Posted on 10/01/2010 4:15:03 PM PDT by BigReb555
We do have more important matters to deal with.
I extend my hand out to you.
:-)
Washington's statement was true in many regards in 1796, in the sense of those who shared the hardships of the Revolution. But note, too the initial Federal Government was under the Articles of Confederation, which preserved a great deal of State Soverignty, and only later, the Untied States' Constitiution, which still reserved a great deal of Rights and duties to the States and the People.
That Federal Government was well constrained.
Those who joined an Army, generally joined a State Militia, and served under the orders of the officers appointed by that State's Governor. The Federal (standing) Army was relatively small.
The States were, after all, united for the purpose of providing a common defense, and an outside threat would be well met.
By 1850, much had changed, and the geopolitical divisions between the states were sharp indeed.
Those boundaries are perhaps most evident in the Presidential election map of a decade later.
We are, in a sense, there again, with some areas of the country politically at loggerheads with others, exhibiting vast cultural differences, and far from united by "...religion, manners, habits, and political principles...", despite the homogenization imposed by Federalized Public Education and mass media.
If I can get a copy ,I will scan the text and post it for you.
That is highly debatable.
As a longtime reader of FR, I vowed to steer clear of Civil War threads when I finally became a member. They can be so divisive and argumentative, inflaming FReepers who otherwise have so much in common. So with that background, N-S, I am really not trying to be provocative. So in the spirit of a reasonable, intelligent discussion...here goes:
I contend that the 1964 presidential election results provide some evidence that the Confederacy, had the South prevailed, would have been very Conservative. Barry Goldwater, whose Conservatism at that time is indisputable, carried only 5 states outside of his home state of Arizona. Those 5 states were in the heart of the old CSA.
I've focused on the 1964 election because that was before the emergence of the "New South" and the rise of the Sunbelt, when regional lines become less distinct with Northern migration into the South. I also chose 1964 become the ideological differences were profound with a Southerner, Lyndon Johnson, failing to gain traction in those five states, comprising the core of the Confederacy. Instead Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina (about as Confederate as they come) opted for one of the most Conservative presidential candidates of the 20th Century.
And even with large black populations (tending to vote for Democrats), recent presidential elections reveal a "Solid South" regularly backing the more Conservative candidate.
I'm sincerely interested in your thoughtful analysis and will graciously welcome any counterpoints to those I've made here.
I submit that you cannot project the future of the confederacy based on history as it happened. You need to look back to the rebellion and try to figure out how the confederacy would have developed based on what happened the.
You need to look at the precedent set by Jefferson Davis. The Davis government was intrusive, socialistic, anti-states rights with a considerable contempt for their constitution. Davis did not ask his congress for permission before firing on Sumter, though that was definitely a declaration of war and the constitution required congressional approval. He and his congress never established a supreme court, though the constitution required one. Davis sent an emissary to Europe promising to end slavery in exchange for diplomatic approval, though neither he nor the confederate congress had the authority to accomplish that. Davis nationalized whole industries like salt and textiles and liquor, in fact the whole economy was centrally planned with Richmond mandating certain crops be grown. The Davis government levied slave labor without compensation 'for the war effort', took a percentage of all produce without compensation 'for the war effort', seized a large part of all cargo space on blockade runners for government cargo without compensation 'for the war effort'. They enacted conscription and forcibly extended enlistments for the duration of the war, in violation of state's rights. They declared martial law, enacted an income tax and proposed rates that were almost confiscatory in nature, locked up people without trial, censored information and controlled internal travel. In short, each and every offense that has been levied against Lincoln and used an an excuse for blaming our out of control government on him was also committed by the Davis regime, and more.
So the confederacy entered into its existence with an oppressive regime at the controls. Why should be believe it would have changed? Most Southern supporters dismiss it as a wartime necessity that would have gone a way with peace, but would it? Victory over the U.S. would not have made the threat go away. The U.S. would still be there, pissed off and hostile, presenting a threat to the new nation. So wartime controls could easily have continued.
Then there were the slaves. Slavery would have continued for an unknown period of time. Certainly for decades, maybe as long as the early 20th century because after all there was nothing to replace it. Regardless of when it ended, I believe it would have ended badly. There would still be about 25% of the population, newly freed but unequal. Blacks, free and slave, had no rights in the confederacy and were not citizens, thanks to the Dred Scott decision. Faced with the basic racism in place in the U.S., North and South, I don't see there being any interest in changing their status. Faced with a restive and probably hostile black population it's not far fetched to believe that strict controls would have been put in place on them.
So far from a religious and small government state that you predict, I think that the confederacy would have been a controlled and oppressive place, at least for anyone who didn't fit into the norm. That in and of itself does not conflict with political and social conservatism; some of the most oppressive regimes in history have been conservative. Think Spain and Argentina and Nicaragua and Cuba at different points of their history. But I don't see it as a place I'd care to live in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.