I’m not making the case for war. I am not justifying the war. Slavery ended most places in the western world without war. I am a fan of state secession. What I am not a fan of is excusing slave states and trying to divert attention the main issue at the root of the Civil War. They weren’t leaving for any other reason than they wanted to keep slavery. AS has proved it time and again in this thread in the words of the men of the South. To say otherwise is just plain wrong. Just because the South was wrong doesn’t make the Union right, and just because the South asserted powers I believe the South had to secede doesn’t make the South right.
It does not invalidate it. The South was wrong. I do not understand this constant argument some folks get in over the Civil War. A number of issues were involved. It included slavery and states rights. Too bad the southern states tried to defend their sovereignty on such a lousy, indefensible cause. They insisted on defending the violation of basic human rights.
That is true, but so what? If we are one people, then the confederate dead are American dead, confederate heroes are American heroes. If we are not one people, (and Alaska Slim certainly sees the south as a separate, less worthy entity) by what right was the south compelled to remain ‘united’ with the north? The loss of a few pieces of federal property located in the south, which were paid for by the south’s disproportionate contribution to federal revenues? That just doesn’t hold water.
Alaska Slim: What article and clause of the United States Constitution authorizes the federal government to compel continued participation?
Why are you distracting with this question, when you haven’t answered mine? The one I asked you first: Why should we ignore their ideas?
I say your question is distracting, because even if the Union was somehow wrong in how or why it waged war, it doesn’t change who the Confederates were, it doesn’t make their ideas any less evil, just as RWNJ pointed out.
The Soviet Union was an absolute bat**** nation, lead by terrible men who killed millions, but it didn’t make the cause of the Nazis any less unforgivable; not even when they were fighting off the Soviets to keep them from sacking Berlin, and raping their families.
Finding even one or a dozen sympathetic viewpoints to see the South in, does not forgive their ideology, it does not absolve them from rejecting Natural Law, it does not forgive the ideas they prescribed to God.
It is that ideology the monuments are built for, and it’s that ideology you force people to commemorate by building them.
When you force an African-American to support building a statue to Jefferson Davis, that is no different than forcing the Koreans to build statues to Hideki Tōjō , or the Tibetans of Mao Zedong, or the Congolese of Leopold II. Men who sought to dominate another race, and have those people “thank” them for the opportunity; in death, you allow them a victory over their victims they should never have.
I guess Alaska Slim cannot come up with a constitutional justification for union aggression, and the theoretical moral justification is defied by Lincoln’s own words. Yet he feels completely justified in demanding, at the point of a gun, that my tax dollars be used to maintain monuments to a constitution defying tyrant and his war criminal cohorts.
Slavery was a big issue but certainly not the only issue, there were strong economic motives too and states rights. The people of the South were Americans brought up in a traditional culture not drooling racist ideologues. Slavery was virtually universal since the dawn of civilization; the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries were a time of transition. Robert E. Lee owned slaves, as did many of the founding fathers, but did not like the system, likewise many of the same founding fathers. Lincoln would have gleefully accepted Lee to lead his forces but Lee was loyal to his country, the Commonwealth of Virginia.
AS seems to be saying that once you become part of the U.S. there’s no going back…ever, and for any reason. I failed to find ANYTHING in the Constitution which says anything even CLOSE to that. Yet, Lincoln seems to have ignored that and proceeded to apply economic pressure on the South anyway–virtually guaranteeing that secession would occur. Lincoln himself said that slavery wasn’t why the war occurred, but he “had” to “preserve the nation.” He COULD have done that without waging war…prior to secession…but chose to approve the blockades of Southern shipping and imposing unfair “trade” restrictions on the South. It’s probably, in retrospect, a good thing that the union was preserved, but the cost was enormous and denying that those who fought on the side of the South were ALSO “patriots” to their cause is simply wrong.
sure.there was some…but those crimes were actually punished by the confederate authorities. A lot like how the left gets away with murder today but you being conservative better not try it. Not so the North’s aggression and intent on punishment for the south.
It was the main issue. In none of the attempted peace conferences did the South bring up the Issue of Tariffs. They did bring up the issue of Homesteading in the Western places like Oklahoma, that was spreading the practice of free labor, and making large Slave-owning plantations obsolete.
> , there were strong economic motives too and states rights. The people of the South were Americans brought up in a traditional culture
With a caste system, just like Louisiana both during and after French control, just like South America and their long list of words for people of mixed ancestry.
Honor compelled Southern men to seek to be viewed as… honorable men. To that end, not being allowed to take their property where they willed, into the west or the Northern states, left the impression to men of the South that they were 2nd-class citizens in their own country. They hated this.
Equally, they hated the idea of grubby, greasy jobs being left to White people (there’s many rants about the horrible plight of “mechanics”), where they would exist at the bottom of the food chain. The proper thing to do was to have slaves you took care of do that work, instead of letting White men lead a meager, low-pay, un-honorable existence doing it.
I mentioned this before: Slavery as the amelioration of class warfare. That’s the lens they saw it through.
It’s all very intelligent, very articulate, couched in language of honor and nature— and very wrong.
Slavery was legal. Do you have a problem with the thousands of European slaves/indentured servants that came to this country. Slavery would have died anyway. And let me remind you that Mrs. Grant travelled behind the line to visit her husband during the war WITH HER SLAVE. Do you think slavery was only present in the south? Well THINK again.
The north, in order to seemingly take the moral highground says slavery was the issue. The issue was tariffs and State’s right. When the south lost, the north lost as well… But that’s liberals for ya. Can’t think past the ends of their noses.
Because it isn’t the issue we’re discussing. The issue is whether CSA monuments should be removed because of it.
> I don’t see how that post addresses the fact that AS aknowledged that the North had shortcomings and I’m seeing a dearth of the same from others in regard to the South.
It is not my purpose or desire to refute or excuse those well-documented shortcomings. I have no need to do so, because politically and economically the
North bore a significant portion of the responsibility for slavery. Northern politicians tolerated it, northern states profited from it, and northern Banks financed it, and all intended to allow it to continue to keep the money flowing. Politically and economically, the North was no better than a plantation owner living in his townhouse while his overseer kept the slaves in line ‘down on the farm’… until the overseer decided that if he was going to do all the work and pay all the bills, he’d keep the money and the farm. Hell, the north was never even the owner of the farm!
The north had multiple means and opportunities to occupy the moral high ground, and repeatedly refused them for the basest of reasons. Military, economic and political expedience are piss poor substitutes for moral courage.
That puts the USS Moral Crusade in itsy-bitsy pieces at the bottom of the sea. Now, if Slim can get the USS Constitutional Basis built, launched and armed (I seriously doubt that he can), we’ll see what she can salvo at the CSS Self Defense. Because if he can’t show how the north was legally or morally justified in invading, there exists no basis for denying men defending their homes against aggression monuments to their courage and sacrifice, or having denied them on the basis of a tangential moral failing, then demanding that those of us who still believe in federalism support maintaining monuments to the men (with their own moral failings) who destroyed it.
You want to blast Jeff Davis’s face off of Stone Mountain? Fine, blast Lincoln off Mount Rushmore.
> I don’t recall the South punishing slavery.
I believe she may have been referring to military atrocities, or the excesses by irregular forces in Missouri and Kansas and so forth. (Plenty of that on both sides, iirc.)
Yet as I said, tariffs mysteriously weren’t brought up during the attempted peace negotiations.
The Crittenden Compromise, the Corwin Amendment and the Washington Peace Conference, all three addressed only the slavery-related issues of fugitive slave laws, personal liberty laws, slavery in the territories and interference with slavery within the existing slave states.
“***In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War.***”
Historian Lee A. Craig
> and State’s right. When the south lost, the north lost as well… But that’s liberals for ya. Can’t think past the ends of their noses.
Funny you say liberal, after touting the Progressive school narrative of the Civil war.
“McPherson (2007) pp.4–7. James M. McPherson wrote in referring to the Progressive historians, the Vanderbilt agrarians, and revisionists writing in the 1940s, “***While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few historians now subscribe to them.”***”
It’s just as historically inaccurate as saying WWII solved the Great Depression.
Yet supported a containment strategy where Slavery would be eliminated overtime?
Supported the spread of Free labor to other states? Sought to contain the Slaves states power?
It seems to me qixlqatl, that you interpreted not taking immediate action, as not caring. That “long-term strategy” doesn’t enter into your thinking.
Keep in mind, what Lincoln offered the loyal Slave States after EmanProc, was precisely what they originally planned on offering the whole south: A deadline for when slavery would end, with a given time to adjust.
> Politically and economically, the North was no better than a plantation owner living in his townhouse while his overseer kept the slaves in line ‘down on the farm’… until the overseer decided that if he was going to do all the work and pay all the bills, he’d keep the money and the farm. Hell, the north was never even the owner of the farm!
> The north had multiple means and opportunities to occupy the moral high ground, and repeatedly refused them for the basest of reasons. Military, economic and political expedience are piss poor substitutes for moral courage.
> That puts the USS Moral Crusade in itsy-bitsy pieces at the bottom of the sea. Now, if Slim can get the USS Constitutional Basis built,
I already answered this: there is no set secession process. Which means one had to be negotiated, but the South decided it would attack, and simply take everything.
You also ignore geopolitical realities, and ignore the existence of Federal land, which the Constitution says nothing about.
You want it to be a clear-cut process, but we know it wasn’t.
**Regardless, this is a distraction you brought up to talk past me. **
The topic is why victims of the Southern Ideology, should be forced to support building statues of the men that oppressed them.
Building statues of Jefferson Davis is tactic support to the ideology; he was apart of it, I’ve quoted him here, there can be no denial of that.
> launched and armed (I seriously doubt that he can), we’ll see what she can salvo at the CSS Self Defense. Because if he can’t show how the north was legally or morally justified in invading, there exists no basis for denying men defending their homes against aggression monuments to their courage and sacrifice,
This logic doesn’t work, I already addressed this.
Even if you can come up with tangential, less controversial causes to attach to the statues, the connection to the ideology is still there. You can’t make that go away. By building images of the very men who voiced that ideology, there’s no possible way you can sever the connection.
You can’t make the ideas they fought for not matter here. That’s a selective read of both them and history, and people know it’s false.
AS - Try, as hard as that might be, to remember that the victorious write the history. That goes for economic history as well. Most REAL historians believed that, at the onset of the Civil War, the institution of slavery was on its way out; if for no other reason than that it was becoming economically unfeasible.
At what? Nothing you said negates what I said, and nothing you said contradicts the historians — neither of whom were of the period, so the “victory” comment here is invalid.
They’re bashing historians from the 1940s, who were revising history, trumping up the importance of tariffs.
As again, if tariffs were that important, it’s curious that the South didn’t bring them up as a condition of not seceding, but did bring up several issues surrounding slavery, ranging from interference, to fugitives, to the future of the West.