Looking back at the Confederacy with modern eyes

Fort Worth Star-Telegram ^ | January 22, 2007 | JERRY PATTERSON (Texas Land Commisioner)

[Dog Gone]

Any attempt to judge our history by today's standards -- out of the context in which it occurred -- is at best problematic and at worst dishonest.

For example, consider the following quotations:

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished."

"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

By today's standards, the person who made the first statement, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, would be considered enlightened. The person who made the second, President Abraham Lincoln, would be considered a white supremacist.

Many believe that the War Between the States was solely about slavery and that the Confederacy is synonymous with racism. That conclusion is faulty because the premise is inaccurate.

If slavery had been the sole or even the predominant issue in sparking the Civil War, this statement by Lincoln is puzzling: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it."

If preserving slavery was the South's sole motive for waging war, why did Lee free his slaves before the war began? In 1856, he said slavery was "a moral and political evil in any country."

Why was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863 rather than when the war started in 1861? And why did it free only the slaves in the Confederacy and not in Northern or border states?

If slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, how do you explain Texas Gov. Sam Houston's support for the Union and for the institution of slavery? In light of the fact that 90 percent of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, is it logical to assume they would have put their own lives at risk so that slave-owning aristocrats could continue their privileged status?

There are few simple and concise answers to these questions.

One answer, however, is that most Southerners' allegiance was to their sovereign states first and the Union second. They believed that states freely joined the Union without coercion and were free to leave.

You could say they really believed in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the "powers not delegated" clause. They believed that the federal government should be responsible for the common defense, a postal service and little else. They viewed the Union Army as an invader, not an emancipator.

I am not attempting to trivialize slavery. It is a dark chapter in our history, North and South alike.

However, I am a proud Southerner and a proud descendent of Confederate soldiers. I honor their service because, to me, it represents the sacrifice of life and livelihood that Southerners made for a cause more important to them than their personal security and self-interest.

I'm aware of the genocidal war conducted by my country against the American Indian, but I'm still a proud American. And I'm also aware of the atrocities that occurred at My Lai, but I am proud of my service as a Marine in Vietnam.

If the Confederate flag represented slavery, the U.S. flag must represent slavery even more so.

Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.

If the few hundred members of racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan want to adopt the Confederate flag as their symbol, over the objections of millions of Southerners, should we believe it has been corrupted for all time?

Given that the KKK has adopted the cross for its burnings, should churches across the country remove this symbol of Christian faith from all places of worship?

Should we diminish the service of the Buffalo Soldiers (black U.S. cavalry troopers of the late 1800s) because they were an integral part of a war that subjugated and enslaved the Plains Indians?

No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.

Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie. We should memorialize and commemorate all of our soldiers who served honorably -- those who wore blue or gray or served as Buffalo Soldiers -- whether or not we in today's enlightened world completely support their actions.

---

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As a state senator, he sponsored legislation establishing the Juneteenth Commission for the purpose of funding a Juneteenth monument on the Texas Capitol grounds.

[B.O. Plenty]

See 18

[M. Espinola]

With all the problems confronting America attempting to somehow revive the principal reason for triggering the Civil War as some sort of 'noble cause' only serves to further divide this nation.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

One answer, however, is that most Southerners' allegiance was to their sovereign states first and the Union second. They believed that states freely joined the Union without coercion and were free to leave.

Prior to he Civil War, the verb "are" or "were" followed "the United States" in gramatically correct construction. That is because the US was merely a loose confederation of states at the time.

Robert E. Lee often wrote or spoke of "my country"--by which, he meant the state of Virginia. Virginia was his country, according to the norms of the time. And since "My country, right or wrong" was the prevailing sentiment at the time, it is no surprise that Lee turned down a commission with the US Army in order to fight for his "country" of Virginia--even though he expressed the belief, from the very beginning, that Virginia had embarked upon a suicidal course by seceding.

[onyx]

Book marked.
Excellent catch and posting.

[Dog Gone]

Slavery was obviously a large contributing factor to the Civil War, but it was hardly the only factor. The north and south were divided on a number of issues and the conflict might have occurred even if slaves never were part of the picture.

[Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver]

No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.

Nor should we surrender the American flag. America is a great country, but it is not a perfect country. At times, Americans have been wrong in the past, present and will, at times, be wrong in the future. Americans are wrong on big issues sometimes. But part of what makes America great is the fact that things can be improved here and have been improved upon. We should not throw away every great accomplishment because of a few great mistakes.

[JDoutrider]

Bump for later...

[Clintonfatigued]

If slavery was not an important reason for the South's succession, then why didn't the South abolish slavery on its own accord? No one was forcing them to be slave states.

[Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver]

Overweening federal control could very well spark another secessionist movement, this time with much different results.

I agree that big government is taking over Americans' lives more than ever before, but I think this new internal war will not be regional, but will be fought by the scattered masses of freedom-minded individuals from all over our great nation.

[RebelBanker]

I have read a number of late 18th century and early 19th century writings that refer to "these United States." As you astutely pointed out, "United States" was plural until the War Between the States settled the question of supremacy of State or Federal law.

[Ode To Ted Kennedys Liver]

And yet the Border wars between Missouri and Kansas was all about whether Kansas would be a free or slave state.

Free or slave was a matter of which economic structure would hold up.

[TN4Liberty]

"With all the problems confronting America attempting to somehow revive the principal reason for triggering the Civil War as some sort of 'noble cause' only serves to further divide this nation."

One could argue equally logically that denying the nobility of the cause is equally devisive. I guess what you see depends on where you stand.

[dbwz]

*

[RebelBanker]

A number of military leaders in the Confederate Army opined the same thing.

The nations that abolished slavery peacefully all had a plan that compensated the former slave owners for their loss of property. I do not remember the exact numbers, but the value of the slaves owned represented a fairly significant portion of the wealth in the 'slave' states. Wiping out that amount of wealth by law would have completely collapsed the economy in the impacted areas.

[contemplator]

Grant didn't say that there weren't other factors, in fact he mentions having weighed them before coming to his conclusion.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but to say that the civil war might have occurred without slavery being in the picture is a bit of a stretch. It kind of like saying someone might have gotten hit by lightning even if they weren't holding a lightning rod while standing in a mud puddle. Yes, it's statistically possible but not very probable.

A lot of work, compromises and several presidents devoted much of their time prior to the civil war in hopes of preventing it, in the end it always boiled down to the issue of slavery wich led inexorably to the war.

[Dog Gone]

With all the problems confronting America attempting to somehow revive the principal reason for triggering the Civil War as some sort of 'noble cause' only serves to further divide this nation.

I don't think that's what he was trying to do. I think he was trying to defend the symbols of the Confederacy as being worthy of preservation.

I think there's a difference.

[BnBlFlag]

......"only serves to further divide this nation".

Well, if they would leave our Southern Heritage and Symbols alone, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

[theBuckwheat]

Where to start?

The Tariff of Abomination? Originally passed in 1828, just a very few months before the war? No almost two generations before. A tax that fell mostly on the South to the benefit of the north, a tax rate upwards of 45 percent.

But more importantly a tax so important to the north, that in his first inaugural address, he declared:

"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."

While at the same time, declaring:

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

(see: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html)

Or in other words, if you keep paying the Tariff, we will not have to invade.

The South opened the war by bombardment of Ft. Sumter. What is the importance of this federal facility? "Because it was a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs."

from: http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/cw2.shtml

If anyone cares to really read the Emancipation Proclamation, they will find that Lincoln only freed slaves in territories that had seceded. You will note that specific parishes in Louisiana are listed. They were loyal to the Confederacy The other parishes where loyal to the Union.

"...I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free;..."

see:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

Slaves that were not in the areas so designated were not covered by it.

Of course, the winner gets to write the history of the war. And in this case the winner also runs all the schools and they are staffed by people who liked the winner's story. That does not alter the facts, or the real history of this war.

Worse, the war formed the basis to destroy the concept that the Federal Government was the agent of the states. This inverted the relationship. If no state could escape the central government, the state was the servant and the federal government the sovereign master. And ever since that day, the centralization of power has only been more finely perfected to the great destruction of our liberties and freedoms.

[artifax]

Sam Watkins

[calex59]

Yes, the majority of people claim the war was fought over slavery, but in reality the was was fought over whether states had the right to seceed from the union, which they did. The firing on Fort Sumptner was contrived so as to start a war and bring the southern states back into the Union. Slavery was what we see now but what was the truth was it was fought over the states right to seceed from the union.