at best.

- You both set absurd standards of historical documentation to which you demand others meet. Llan-ey did this on his silly attempt to discredit the Adams quote I posted, and Walt does it every time I refuse to retype a 30 page chapter of a book verbatim since he's too lazy to get a copy himself.

- Neither of you come anywhere close to meeting these documentation standards in your own posting activities. Both of you have quoted without giving any source at times and Walt recently requested I look up a passage he wasn't willing to type only moments after refusing to do the same when I directed him to a much more prolific writing than that he requested I seek.

- More often than not, the cut n' pastes made by both of you have little or absolutely nothing to do with that to which they purport to be responding.

- You both verbally abuse credentialed sources, historical figures, and other FR posters for simply holding an opinion on the war different from your own. Llan-ey does this much more so than Walt, who for the most part, but not always, controls his mouth. Comparatively, Llan-ey's mouth is always being shot off and closely resembles its downtown Boston street gutter source that got Llan-ey thrown off of FR a few months ago.

- You both interject yourselves into conversations/debates with myself and other posters and continue only to the point that the going gets tough for you. Cornered with facts, you both retreat and duck under the radar for a few days or weeks by not responding, only to reappear after the situation has passed touting the same line that got you into trouble earlier despite its having caused you factual difficulties immediately prior.

Its all a very interesting testament to your mindset, and one to which I invite my fellow confederates to add their own contributions. Other than that, have a nice day.

87 posted on 04/28/2002 3:49:40 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
Did you swear an oath to defend “the government of Washington and Lincoln” – or did you swear the same oath I did?

By all appearances you oath is worth about as much as a pee behind a tree.

I took the oath several times.

As an officer, I took this oath on August 14, 1981:

"I (state your name) swear or affirm that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I will bear truth faith and allegience to the same, and will obey the lawful orders of the officers appointed over me, and that I take this obligation without moral reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God."

Damn all traitors to hell.

Walt

88 posted on 04/28/2002 3:51:52 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I know that you expended a lot of energy and only showed youself a liar, not Mr. Lincoln.

An interesting assertion from somebody, who when called upon it earlier, could not even take the time to substantiate it.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Therefore your above statement fails you. It's as simple as that.

89 posted on 04/28/2002 3:53:43 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
You both set absurd standards of historical documentation to which you demand others meet. Llan-ey did this on his silly attempt to discredit the Adams quote I posted, and Walt does it every time I refuse to retype a 30 page chapter of a book verbatim since he's too lazy to get a copy himself.

If oyu can't find something pithy to quote out of 30 pages, it can hardly be very important or compelling.

In fact, it must be completely useless if it comes to us through your filter.

You hate the primary sources.

I like them, because I don't want the words of Washington and Lincoln to be forgotten or misused.

Walt

90 posted on 04/28/2002 3:56:28 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
In addition, I still await your answer to my question:

Are you still of the belief that, as of March 4 1861, Lincoln had not yet seen the three-line constitutional amendment he had helped draft back in December, promoted through January, convinced the House to substitute in place of an alternate language in February, lobbied congress to pass through March 2nd when it did just that, and paraphrased in his inaugural address only seconds after he denied having ever seen it?

A simple yes or no will suffice for now, though I do reserve the right to pursue an explanation of why at a later time. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

91 posted on 04/28/2002 4:00:15 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If you suggested to the average Union soldier that he was fighting in 'a holy crusade to free the slaves' he would have punched your lights out.

Isn't that about what they did at the NYC draft riots?

92 posted on 04/28/2002 4:04:59 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Therefore your above statement fails you. It's as simple as that.

You can't prove that Lincoln knew what the proposed text of the 13th amendment was. Why would he lie?

Why not say in his first inaugural, "I have examined the text of the proposed 13th amendment, and concur fully."

Surely even you cannot deny that Lincoln sought compromise --talking rather than fighting -- in everything he said in 1860-61 (and throughout his life).

WHY would he lie about this?

You have tried to prove that Mister Lincoln lied in this, deducing it from circumstances, and all you've done is show that YOU are the liar.

Walt

93 posted on 04/28/2002 4:06:42 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The offical record refers to it as "The War of Southern Rebellion". Seems appropriate to me.

Do you suppose the American Revolution should be called "The War of American Rebellion?"

94 posted on 04/28/2002 4:07:08 PM PDT by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
And where, precisely, is that right delegated to the federal government by the Constitution?

Article 1, section 8.

Walt

95 posted on 04/28/2002 4:10:31 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
If oyu can't find something pithy to quote out of 30 pages, it can hardly be very important or compelling.

Would you be referring to the Hofstadter book in specific or is the above one of your vague generalizations? If it is a reference to Hofstadter, to rebut it I need only note that I provided you with a number of quotes from his book.

In addition, I remind you that those quotes came during a debate over argumentation made upon the authority of experts. In that case, what Hofstadter has to say disputes McPherson. 2 Pulitzers beats 1, so Hofstadter wins, and therefore I win.

In fact, it must be completely useless if it comes to us through your filter.

In that case, let me be the first to announce the uselessness of the filtered tripe you post on this message board daily.

You hate the primary sources.

Coming from a person who recently engaged in a lengthy effort to dispute my primary source account of Lincoln's involvement in the Corwin amendment by quoting from secondary sources, I'll have to take that one with a grain of salt and the recognition of the large dose of hypocrisy that comes with it.

I like them, because I don't want the words of Washington and Lincoln to be forgotten or misused.

Considered in light of my immediately prior response, an answer to the above is not necessary.

96 posted on 04/28/2002 4:11:12 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: wasp69,all
Very interesting friendly FReeper crossfire bump!
97 posted on 04/28/2002 4:20:25 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You can't prove that Lincoln knew what the proposed text of the 13th amendment was.

Logic dictates otherwise, as Lincoln's documented participation in a number of events prior to March 4th necessitated his familiarity with the amendment.

Why would he lie?

As I have indicated, that is not my concern and is a question to which I could only speculate. Regardless, it bears no relevance upon the fact, in and of itself, that he did just that. And as I have previously indicated, my own theory is that it has something to do with the same reason he specifically asked Lyman Trumbull to keep his involvement in the committee of 13 secret.

Why not say in his first inaugural, "I have examined the text of the proposed 13th amendment, and concur fully."

See above.

Surely even you cannot deny that Lincoln sought compromise --talking rather than fighting -- in everything he said in 1860-61

Not everything, but between late December 1861 and March 4, 1862. But for that matter, Jefferson Davis was a member of the Committee of 13 and actively made compromise proposals in it from early December through the end of January prior to his departure.

WHY would he lie about this?

Again, that is not my concern nor does it address the fact that he did lie.

You have tried to prove that Mister Lincoln lied in this, deducing it from circumstances

No. Deducting it logically from the necessity of individual events. To take an example - For Lincoln to convince Corwin to substitute language X for language Y on the amendment, it is first necessary that Lincoln himself know what X is. Since X was the text that passed and to which Lincoln referred on March 4th, it therefore follows that his familiarity with X entailed familiarity with the amendment itself. That much is inescapable, Walt, and I invite you to show otherwise.

and all you've done is show that YOU are the liar.

Your failure to substantiate that allegation permits me to reject it in a word.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. So there.

98 posted on 04/28/2002 4:25:54 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
At least our founding fathers recognized their actions for what they were - rebellion. They entered into their revolution knowing that it was not sanctioned under British law and knowing that they would have to fight for their freedom. They did not pretend that it was something that it was not, nor did they pitch a fit when the British put up a fight. Were that the confederates were so honest.
99 posted on 04/28/2002 5:12:47 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Mark17
Isn't that about what they did at the NYC draft riots?

I don't know. Were you at the NYC draft riots?

100 posted on 04/28/2002 5:14:19 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-248 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson