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.

[BnBlFlag]

Jerry Patterson is a great guy and is an articulate and staunch supporter of our Southern Heritage. A rare breed among modern Southern Politicians.
He was a great State Senator and is doing an excellant job as our Land Commissioner as well.

[Shooter 2.5]

There were thousands of abolitionist societies in the North. I doubt there was even one in the South considering the treatment of newspapers which dared question slavery.

[Dog Gone]

Slavery was the root cause, but the South felt disenfranchised on a number of issues by the more industrial and populated north. In the House of Representatives, their regional voice was insignificant.

You're not doing it, but anyone who tries to reduce the causes of the Civil War to one cause either hasn't studied history or has an agenda. It's not that simple.

[BnBlFlag]

One more thing, Patterson is a decorated Marine Corps Combat Pilot!

[basil]

Jerry Patterson is one of the nicest men I know. I've been around him when he has pointed to those "No guns allowed" signs on buildings, and laughed at them. He says most of them have no legal standing at all.

I also like the fact that he and his family have had a family membership in Second Amendment Sisters for years!

[tsomer]

Thanks Artifax!
It's truly a great book and I should never have forgotten his name.

[SteelTrap]

A long and careful consideration yes but keep in mind the institution of slavery was not the central issue but rather the tariffs imposed upon slave states. The north was not against slavery because of strictly humanitarian reasons. When war was declared the north had more slaves than did the South.

[artifax]

You're very welcome and indeed it's a great book....

[SteelTrap]

Awesome post theBuckwheat - you are my hero for today.

[PzLdr]

9th AND 10th Cav.. The 9th fought against Victorio under Grierson.

[Nephi]

There is an interesting book about Lincoln that is worth reading with a forward by Walter E. Williams titled, "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Almost as interesting as the view of Lincoln presented by DiLorenzo is the ruckus raised by the attack dogs unleashed on DiLorenzo for daring to question the deification of Lincoln.

My only criticism of DiLorenzo's book is his equating Lincoln's extreme protectionism with the reasonable use of tariffs. Lincoln was a brazen whore for the money interests and used the tariff in a way that would be an inspiration to Hugo Chavez.

I have always wondered why the states who voluntarily formed the union couldn't secede. After reading DiLorenzo's book, I now consider the civil war a war of northern aggression and rank Lincoln as the most destructive president to our constitutional republic, followed by Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Nixon. Had the south been able to ratify their confederate constitution we might have a more conservative government today and certainly a less centralized government.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Lee did not advocate for the Civil War. So obviously slavery didn't have a gigantic influence on him. But for the Southern politicians who did the legwork, I'd say slavery was of monumental importance.

[Vietnam Vet From New Mexico]

There was a bill before the Virginia Legislature to abolish slavery (gradualy) when Lincoln called for an invasion of the south.

Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, all union states, declined to abolish slavery.

Slaves were the most valuable property in the United States after real estate. Before you condemn slaveholders, would you give away your cars to "Save the Planet"?

A compensated or gradual manumission would have been possible. If I remember correctly, the Virginia law would have said no child could be born into slavery, and since importation of slaves was forbidden in both the USA and CSA, it would have only been a matter of time.

[IronJack]

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.

Economics. The antebellum South was heir to a feudal legacy, and simply could not function economically without huge numbers of cheap laborers. With industrialization dawning, it wouldn't have been much longer before that changed though. Slavery was a doomed institution, as much or more because of technology than because of any human rights considerations.

Slavery was the focus of states' rights, that's all.

[IronJack]

These days a regional war isn't likely. But if we could move the present-day geography back 150 years, the New Confederacy would likely consist of all the Old Confederacy plus most of the Midwest and Rocky Mountain states. About all that would be left of the Union would be the Northeast and the West Coast.

But the sentiment would be far from universal in ANY of the regions. Even Massachusetts has a few conservatives, and even Utah has a token liberal or two. Heck, Nebraska has up-Chuck Hagel!

[traditional1]

"It was more about states' rights than about abolition"

You are correct. This is why the Civil War is so contorted in Liberal teaching; to foster hatred of blacks toward whites, rather than admit that the current socialist trends were EXACTLY what led to the first Civil War. States rebelled against big government, and interference with peoples' choices of their state rights.

Similarly, today's issue of ILLEGALS parallels the State's rights issues, where Federal law is being ignored, and States are being told they have no jusidiction in the invasion. Just as the North in the Civil War had businesses that couldn't compete with slave labor used in the South, we now have businesses in the U.S. that rely on cheap illegal labor to compete with foreign products.

[sarasmom]

Err...how to politely discuss actual history with the willfully ignorant?

Perhaps an analogy.
A large meat producing company has forced illegal foreign immigrants to work for substandard wages, and under deplorable conditions, under pain of death.
The ultimate end users of their products eventually get word of this human injustice.
But the end users find they can not just refuse to buy that product,and put that meat company out of business, because their own government has a vested interest in extracting "special taxes" and kickbacks from that company, and allows them to operate, as long as they pay extra taxes, and bribes to politicians.
But the end users persist in not wanting to buy from those particular companies, because they do not wish to appear to condone slavery.
This makes the Federal government very unhappy, because if the meat companies who pay the largest amount of taxes, not to mention private graft, are ruined, than they themselves will suffer not only the loss of all that money, but also the loss of power, against both the people and the meat company.
What is to be done?
It has already been universally accepted(in the north) and forgotten,that the red skinned indigenous peoples were not really considered fully human, and may be mistreated as a matter of course, but since they had been mostly eliminated in the North Eastern states(through genocide) and contributed little to federal coffers, their plight was not popular.
Meanwhile, in the Southern States, the vast majority of the population did not own slaves.
They were not amused when the Northern states aligned with the Federal governments "fix", and decided to assess extra taxes on all of them, to assuage the outraged Northern States newfound humanitarian sensibilities against the meat packing companies, by punishing the Southern States with more taxes.
I could go on, but the gist is obvious....
And history is again repeating itself.
Several large companies, and many small ones, are operating by paying graft money to the Federal government, for employing slaves.
The Feds like the money, and won't do anything to stop it, and there will eventually be another war, initiated by the people,for the people, and against each other.
All in the name of fighting against the Federal government.
Sigh....

[KDD]

Historical Background

[Clintonfatigued]

"Had the south been able to ratify their confederate constitution, we might have a more conservative government today and certainly a less centralized government."

Actually, the South would have been nothing more than a Baptist Banana Republic. And the North would be a second-tier industrialized nation, like France is now.

[Louis Foxwell]

Reading the articles of dissolution by the several southern states from the Union I am struck by the duplicity of that same Federal government which forced Southern succession. Surely slavery was an evil institution even in its day. No amount of economic rationale or racial stratification could suffice to justify slavery’s legitimacy on moral grounds. Slavery was an abomination in the face of all that was sacred and holy, even in our very own Constitution. Notwithstanding the political maneuverings of slave owner states to legitimize their perfidy by legal means, slavery could not be tolerated.
It is astounding, given the expenditure of blood and high rhetoric to the protection of one of the most maligned and dependent classes in our nation, negro slaves, that those same high minded federalists should for nearly half a century cause to exist a slaughter of innocents that renders slavery by comparison a benign and trivial human rights violation.
Abortion, the wholesale slaughter of innocents in their absolute most dependent condition, is held a high holy right by the same sanctimonious butchers who drove us into a war between the states.
If the right of a woman to control every function of her body is absolute even when it necessitates the violent and forced killing of another wholly dependent upon her, then is not rape equally justifiable as the right of a man to control every function of his body even when it necessitates the violent and forced insemination of a woman? Are not these two acts of equal merit? Are not these two acts utterly depraved?
Is not a federal government that destroys the economic foundation of an entire region for moral reasons and then destroys tens of millions of citizens in the womb for political gain a disdainful, worthless and futile government?
There can be no greater evil than this, that millions may be murdered for the further political entrenchment of a ruling class.