The truth about the Confederacy

[Uriel999]

As a history major it always gets very frustrating when I hear people discuss history. The amount of twisted half truths I hear people take to support their claims gets very annoying really quick. For instance when people talk about the Civil War many say oh it was only about slavery, or it was only about states rights. The correct answer is that it was both, the south believed in states rights to have slaves. Technically, since the Constitution did not say anything about slavery the states were within their rights to have slavery, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to end slavery (or America's bloodiest war ever and then an amendment).

Read this qoute from Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech." Stephens was the CSS VP.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind-from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just-but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

So yes, the south just wanted to save the "pecular institution." The CSS was formed to protect slavery. Oh and I am a southernor, born in VA, lived in north Florida since I was a kid and I have recieved my education from southern colleges and a southern university.

 

[klamath]

As a history major it always gets very frustrating when I hear people discuss history. The amount of twisted half truths I hear people take to support their claims gets very annoying really quick. For instance when people talk about the Civil War many say oh it was only about slavery, or it was only about states rights. The correct answer is that it was both, the south believed in states rights to have slaves. Technically, since the Constitution did not say anything about slavery the states were within their rights to have slavery, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to end slavery (or America's bloodiest war ever and then an amendment).

Read this qoute from Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech." Stephens was the CSS VP.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind-from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just-but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

So yes, the south just wanted to save the "pecular institution." The CSS was formed to protect slavery. Oh and I am a southernor, born in VA, lived in north Florida since I was a kid and I have recieved my education from southern colleges and a southern university.

Good post but the the only thing you got wrong was the contitution did agree to slavery in the census part.

 

[ARealConservative]

Would the civil war of occurred if Lincoln didn't march armed troops through the border states?

From my understanding, this is the real catalyst for the war. States that did not allow slavery ended up siding with slave states because of the actions of Lincoln.

Which certainly gives credence to the notion that the war was far more about state rights then it was slavery.

 

[Uriel999]

explain?

 

[ARealConservative]

explain?

Explain what?

I'm talking about the border states that wished to remain neutral. They ultimately joined the confederacy for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[sratiug]

explain?

Troops arriving on trains in Baltimore (Maryland was a Union slave state) were fired upon by the Maryland population as they made their way through the city, killing at least one. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/june/first-death-civil-war.htm No troops called in, no war?

 

[sratiug]

As a history major it always gets very frustrating when I hear people discuss history. The amount of twisted half truths I hear people take to support their claims gets very annoying really quick. For instance when people talk about the Civil War many say oh it was only about slavery, or it was only about states rights. The correct answer is that it was both, the south believed in states rights to have slaves. Technically, since the Constitution did not say anything about slavery the states were within their rights to have slavery, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to end slavery (or America's bloodiest war ever and then an amendment).

Read this qoute from Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech." Stephens was the CSS VP.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind-from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just-but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

So yes, the south just wanted to save the "pecular institution." The CSS was formed to protect slavery. Oh and I am a southernor, born in VA, lived in north Florida since I was a kid and I have recieved my education from southern colleges and a southern university.

Southerners can and do detest both the Civil War and slavery. To say the Union had no right to invade the South is not to defend slavery. If the Union had ended slavery in the Union, they would have had some moral ground to stand on. Then one could only admire a war to end slavery. But they did not. Thus they have no moral ground to stand on, and the war was not about slavery.

The speaker uses good logic to come to a bad conclusion. It is obvious that all men are not equal, and all races are not equal. But they should all have the same rights. Otherwise somebody has to decide who has what rights, and that person will be playing God.

If you replace the Confederacy with Israel and blacks with arabs you'd have a good Zionist message.

 

[Uriel999]

when i said explain i was talking to klamath's remark about the point he said I was in error about census. sorry for the confusion

 

[jmdrake]

when i said explain i was talking to klamath's remark about the point he said I was in error about census. sorry for the confusion

I think he took issue with this point you made.

Technically, since the Constitution did not say anything about slavery the states were within their rights to have slavery, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to end slavery (or America's bloodiest war ever and then an amendment).


Actually the constitution did address slavery. It protected it.

See: http://www.law.du.edu/russell/lh/alh/docs/slaverycon.html

While the word "slavery" is not use the phrases "bound to service" and "held to service" are clearly about slavery. Beyond that your analysis is 100% correct.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Would the civil war of occurred if Lincoln didn't march armed troops through the border states?

From my understanding, this is the real catalyst for the war. States that did not allow slavery ended up siding with slave states because of the actions of Lincoln.

Which certainly gives credence to the notion that the war was far more about state rights then it was slavery.

The civil war started with the shelling of Ft Sumpter. Also what border states are you talking about? I'm fairly certain that no states that didn't allow slavery sided with the south. In fact quite the opposite happened. Several states which ALLOWED slavery, such as Kentucky, sided with the North.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Explain what?

I'm talking about the border states that wished to remain neutral. They ultimately joined the confederacy for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)

The term border states refers to the five slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia which bordered a free state and aligned with the Union during the American Civil War. All but Delaware share borders with states that joined the Confederacy. In Kentucky and Missouri there were both pro-Confederate and pro-Union government factions. Though every slave state (except South Carolina) contributed some troops to the Union side,[1][2] the split was most severe in these border states, with men from the same family often fighting on opposite sides.

You've got it backwards. The border states were slave states that sided with the Union.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Southerners can and do detest both the Civil War and slavery. To say the Union had no right to invade the South is not to defend slavery. If the Union had ended slavery in the Union, they would have had some moral ground to stand on. Then one could only admire a war to end slavery. But they did not. Thus they have no moral ground to stand on, and the war was not about slavery.

The speaker uses good logic to come to a bad conclusion. It is obvious that all men are not equal, and all races are not equal. But they should all have the same rights. Otherwise somebody has to decide who has what rights, and that person will be playing God.

If you replace the Confederacy with Israel and blacks with arabs you'd have a good Zionist message.

Abraham Lincoln used the same justification to invade the south as Andrew Jackson (himself a slave owner) used to threaten to invade the south and to have John Calhoun hung. But since this all went down on Lincoln's watch he's the "bad guy" for actually invading whereas Jackson is the "hero" for opposing the central bank and preserving the union.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[PennCustom4RP]

The civil war started with the shelling of Ft Sumpter. Also what border states are you talking about? I'm fairly certain that no states that didn't allow slavery sided with the south. In fact quite the opposite happened. Several states which ALLOWED slavery, such as Kentucky, sided with the North.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Kentucky, and Maryland didn't actually 'side' with the North, they were occupied by Federal troops and prevented from leaving the Union.
Many maps you see showing the the 11 Confederate states in Grey, and the Union states in Blue, show Kentucky and Maryland as some other color, as neutral.

 

[sratiug]

Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In section 2 slavery is protected in the states. Thus any war to end slavery was unconstitutional.

Section 3 means that the Union recognized the right of secession when it allowed West Virginia into the Union. Or else the constitution was violated.

Section 4 says the federal government must protect the states from invasion, which it obviously did not do.

 

[sratiug]

http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehoo.html

On October 24, 1861, residents of thirty-nine counties in western Virginia approved the formation of a new Unionist state. The accuracy of these election results have been questioned, since Union troops were stationed at many of the polls to prevent Confederate sympathizers from voting. At the Constitutional Convention, which met in Wheeling from November 1861 to February 1862, delegates selected the counties for inclusion in the new state of West Virginia. From the initial list, most of the counties in the Shenandoah Valley were excluded due to their control by Confederate troops and a large number of local Confederate sympathizers. In the end, fifty counties were selected (all of present-day West Virginia's counties except Mineral, Grant, Lincoln, Summers, and Mingo, which were formed after statehood). Most of the eastern and southern counties did not support statehood, but were included for political, economic, and military purposes. The mountain range west of the Blue Ridge became the eastern border of West Virginia to provide a defense against Confederate invasion. One of the most controversial decisions involved the Eastern Panhandle counties, which supported the Confederacy. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which ran through the Eastern Panhandle, was extremely important for the economy and troop movements. Inclusion of these counties removed all of the railroad from the Confederacy.

In terms of the constitution itself, the subject of slavery produced the most controversy. Delegate Gordon Battelle proposed the gradual emancipation of slaves already in the state and freedom to all children born to slaves after July 4, 1865. Although some delegates opposed Battelle's position, they knew they could not create a pro-slavery document and gain approval from Congress. Following much debate and compromise, the provision written into the constitution banned the introduction of slaves or free African Americans into the state of West Virginia, but did not address the issue of immediate or gradual emancipation.

The United States Constitution says a new state must gain approval from the original state, which never occurred in the case of West Virginia. Since the Restored Government was considered the legal government of Virginia, it granted permission to itself on May 13, 1862, to form the state of West Virginia.

When Congress addressed the West Virginia statehood bill, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner demanded an emancipation clause to prevent the creation of another slave state. Restored Government Senator Carlile wanted a statewide election to decide the issue. Finally, a compromise between Senator Willey and Committee on Territories Chairman Benjamin Wade of Ohio, determined that, after July 4, 1863, all slaves in West Virginia over twenty-one years of age would be freed. Likewise, younger slaves would receive their freedom upon reaching the age of twenty-one. The Willey Amendment prohibited some slavery but it permitted the ownership of slaves under the age of twenty-one.

The United States Senate rejected a statehood bill proposed by Carlile which did not contain the Willey Amendment and then, on July 14, 1862, approved a statehood proposal which included the Willey Amendment. Carlile's vote against the latter bill made him a traitor in the eyes of many West Virginians and he was never again elected to political office. On December 10, 1862, the House of Representatives passed the act. On December 31, President Lincoln signed the bill into law, approving the creation of West Virginia as a state loyal to the Union without abolishing slavery. The next step was to put the statehood issue to a vote by West Virginia's citizens. Lincoln may have had his own reasons for creating the new state, knowing he could count on West Virginia's support in the 1864 presidential election. On March 26, 1863, the citizens of the fifty counties approved the statehood bill, including the Willey Amendment, and on June 20, the state of West Virginia was officially created.

In May 1863, the Constitutional Union party nominated Arthur I. Boreman to run for governor. Boreman ran unopposed, winning the election to become the first governor of West Virginia. The Restored Government of Virginia, with Pierpont continuing as governor, moved to Alexandria, Virginia and eventually to Richmond following the war. Pierpont ordered an election to allow the residents of Jefferson and Berkeley counties to determine whether their counties should be located in West Virginia or Virginia. Union troops were stationed outside polling places to intimidate those who might vote for Virginia. Despite local support for Virginia, residents who actually filled out ballots voted overwhelmingly to place both counties in West Virginia. In 1865, Pierpont's government challenged the legality of West Virginia statehood. In 1871, the United States Supreme Court awarded the counties of Jefferson and Berkeley to West Virginia.

 

[ARealConservative]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(Civil_War)

The term border states refers to the five slave states of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia which bordered a free state and aligned with the Union during the American Civil War. All but Delaware share borders with states that joined the Confederacy. In Kentucky and Missouri there were both pro-Confederate and pro-Union government factions. Though every slave state (except South Carolina) contributed some troops to the Union side,[1][2] the split was most severe in these border states, with men from the same family often fighting on opposite sides.

You've got it backwards. The border states were slave states that sided with the Union.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Lincoln was elected in 1861 - 7 states had already seceded (South Carolina, Texas, Louisana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida).

Lincoln called on 75,000 armed troops to squash the rebellion at Fort Sumter.

This decision caused the secession of four more southern states. Now please check your map, because those states were Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas - all bordering the original 7. The states you refer to as border states were only border states after these four states left.

The victor gets to write the history books, but the truth is, we never had a civil war. This was not fight over who controlled the country - in fact this had more in common with the American Revolution then with a civil war.

 

[Kade]

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.

The Northern States also had rights. They had the right to annex and defeat another sovereign country if that was the will of their people and her leaders.

A revolution is justified when the natural rights of man are violated. This philosophy was established in our country's own declaration:

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.


I too am from the South; Cobb County, GA. Home of the battle of Kennesaw Mountain. Home of Wildman Dent Myers, home of the Selman v. Cobb County School District involving the teaching of creationism, home of the infamous 6th District of Georgia, Newt Gingrich's old stomping ground.

I say, without reservation, in contrast with the slanted revised history I learned in that school district, the south got what it had coming to it.

 

[ARealConservative]

The Northern States also had rights. They had the right to annex and defeat another sovereign country if that was the will of their people and her leaders.

Ron Paul supporter my ass! But thanks for again proving you liberals don't know what rights are.

And the DOI was a letter to the king of England, not a legal contract.

 

[Kade]

Ron Paul supporter my ass!

You don't think the Norther states had rights? When the South seceded, they had no more rights to vote in the affairs of the Norther States. Take a second a think for once. They were not part of the north, as a separate country, the north had EVERY RIGHT to invade another country, as long as it was within boundaries of their own laws.

And I'm not a supporter because I'm not a racist theistic fascist?

You might want to read Dr. Paul's new book.

 

[ARealConservative]

You don't think the Norther states had rights? When the South seceded, they had no more rights to vote in the affairs of the Norther States. Take a second a think for once. They were not part of the north, as a separate country, the north had EVERY RIGHT to invade another country, as long as it was within boundaries of their own laws.

And I'm not a supporter because I'm not a racist theistic fascist?

You might want to read Dr. Paul's new book.

individuals have rights.

Governments have powers.

You might want to read a dictionary