[Truthsearcher]

Okay, this might cause some heated responses by I am most definitely not trolling, but looking for an honest debate on this topic.

I am surprised by the amount of sympathy on Freerepublic for the South in discussions about the Civil War.

Now I understand the States rights argument, and I understand conservatives tend to stand in favor of strong States rights. But to me when it comes to the Civil War the states right position is as untenous as the woman's right to choose position on abortion.

There can be no legitimate right for a state to enforce slavery on her people any more than there can be a legitimate right for a woman to kill her unborn child. To me in both cases intervention is necessary to protect the life and liberty of those so oppressed, even if force is necessary.

We conservatives often assert that the "pro-choice" movement is in reality "pro-abortion", and rightly so. So I don't see any way to get around the same logic that would consider being "pro-choice" in the matter of states deciding for themselves on the issue of slavery is the same thing as being pro-slavery.

[Damagro]

I don't know about anyone else , but, I have 3 great grandfathers who fought in that war. Two for the south one for the north. None were slaveowners , just dirt farmers. I wish I could pick teir minds for reasons why. All indications are that it went deeper than slavery. One of those mysteries we'll never know for sure. I'm not ashamed of any one of them though

[takenoprisoner]

The dates are a clue to what you seek.

On 11-06-1860 Lincoln was elected president.

On December 20 1860, just a month later, South Carolina secedes.

Then on April 12, 1861 the first shot of the civil war was fired at Fort Sumter as the southern states were in rebellion against unfair taxation.

Then finally, on Sept 22, 1862 as as afterthought to further justify his war against the south, Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation nearly two years after South Carolina had seceded and over a year and half after the war between the states had begun.

Now you can begin to search for the truth.

[PAR35]

Have you compared what the Confederacy said about importation of slaves in its Constitution with what the Union Constitution said at that time?

Article I, Sec. 9 of the Confederate Constitution:
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.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Union Constitution:

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Because most people are not able to recognize that two sides of an argument can both be wrong. We are used to finding the "bad guy" and, when we do so, immediately siding with his opponent, who must be on the side of angels.

As someone born, raised, and who has lived most of his life in the capital of the Confederacy, someone who can trace his family tree back to Civil War heroes and Civil War deserters, I will be the first to say that the Old South was not a perfect place. It had very good traits to a degree: it's independence, nobility, and hospitality (as well as its generals...who were unequalled in US history). It also contained the massive evil of slavery, and many men supported it for their own selfish reasons.

As for the Northern States, they also had many good attributes. And they also were perfectly willing to exploit men for their own profit. The few who did reject slavery (and it was a small number... read about it sometime) were able to do so because it did not affect their bottom line. They had other ways to exploit workers for their own gain. And Lincoln's destruction of the Constitution, and the subsequent expansion of the Federal government, has been a great evil indeed.

So, as I see it, those who argue for the South on FR minimize the issue of slavery so as to oppose the very real evil done to our Constitution, whereas the Northern arguers do the opposite. Obviously the folks who supported your side way back when couldn't have been just as bad as their enemies... could they?

Frankly, I think the whole thing is a waste of time. No one can gain a single scintilla of moral authority by siding with anyone in a conflict long gone, though many would like to do so. If you believe that somehow you are a better person because you romanticize the South, or the North (you listening, WhiskeyPapa?), then you are far too pitiful to be worth arguing with. It is as idiotic as arguing who was more rightfully the king of England in 1066AD: William of Normandy or Harold of England.

We are measured by the challenges we face TODAY, not by our positions on those long gone. Your stance on the upcoming War with Iraq says far more about your character than a hundred passionate defenses of Dixie or Lincoln. In fact, I think the desire to re-argue the past is a sign of a person who cannot face the present... or future. And they deserve our pity...

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I don't see your connection between The War For Southern Independence (use of the term "Civil War" for the conflict is inaccurate, insomuch as all other civil wars in history have been conflicts between opposing factions within one country for control of that country, whereas the Confederacy never sought to control the United States) and abortion.

There can be no legitimate right for a state to enforce slavery on her people, now, in 2003, after some 140 years of social evolution; back then such was not the case. Slaves were valuable property, and the protection of private property is the principle purpose of government. The institution of slavery was legal in several states in 1860, among which were Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri, where slavery continued several months after it's abolition in the conquered states. Slavery existed legally in the British Colonies from their founding until 1833, and in the United States from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 until some time late in 1865, when the 13th Amendment went into effect, a period of 89 years. Slavery existed in the Confederate States of America from February, 1861 to June, 1865, a period of 4 years and 4 months.

The concept that slavery was not a natural condition of much of humanity is a new one in the history of the human race. Slavery was not invented in the American South, and the idea that slaves should be freed did not originate in the North. Repugnant as the idea is to us, today, in 2003, the concept of one man owning another human being just as he would a horse or any other species of livestock was not considered out of the ordinary anywhere in the world until late in the 18th Century.

The tendency to condemn the people of the past because they were not as enlightened as we are is all part of an agenda to trivialize the achievements of our Founders as the work of "dead White guys who were slave owners," for the purpose of generating more "white guilt" and quashing patriotism and reverence for the Constitution.

[Southack]

Do you want to know the truth, or do you just want to see a bunch of teeth-gnashing?!

The truth, which neither side ever accepted, was that:

1. The North was morally right (e.g. slavery was unethical) and militarily right (e.g. might makes right, a united America is better able to deal with European/Asian troubles, et al),

and

2. The South was legally right. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution reserve the right to secede to the states. Slavery was likewise ruled legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Thus, both sides marched headlong into war "knowing" that they were right and that their brothers were wrong; a dispute that sometimes still smolders even to this very day.

In fact, Leftists like to dredge up the issue in their many attempts to further divide America. They love to paint slavery and Confederate imagery as grossly evil on the one hand, and on the other hand they love to show the South in a sympathetic light (especially that the South was noble but "wronged") in their articles, books, and movies.

But they don't do so because they think that the South was right. No, they do so in the hopes to further drive a wedge between various Conservatives (North and South, Black and White) in America.

To the Lefties, the more that they can bring up this national wound, the better (as many useful idiots will jump on board various bandwagons to add yet more salt to the old wounds)...

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

Do you think these slaves suddenly appeared out of no where onto Southern cotton plantations? The real villains who started it all were the New England slave traders, financed by New York bankers, who used specially constructed ships to transport slaves from Africa.

Countless slaves died before the ships reached America and their corpses were unceremoniously tossed into the ocean. Those who survived the harsh crossing were sold primarily to planters in the Caribbean; roughly 90%, and the South; roughly 10%.

New England’s exploitation of slaves was one of America’s best kept secrets until fairly recently. But now some historians refuse to comply with the conspiracy of silence and they are showing us New England’s dirty linen. One of these historians is Joanne Pope Melish and her recent book, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860 exposes what has been called "a virtual amnesia about slavery in New England."

America slavery did indeed begin in New England with Massachusetts being the first colony to legalize the use of slaves in 1641. Other colonies quickly followed suit and soon New England’s economy was almost dependent upon slave labor. At first, captured American Indians were exchanged for black slaves from the West Indies. But eventually New Englanders realized that slave trading was more profitable than harpooning whales. "At New England slavery's peak, around 1760, roughly one in four families owned slaves" which is the same percentage of families in the South owning slaves just prior to the War.

People who live in glass houses should take care when casting that first stone.

[billhilly]

Most of us will agree with you. It is long past time for the slaves to be set free. We can't tolerate this anymore.

[u-89]

To agree that the southern states had the right to leave the union is not to support slavery or out of racial prejudice as many detractors contend, they do that either out of ignorance or to maliciously obfuscate from the facts of the matter. Many conservatives today see all the evils in this country all as the result of FDR but the trouble goes back much further, the country as set up by the founders was dealt a death blow by Lincoln. His success was the beginning of the centralized state and the decline of freedom as well as the birth of corporate welfare and the insidious relationship between big business and government. Of course many conservatives excuse the wrongs of the War Between the States because of its success at keeping the union together which they see as the greatest good. These people have a loyalty to the concept of nation and geography over the love of liberty. The idea of support for the south goes to the concept of liberty and self determination not that the south was correct in the make up of its society. Of course many conservatives defend Lincoln because they are loyal Republicans and see the party as representing limited government, they fail to see how the Republicans started out as the party of big government. BTW my grandfather's grandfather lost a leg fighting with the Union forces. My grandfather used to tell me how his grandfather had to sit down on the floor and shimmy down staircases.

P.S. The "Civil War" as you call it is a misnomer. A civil war by definition is when two or more groups vie for the sole control of the government of a country. The south seceded from the Union so a more correct name for the war could be the war between the states though I prefer The War of Northern Aggression myself. "Civil War" is more propaganda put forward by the winners so we could feel better about ourselves.

[turbojugend]

I dunno. Perhaps the fact that Lincoln had no right to do what he did in enforcing union and consolidation via military and dictatorial means. Since you want to write off states' rights so badly, answer me this: what in the constitution says that once in the union, a state may never leave?

[jrushing]

You wonder why there is sympathy for us? We fought the good fight. We fought for what we believed in even if it was (considered?) wrong. We have been ridiculed by people of the north for over 140 years. We have been called every sort of despicable name that you can think of but we still stand tall. We are strong people. We are survivors. We have built our region from devastation to a huge economic power. We still respect our elders, we still say "yes mamm & yes sir." We together, black & white, have produced some of the greatest heroes, poets, musicians, writers, & others in this country. Yes, we still have our stars & bars but we are quick to raise up the Stars & Stripes & stand behind our Country. We are Americans First but you have to remember that we are also Southerners. Our country fought against the USA. We have relatives who died fighting. We were defeated and occupied. We are proud of who we are. We don't want sympathy but we do generate respect.
Maybe you have confused sympathy with Respect.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Why sympathy for the South? Because many of us are from the south, had ancestors who fought for the south and understand that the civil war wasn't entirely about slavery, not to mention that the North was quite racist itself. That's all.

[davetex]

How do you spell series?

[billbears]

There can be no legitimate right for a state to enforce slavery on her people

Well abe sure didn't agree with you.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.--abraham lincoln First Inaugural Address

Which begs the question if the original Thirteenth Amendment was backed by him, and had passed the Senate, what was the war over again?

[stainlessbanner]

You have already lost the debate. By assuming the war was about slavery, you have closed off other perspectives.

This narrow interpretation of the War fails to account for political issues, economic factors, regional/cultural differences, taxation, constitutional rights, etc. Yours is an abolitionist view. The tendancy to simply the cause of the War is an injustice.

[Teacher317]

Note that almost every Constitutional Amendment before 1865 featured some variation of the notion "Congress may not"... and almost every Amendment since then has featured some variation of the phrase "Congress shall have the power".

[FreedomCalls]

Why the sympathy for Taiwan? Aren't they a country full of evil oppressors of the working class? Maybe Beijing should just nuke them all and reclaim the island in the name of progession?

[Monitor]

Results from the 1860 Census

Percentage of Families Owning Slaves
Union Aligned States - 8%
Confederate Aligned States - 31%

So, those who state that few people in the south owned slaves are liars. Thirty one percent, by any measure, doesn't constitute 'few'.

Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Read, in their own words, why they ceceded - slavery figures prominently.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America

Article I, Section 9
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The states were forbidden the right of choosing for themselves whether or not to outlaw slavery. Which shows the whole 'states rights' arguement for what it is - a lie.

While you are reading the Confederate Constitution, pay special attention to how many times you see 'slave', 'slavery', and 'slave owner', and DON'T SEE 'states rights'. It will tell you a great deal about what their pre-occupation really was.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson & Slavery in Virginia

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority; and this, as far as my suffrage [vote and support] will go, shall never be wanting [lacking]." - George Washington

"In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live [Albemarle County, Virginia], and so continued until it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal [crown] government, nothing [like this] could expect success." - Thomas Jefferson

[x]

There's "sympathy" and "sympathy." I have empathy with Southerners for their sufferings in the 1860s. I also have a liking for underdogs and an admiration for those who aspire to chivalry or gentility. But the more I learn about the Civil War, the less sympathy I have for the Confederate regime. It was a horribly bad, unjustified, and destructive idea.

Most of those who do have such sympathy with the secessionsists are either showing regional loyalty or projecting today's conflicts back on the past. There's also a desire to find a "point at which everything went wrong" separating an idealized past from the horrible present. But the values and institutions of the South today are very different from what they were 140 years ago. And political conflicts today are very different from the debates and disputes of those days. I also don't think one can characterize all American history as a conflict between good, decentralizing Jeffersonianism and evil, centralizing Hamiltonians or Lincolnians.

There's much of value in the Jeffersonian legacy of freedom, but given a free rein, the anti-Federalists of 1787 and the secessionists of 1861 would have made things worse, not better. We don't see the dangers of anarchy today, because the threat of centralization or tyranny is greater, but there are also dangers from disunity and chaos, and earlier generations saw them clearly

[Centurion2000]

some of us are tired of the culture wars being perpetrated against the South.