In before the “war of Northern aggression” crowd.
CC
Really don’t GAS that the anonymous author doesn’t like Southerners; he’s an asshat. Today we are the most loyal, productive, and conservative Americans. Out of proportion to our percentage of the total population, Southerners comprise 40%+ of the U.S. Armed Forces. Yes, we are those who go anywhere & everywhere to defend freedom at home & abroad and too often die or are grievously wounded for our love of country. Hey, knothead writer, GFU.
“Mike Konrad” is a pen name. Pen names are not used by reputable non-fiction writers.
It always amuses me. Somehow, forcing millions of people to remain part of a Union at gun point is considered noble, when it reality it is just another form of slavery. “Our slavery is OK. You’re slavery is wrong.”
You don’t have to admire the Confederacy to admire the confederate soldier and how he fought against all odds and won victories that are taught in military colleges the world over. You don’t have to support slavery to answer the call when your militia is called to active service. And you aren’t a rebel when you want to form your own government. Your a free man with self determination- see how that works?
God bless Louisiana! And her Southern kin!
The Second American Revolution was about slavery in the same way the First American Revolution was about tea.
Its true Stephens held that view. A minority of Southern political leaders did - it was a Democracy after all and opinions differed. The majority however did not. That majority included the powerful President Jefferson Davis.
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis The Atlantic Monthly Volume 14, Number 83
“And slavery, you say, is no longer an element in the contest.” Union Colonel James Jaquess
“No, it is not, it never was an essential element. It was only a means of bringing other conflicting elements to an earlier culmination. It fired the musket which was already capped and loaded. There are essential differences between the North and the South that will, however this war may end, make them two nations.” Jefferson Davis
Davis rejects peace with reunion https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/jefferson-davis-rejects-peace-with-reunion-1864/
Next we move on to the Declarations of Causes. Yes it is true that 4 of the original 7 seceding states did issue Declarations of Causes. Of those, Mississippi is the only one that discussed slavery exclusively. They made the point that the Northern states had violated the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution and had therefore broken the compact between the states. That was undoubtedly true and did give them a legal basis for seceding. Despite the fact that the Constitution set no limit on tariffs and the economic exploitation of the Southern states was therefore not unconstitutional, 3 of the 4 other states that issued declarations of causes went on at great length others went on at great length about it. Here is an excerpt from Georgia's declaration:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
South Carolina attached the Speech of Robert Barnwell Rhett aka "the Father of Secession" to its declaration of causes and sent it out along with it. Here is an excerpt:
"The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
Texas issued similar complaints along with the federal government's deliberate and malicious failure to secure the border which it had promised to do in Texas' accession treaty (some things never change).
The states of the Upper South did not even choose to secede until after Lincoln started the war and made clear they were seceding over that issue.
Finally, the original 7 seceding states turned down Lincoln's offer of the Corwin Amendment which would have protected slavery effectively forever by express constitutional amendment.....it had already passed both houses of the Northern dominated Congress with the necessary 2/3rds majority and been ratified by several states - strange behavior for states supposedly concerned primarily with protecting slavery, huh?
Next we move on to the claim that "The South wanted to expand slavery to the Pacific" argument:
The South was always going to be in the minority in the House having a smaller population. They might have a president who was not sympathetic to them. Therefore the lone bulwark to prevent the federal government from being converted in the words of Senator Jefferson Davis into "an engine of Northern aggrandizement" was the US Senate. The way to get Senators was to have states who would vote on your side.
In 1860, in the New Mexico Territory, an area which encompassed the area presently occupied by the States of New Mexico and Arizona, had a grand total of 22 slaves, only 12 of whom were actually domiciled there. If the South intended to be a “Slave Power,” spreading its labor system across the entire continent, it was doing a pretty poor job of it.
Commenting on this fact, an English publication in 1861 said, “When, therefore, so little pains are taken to propagate slavery outside the circle of the existing slave states, it cannot be that the extension of slavery is desired by the South on social or commercial grounds directly, and still less from any love for the thing itself for its own sake. But the value of New Mexico and Arizona politically is very great! In the Senate they would count as 4 votes with the South or with the North.
Also, the issue New England and the South clashed over again and again was not slavery, it was Tariffs and Federal expenditures.....the Tariff of Abominations, the Nullification Crisis, the Morrill Tariff, etc etc.
As to States' Rights....it is true that both sides hypocritically flipped back and forth championing State's Rights or Federal power whenever it suited them. Sound familiar? It should because its very often no different today.
Slavery - its extension or protection where it existed - was not the cause. That was the very first bargaining chip the Northern states were willing to offer up and it was rejected by the Southern states. The issues were the Tariff, federal government expenditures and centralized vs decentralized power (ie States' Rights vs Federal Government Power).
As much as the writer here says "Neo Confederate" arguments drive him nuts, believe me, ahistorical Leftist PC Revisionist arguments first expounded in the 1980s drive me nuts. All one needs to do is go back and read what the majority opinion was even in Academia from the early 20th century until the 1960s Leftists during their "long march through the institutions" started gaining the upper hand in Academia starting with Howard Zinn's revisionist "People's history of the United States" in the early 80s and then continuing on to the modern day. Read what the leading historian of the early 20th century Charles Beard said were the causes. What the Leftists are trying to pass off as the established view is itself a revisionist school of thought.....one driven by the PCers Leftist worldview.
I had ancestors that fought on both sides. None believed in slavery. None fought for slavery. None had slaves. I know that’s a fact from talking to my great-grandfather when I was little. All were Republican. From what he told me, there wasn’t a Democrat in the bunch. Most were dirt poor farmers trying to stay alive. According to him, my ancestors that fought for the Confederacy only joined after they were attacked for simply being Southerners.
The first Civil War was bad. The second one will be worse.
Where would the country be today without the South? To know that, look at where most of the North is today.
Kaslin, you suck. How much do they pay you?
Just about 6 miles down a country road from where I live now in Central Texas is my family’s homestead and house where my Dad, his 3 brothers and 2 sisters grew up. All have since passed. The house is built on 160 acres given to my grandpa for his service in the war. The house is still there and being lived in by somebody.
The garden where grandma used to follow behind the mule pulling a plow is still there. Family lore has it that at least once she would have a baby in the morning and be back on the plow in the afternoon.
Being deeply religious (Baptist) the family went to church on Sunday and then usually had a Sunday meal at someone else’s house until it was their turn to have the Sunday meal at their house. The church, which is still there, is about 2 miles from their home and doubled as the school and community center.
One Sunday grandpa, his brother and his brother’s son came to the Sunday meal on horseback with the horses loaded with gear for a long ride/stay. After the Sunday meal and best wishes from all there and, I’m sure, lots of crying and hugging, they rode off to war joining the Texas Sixth Infantry which fought at Chickamaugua and Missionary Ridge in September of 1861. General Lee came to rely on the Texas Sixth.
Shortly after the end of the war only my grandpa made it home alive. If he hadn’t, I wouldn’t be typing this email 157 years later. The loss of my Dad’s Uncle and son was NEVER recovered from my Dad used to say.
I agree with everything this author said and 157 years later this story is hard to type. I have 2 kids (grown) and 3 grandkids. None of them would be alive today if the Yankee’s had been better shots and killed my grandpa.
bfl
Mark
We fought in the Second World War because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. That doesn’t mean that the war didn’t have deeper causes or a deeper meaning or that we weren’t fighting for and against some larger things.
When a quarter or a third or half the population of some states was enslaved and no one was enslaved in other states and controversy had raged over slavery for years, it’s foolish to argue that slavery wasn’t significant and wasn’t an issue. It’s also not at all surprising that Jefferson Davis and his associates would minimize the importance of slavery when they were seeking diplomatic recognition and military assistance from countries that had already abolished slavery on their own territory. It was not at all surprising that propagandists would use tariff conflicts that had been peacefully resolved over the years in an attempt to hide the fundamental conflict over slavery and its expansion, which could not be so easily dismissed.
Missing too in some of the arguments is that when some state group decides to leave the country there are often dissenters on their territory, people who don’t want to go. There is also the possibility of fraud, corruption, and coercion. The secessionists aren’t some libertarian, anti-government movement. They are aspiring to create a government of their own. They will want to secure for their new country as much territory and resources as they can, even if this means oppressing dissenters and minorities and subverting or invading neighboring states and regions.
For this reason, unilateral secession is always a fraught situation. Countries confronted with it have a legitimate interest in protecting loyal citizens and their national resources. No president and no country worthy of its name would simply give the secessionists everything they wanted, and the new Confederate government was certainly not above taking what it wanted by force. What happened in the 1860s was a tragedy, but it was not a tragedy that can be laid wholly at the door of Abraham Lincoln or the North.
I also would take issue with both the article writer and some of the commenters: “South” and “North” are too big and too abstract categories. Praise and blame belong to individuals and the groups they belonged to. We don’t need to be forever arguing in terms that are so imprecise and only serve to open old wounds.
In his cornerstone speech regarding the election and January 6th, former Vice-President Mike Pence stated bluntly...
Sad we had to have a civil war over this. Imagine how far ahead we would be if we didn’t fight a war for 4 years and lose over a half million men.
I guess, I find it somewhat amusing how much the core South is disliked today. 157 years afterwards.
Funny thing, I do not see that dislike for Spain, Germany, Japan, North Korea or Mideastern terrorists.
But you are hard pressed to find a complementary story in any mainline publication about Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas or the others.
Maybe that is one of the reasons, sons & daughters of the old Confederacy still have fond thoughts of their forebearers.
It's more than obvious from the article that the author is "not a fan of the Confederacy" - the statement was likely included to establish his Political Correctness bona fides with readers who value such things.
More importantly, anyone who suggests that the right of secession is "easily refutable" has never actually debated the matter. Several States explicitly reserved the right to secede when they ratified the then-new Constitution; Americans including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison recognized the right (explicitly or implicitly) in their public writings; early American legal references (including Tucker's Blackstones and Rawle's A View of the Constitution) clearly recognized the right of secession; and the Constitution as it existed in 1860 nowhere prohibited secession (and the 10th Amendment may indeed have reserved that right to the States and their people, as suggested by Senator Toombs of Georgia and likely others).
One may not agree with Jefferson and the others, but it is patently ridiculous to claim that the right of State secession is "easily refutable"; numerous respected sources from the period actually suggest the exact opposite. It is disappointing to see such "click-bait" on American Thinker - it used to be a good web site...
;>)
People didn't realize then.
But when you write these words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” others are inspired by them.
Eventually those words are true or they are lies.
All humanity is created by God. He gives us all the same rights. The Founding Fathers understood this. Except, given the realities of the times, did not include slaves in this declaration. Privately though, they argued for even that.
From a Believer's standpoint, enslavement based on skin color and birth was wrong.
What does a truly Saved Christian say to a Black Christian who wants his Freedom?
You cannot justify to the Savior for keeping someone like that in bondage. You just can't.
Even Blacks deserved to be asked their consent when you all are spouting off about "consent of the governed". What about their consent?
Abraham L.
---------------------
Preserving the Union (ie the all-powerful central federal government that we all know and "love" today) was the overriding goal.
Incidentally, the internal revenue code all by itself (not to even mention all the other outrageous laws on the Union books) should be a cause for violent revolution among a truly freedom loving people.