Civil War

[JGrubbs]

Here is a vignette from the 19th century memoirs of a Civil War veteran. Like millions of white southerners, this writer never owned a slave and held slaveowners in contempt. Yet he viewed the struggle against the North as a holy cause to preserve the republic’s Constitution, and passionately joined the battle against the invaders.

http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net/Articles/History/WSI/was_it_only_about_slavery.html

 

[TWade]

Thanks for the links.

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
I think the defeat of the Confederacy marked the begining of the loose interpretation of the Constitution and the death of States rights. We are moving closer to the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA. The USA would probably have moved more quicker to the socialist Big Government ideas without the Southern states right influence. I think both the GOP and the present day Democrat party show the fruits of the Big government ideas of Lincoln. If the South won, the CSA would have been able to peacefully end slavery as every other society did and hopefully have a Jefffersonian Republic. I could imagine that while in the North the Big Government parties of the GOP and the Democrats turned the USA into a Socialist republic IN the South the Constitution Party and the Libertarian party would battle for control of Confederate congress and Presidency.

Well, Just a few thoughts!

A beautiful post, Kiffin. We can dream, can't we?

Lady Eagle,
Stonewall's distant cousin on my father's side...so I've been told.

 

[rsr]

Like millions of white southerners, this writer never owned a slave and held slaveowners in contempt.

Yep, read it. It only proves that they were no more resistant to self delusion than we are.

Whites who didn't own slaves were still bound up in the slavery system; they caught runaways, sold groceries to slave caravans and, most of all, considered slavery the ultimate social safety net: As bad as things are for us, we're not slaves.

Kiffin said (and I always disagree with him regretfully):

If the South won, the CSA would have been able to peacefully end slavery as every other society did and hopefully have a Jefffersonian Republic.

There is no evidence the South would have abolished slavery peacefully, as the debates on secession prove. It was the core of economic and social life in the South and could only be abolished with great hazard to the ruling class. (As the civil rights movement proved a century later.)

 

[rsr]

Experience has proved that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people can ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things. The fairest portions of the world elsewhere, have been turned into wildernesses, and the most civilized and prosperous communities have been impoverished and ruined by anti-slavery fanaticism. The people of the North have not left us in doubt as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late Presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy, one who has openly declared that all the States of the United States must be made free States or slave States. It is true, that amongst those who aided in his election, there are various shades of anti-slavery hostility. But if African slavery in the Southern States be the evil their political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic must lead them to emancipation. If it is right to preclude or abolish slavery in a Territory, why should it be allowed to remain in the States? The one is not at all more unconstitutional than the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And when it is considered that the Northern States will soon have the power to make that Court what they please, and that the Constitution never has been any barrier whatever to their exercise of power, what check can there be, in the unrestrained counsels of the North, to emancipation? There is sympathy in association, which carries men along without principle; but when there is principle, and that principle is fortified by long existing prejudices and feelings, association is omnipotent in party influences. In spite of all disclaimers and professions, there can be but one end by the submission of the South to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be - the emancipation of the slaves of the South. The hypocrisy of thirty years - the faithlessness of their whole course from the commencement of our union with them, show that the people of the non-slaveholding North are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South, under a common Government.

The Address does not set forth as I think it should to the world what would be the necessary effects of emancipation; that it would be destruction of the black, the degradation of the white; that there must be a continuance of slavery, or the degradation of both races, or absolute extermination of the black; that humanity for the slave States alone requires that this condition should be continued, and those who choose to interfere pragmatically and officiously with our social structure have no justice; none of these considerations are set forth in the Address.

When they, too, with shameful hypocrisy, cry out sin, the sin of slavery, yet do not choose to relieve themselves by withdrawal from the Confederacy, will they cry sin against us and perpetuate a monstrous enormity and violate that agreement as a means of extricating themselves from that responsibility which they choose to assume in this matter. Therefore I think it is that these matters ought to be deliberately considered, as I feel there is no necessity for the immediate adoption of either Address. When they go forth, they should go forth as a solemn edict -- as a solemn State paper by which we must stand. Every word in these papers should be most carefully considered. They should contain nothing superfluous, and nothing important should be omitted.

Judge D.L. Wardlaw, debate over South Carolina's secession

Under such a state of things the probability is, that emancipation would soon follow, without any final act to abolish slavery. The depressing effects of such measures on the white race at the South, and the hope they would create in the black of a speedy emancipation, would produce a state of feeling inconsistent with the much longer continuance of the existing relations between the two. But be that as it may, it is certain, if emancipation did not follow, as a matter of course, the final act in the States would not be long delayed. The want of constitutional power would oppose a feeble resistance. The great body of the North is united against our peculiar institution. Many believe it to be sinful, and the residue, with inconsiderable exceptions, believe it to be wrong. Such being the case, it would indicate a very superficial knowledge of human nature, to think that, after aiming at abolition, systematically, for so many years, and pursuing it with such unscrupulous disregard of law and Constitution, that the fanatics who have led the way and forced the great body of the North to follow them, would, when the finishing stroke only remained to be given, voluntarily suspend it, or permit any constitutional scruples or considerations of justice to arrest it. To these may be added an aggression, though not yet commenced, long meditated and threatened: to prohibit what the abolitionists call the internal slave trade, meaning thereby the transfer of slaves from one State to another, from whatever motive done, or however effected. Their object would seem to be to render them worthless by crowding them together where they are, and thus hasten the work of emancipation. There is reason for believing that it will soon follow those now in progress, unless, indeed, some decisive step should be taken in the mean time to arrest the whole.

South Carolina's Address to the South

Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity.

Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention

Now, these statements were made upon the election of Lincoln, who although opposed slavery, never lifted a finger to abolish it in the South until military necessity convinced him to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Being an Alabama boy, a State's Rightist, and living in Ireland where the nations are slowly but surely giving away their sovereignty to to the EU, I think I would have fought for the South.

 

[Dr. Bob]

America lost the Civil War. Sadly.

Looks like the poll results show that Robert E. Lee Griffin would be in fine company today!

 

[Ben W]

Dr Bob, just wondering if you have seen the movie "Cold Mountain" that starred Jude Law and Nicole Kidman?

 

[Dr. Bob]

They asked me to be in the movie, but with my health challenges (like not being able to walk last summer when they were shooting) I could not.

I was in "Far and Away" with Nicole back in the early 90's. She is a porcelin doll.

I make movies, but as an old-fashioned ifb'er, I eschew the movie theater. Will watch "Cold Mountain" when it's out on DVD.

[In passing, typical moderate cosmetics like 99% of the women today wear would have been only used by HARLOTS in 1860! All of my unit who have seen the movie say the clothes are authentic but the make up 2004 Hollywood!]

 

[ScottEmerson]

Born in Florida, grew up in Florida and Alabama, would have fought furiously for the Union. I've got too many black friends. In fact, I'd probably be helping with the Underground Railroad and preaching against slavery to whoever would listen.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Scott,

I don't think "black friends" is the issue. I have loads as well. The issue was the disintegration of state sovereignty and the establishment of a national level hegemony.

I too would have been preaching against slavery.

 

[JGrubbs]

The subject of Black Southerners who served in the War for Southern Independence is a missing chapter in American history. Over the last century, only a small number of books have addressed this subject - an amazing phenomenon when we consider that many War Between the States topics are covered literally hundreds and thousands of times.

As Edward Smith, Dean of Minority Affairs and Professor of History at American University, remarked in the August 1991 edition of The Civil War News, "to admit that blacks actually fought for a cause which in the minds of many 20th century Americans now stands exclusively for slavery and oppression is unacceptable to many in the country concerned with only politics and not with the realities of historical record."

SOURCE

In Mississippi on Feb. 1, 1890 an appropriation for a monument to the Confederate dead was being considered. A delegate had just spoken against the bill, when John F. Harris, a Negro Republican delegate from Washington, County, rose to speak:

"Mr. Speaker! I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill. I have come from a sick bed. Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come. But sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own. I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentlemen from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines, and in the Seven Day's fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made the speech. When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my old MISSUS! Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in HONOR OF THE CONFEDERATE DEAD."

When the applause died down, the measure passed overwhelmingly, and every Negro member voted "AYE".

SOURCE

A Modern Day Black Confederate

H.K. Edgerton was formerly the President of the Asheville, North Carolina NAACP and a long time advocate for the disadvantaged and others left out of the mainstream of society. HK could be seen almost everyday walking down the street counseling young people to stay off of drugs, running drug dealers out of the area as he tried to help the poor and unrepresented in Asheville, NC. He gradually learned about the truthfulness of the Southern Cause and Southern heritage through his brother Terry Lee, who was the family's first Confederate. Although Terry Lee's ideas and true understanding of history and politics was on occasion an embarrassment to the President of the Asheville NAACP, over time HK began to realize that Terry was right. HK Edgerton's embracement of the cause of truth in history and heritage for all the people of Dixie has propelled him into the public limelight here in NC and now all across the United States.

Mr. Edgerton is an honorary life member of the Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and an honorary member of the Zebulon Vance Camp # 15 in Asheville, NC and the Morganton NC Camp # 836

SOURCE

 

[ScottEmerson]

My black friends weren't too fond of slavery, and several of them can find direct ancestors who were freed as a result of the end of slavery. I still would be fighting many of you to end slavery.

It's sad, really, that people discount slavery as being a factor in the South's secession. People can come up with as many "state's rights" issues as they want, but the main right of the states they were upset about was the reality of slavery in the South.

And I'm a big fan of federal government myself, so I don't have an issue there, either. To imagine what Florida would do if it could do what it wanted without national supervision is frightening to me.

 

[JGrubbs]

You are right that slavery was a issue in the War for Southern Independence, but even Abraham Lincoln admited that it was not the main issue. A mere month before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln wrote to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley that his "paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

And as you can see in my previous post, there were, and still are, black confederates who supported and continue to support the side of the South in the War Between the States.

 

[Daisy]

My parents were both from Texas, but I was born in Montana. We moved to Houston when I was 4 years old. The welcoming committee of neighborhood kids beat me up for being a "yankee" (anyone not a rebel, by default to them, was a yankee). It was six years before we moved from that hellhole.

I think I'd've moved West or become an Abolitionist. My sister and her family would have probably been confederates. They don't fly the flag, but they do make disparaging remarks about yankees.

A question for you rebs: do you all say the "Pledge of Allegiance" willingly? Does the part "one nation, under God, indivisible" bother you?

Also, do Missourians consider themselves Southern?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That pledge came almost 100 years after the war. The Feds proved their point, the nation is indivisible and states have lost virtually all rights.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
That pledge came almost 100 years after the war. The Feds proved their point, the nation is indivisible and states have lost virtually all rights.

What is notable about the history of the pledge is the conjunction of socialism and nationalism. There’s nothing overly socialistic about the wording of the pledge, after all it mentions God and notably does not include any reference to equality. On the other hand the pledge is explicitly nationalistic, going so far as to call what was once a confederation of sovereign states "one nation…indivisible."

At face value it might seem that only an unreconstructed "neo-Confederate" could object to the word "indivisible." Walter Williams, for example, refuses to say that word during the pledge. But it’s not just because he is a Southerner. Rather he knows that the Founding Fathers – or at least the anti-federalists like George Mason – would never recognize any republic as "indivisible." The United States were born in an act of secession, after all. An act of treason, in fact, which makes the notion of a pledge of allegiance more than a little ironic. If our revolutionary forefathers had had the kind of loyalty ethic embodied by the pledge, there wouldn’t be an America for anyone to pledge allegiance to.

SOURCE

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by rsr:
My point is that you can't answer with definitiveness unless you know where you might have been at the time.

Then I guess you consider the premise of this thread to be meaningless. Fair enough.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
That pledge came almost 100 years after the war. The Feds proved their point, the nation is indivisible and states have lost virtually all rights.

The original version, "..one nation, indivisible.." was written in 1892, not quite a hundred years later.

So, that would be a 'no' for you and a 'yes' for NP?

 

[LadyEagle]

A question for you rebs: do you all say the "Pledge of Allegiance" willingly? Does the part "one nation, under God, indivisible" bother you?

One of the first things they taught me in "sales" -

A piece of the pie is better than none.