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.
No war is “solely” about anything—different interests in political power—and individual soldiers all have varying motivations, often as not noble or ignoble—depending on who we’re talking about.
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."
The North’s original reason for fighting, unhidden throughout the war, was indeed to preserve the union, period. I know of no student of history who denies this.
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."
As far as I remember, Lee was NOT the political head of the South, nor was he in any way involved in politics at all. Lee was a professional soldier. What Robert E. Lee thought or did about slavery has nothing to do with the reasons the whole South, under its political representatives chose to secede and chose to fight the war.
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?
It’s simple, as I stated above. The North’s original reason for fighting was to preserve the union; emancipation was most certainly a timely political act by Lincoln—even though from the 1840s onward, he was well known as an abolitionist.
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?
Again, like Lee, Sam Houston was not the political head of the South…only a retired governor of Texas. It’s perfectly logical that when their elected representatives voted to secede…and everyone assumed IF there was a war, it would be incredibly short, that all patriotic southerners, slave owner or not, would fight.
The South’s entire economic system was based on slavery…and knowledgeable people knew economic ruin would affect everyone—slave-owner, free whites, and slaves alike. Given that, to protect their very way of life, it makes perfect sense everyone would want to fight…to keep things as they were.
This is why EVERY state legislature which seceded, when they debated secession, had as their PRIMARY (yes, and not the only) issue, the new president’s well known opposition to slavery. They didn’t trust Lincoln not to at least weaken or subvert the institution of slavery…and there was way too much money—the economy and power of the whole South—riding on it, to stay in a Union the rest of which seemed set on ruining them. Besides they knew….that the U. S. Constitution they voluntarily joined, they could voluntarily leave…or so they thought they knew.
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.
OK, granted…and the same was true for Northern soldiers. These weren’t good enough reasons for the politicians though…representing entire economies…to vote for war though. Lee and the noble soldiers of the South, did NOT control their legislators vote to secede.
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.
Yep, goes to personal reasons for fighting, not political.
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 a proud son of the South too—descendent of a Confederate officer. However, its silly to deny the POLITICS behind Southern secession, the players which indeed had a realistic fear of having their states destroyed by an abolitionist president.
Slavery was why the governments of the South left… Union was why the North fought to stop them. And yes, Lincoln, like most anyone white (or black) was racist at that time…so what?
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.
But the Confederate flag waved only over those who, however noble their personal reasons, had formed a country, the basis of which was the continuation of slavery. READ THE SECESSION DEBATES… The state legislators seceded to protect slavery, period. It doesn’t take away the bravery and nobility of the soldiers—that they were ultimately used to fight in a war started for not the most noble reasons. Most wars have as their main original cause…foolishness.
Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.
And it also represented the nation which ended slavery—after a re-unification bought with much blood. North’s original reason for fighting, unhidden throughout the war, was indeed to preserve the union, I know of no student of history who denies this.
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?
Unfortunately, yes. The swastika was an ancient symbol with a noble history, until it was hijacked by the Nazis. Because of how offensive it is—particularly to certain ethnic groups—we wouldn’t think of flying it now, even though I’m sure there were thousands of noble German soldiers, who fought and even died for what they honestly believed was a very noble cause. No, the parallel isn’t as extreme—however RARE is the African American who is friendly toward the memory of the Confederacy. You may say they’re mistaken…and they should be proud of the flag of those who fought to keep things as they were…with them in chains. I wager though, black Americans will never see things that way. If you value the opinions the colored however—you’ll retire the Confederate colors. If you don’t care what blacks think however I think you prove yourself to be what you most vociferously deny: A racist.
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?
The cross was never used solely by a group like the KKK. Its very wide PEACEFUL use, by all kinds of people, make it a universal Christian symbol. Now the twisted cross of the Nazis…well, see above.
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 one that I know of—in official government capacity at least—is denigrating the service of Confederate soldiers. Alexandria Virginia, just 10 minutes outside DC has a confederate memorial in the middle of it…as do most all Southern towns of any size.
No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.
Just who is lobbying to tear down monuments? Taking down a flag, is not tearing down a monument.
Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie.
I certainly agree with that…as has the “lost cause” movement—which ignored why the states voted to secede, focusing only on personal reasons—which don’t form the foundation of war.
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.
Agreed, if that doesn’t include flags which insult huge portions of our society.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As a state senator, he sponsored legislation establishing the June tenth Commission for the purpose of funding a Juneteenth monument on the Texas Capitol grounds.
BTTT