More Celebrations of Secession

More celebrations of secession are on tap.

The AP reports on one slated for February in Montgomery, AL:  Confederate reenactment could draw protest

Hundreds of Civil War re-enactors will parade up Montgomery’s main street to the state Capitol on Feb. 19 to recreate the swearing-in of Confederate President Jefferson Davis 150 years ago.

[…]

“We are trying to present a historical account of what happened 150 years ago,” said Thomas Strain Jr. of Tanner, a member of the national board of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Apparently 700 potential participants have already signed up to participate and a protest is being organized as well.

It is a rather bizarre thing to wish to celebrate the rejection of the US Constitution and the selection of an alternative president in rebellion against the United States.  But that’s just how the SCV roll.

Robert Reames of Birmingham, state commander for the SCV, prefers to call the Civil War “the War Between the States.” He said the re-enactment Feb. 19 will have a simple message: “That our ancestors did what they did in a honorable fashion and we’re here to remember that honor.”

I am at a loss, to be honest, as to what that is actually supposed to mean save as a means to ignore the ignoble goals of the CSA.  Further, if the ultimate goals of an organization for which one fights are actually dishonorable, can the fighting itself ultimately be honorable?  I’m thinking not.

FILED UNDER: US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Rock says:

    Dishonorable? I guess that depends on whether or not the CSA had a DADT policy. But I’m not sure if the Yankee horde did or not.

  2. PD Shaw says:

    I think this is a bit different than celebrating the political act of secession, the meaning of which can be readily determined by the pronouncements at the time. Honoring the soldier who fought for whatever reason he fought, is established practice in this country.

  3. @PD:

    That is a common argument. However, it is honestly unclear to me how we ultimately separate the fight, along with the act of fighting, from the purpose that animated the fight.

  4. @PD

    They’re reenacting the swearing-in of Jefferson Davis, how is that anything other than a political act and what does it have to do with veterans?

  5. swift boater says:

    so Steve, applying your logic a great many people of the time found the US soldier who served in Viet Nam and a great many of those on the left today who find the Afghan and Iraq wars dishonorable will have to then find their fellow Americans dishonorable. That would make all veterans service honorable up to the arbitrary whim of the individual. Bet most modern day San Franciscans would find no soldier honorable under those rules.

    Since the commander at the time (and future President) U.S. Grant pardoned the men and found them to be worthy to resume their place as Americans, I feel we should not substitute our judgment for his and allow for a parade or memorial service. Maybe there will be one or two in the North. Maybe not.

    And please do not take this in any way, shape or form as to my feelings on the war on the central part of the North American continent that took place from 1861-1865 C.E. (how about that for being studiously neutral).

  6. PD Shaw says:

    This was the division of responsibility made by the Union veterans that participated in the parades, reenactments and speeches with their Confederate commrades after the war. The politicians make the decisions for which accounts may be drawn. The soldier’s faith should be honored for his willingness “to throw away his life in obedience to a blindly accepted duty, in a cause which he little understands, in a plan of campaign of which he has little notion, under tactics of which he does not see the use.” (O.W. Holmes) The soldier didn’t create the cause, may not truly understand the cause, and in fact may not even be given a choice in the matter.

  7. Double Eagle says:

    Mr. Tyler,
    Is it the honorable thing to do to protect your home and family? Is it the honorable thing to do to protect your brothers home and family? Is there a tradition of sacrifice once those rights are threatened? Is it honorable to stand to secure not only your liberty, but for your Sons and Daughters?

    I have the distinct feeling you have daydreamed through those last two sentences.

  8. anjin-san says:

    > Bet most modern day San Franciscans would find no soldier honorable under those rules.

    Why don’t you come to San Francisco, and tell everyone here in person how they don’t honor our soldiers? It would be interesting to see how many ass kickings you take before you turn tail and head back to Cow Patty or wherever it is you hail from…

    As for those who fought for the Confederacy, they certainly fought with great skill and valor, and Lee was as fine a man as this country has ever produced. But the Confederacy itself was wrong, wrong, wrong…

  9. One does what one has to do at a given moment in time.

    That does not mean, however, that we have to go out of our way to extol en masse an action when that action’s ultimate aims were not honorable.

  10. anjin-san says:

    > Is it honorable to stand to secure not only your liberty,

    I notice you did not mention the men, women and children who were in chains while all this fighting for liberty was going on.

  11. sam says:

    @Double Eagle

    “Is there a tradition of sacrifice once those rights are threatened? ”

    Dear Mr. Eagle — is the one of the rights you’re talking about the right to own another human being?

  12. matt says:

    Hehe that’s funny considering there is at least one military base in San Francisco…

  13. PD Shaw says:

    @ Timothy, you have a point that the event may not necessarily break so cleanly between the political and the military, I’d have to read more.

    But part of my perception is colored by knowing that there has and continues to be a concerted effort among civil war historians and organizations to draw attention to historic events during this anniversary to raise historical awareness. Perhaps this is not an entirely neutral storyline; slavery may be the cause of the war, but slaves themselves were not frequently a part of it’s central drama.

  14. george says:

    “I notice you did not mention the men, women and children who were in chains while all this fighting for liberty was going on.”

    Well, those folks were property, and so didn’t really count … its not like they were real people or anything.

  15. An Interested Party says:

    “I guess that depends on whether or not the CSA had a DADT policy. But I’m not sure if the Yankee horde did or not.”

    Well, the CSA was defending the institution of slavery…that was certainly dishonorable…and the Yankee horde wasn’t defending that…

    “Honoring the soldier who fought for whatever reason he fought, is established practice in this country.”

    Along those same lines, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with honoring the Wehrmacht for their honorable service in WW II…

    “And please do not take this in any way, shape or form as to my feelings on the war on the central part of the North American continent that took place from 1861-1865 C.E. (how about that for being studiously neutral).”

    Oh my, how politically correct…I thought certain people didn’t play that game…

    “Is it the honorable thing to do to protect your home and family? Is it the honorable thing to do to protect your brothers home and family? Is there a tradition of sacrifice once those rights are threatened? Is it honorable to stand to secure not only your liberty, but for your Sons and Daughters?”

    Is it the honorable thing to do to protect the institution of slavery? Oh and try not to daydream through that sentence…

  16. michael reynolds says:

    Staff Sgt. David H. Gutierrez
    Hometown:San Francisco, California, U.S.
    Age:35 years old
    Died:December 25, 2009 in Operation Enduring Freedom.
    Unit:Army, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash.
    Incident: Died at Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his dismounted patrol with a makeshift bomb in Howz-e Madad.

    Sgt. Mario K. De Leon
    Hometown:San Francisco, California, U.S.
    Age:26 years old
    Died:April 16, 2007 in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    Unit:Army, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany
    Incident: Killed by enemy small arms fire in Baghdad.

    Cpl. Christopher D. Rose
    Hometown:San Francisco, California, U.S.
    Age:21 years old
    Died:June 29, 2006 in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
    Unit:Army, 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Tex.
    Incident: Killed by a makeshift bomb during combat operations in Baghdad.

  17. AlexR says:

    We’d be better off if all the southern states left the Union. Let them.

  18. DEC says:

    Ah yes another Civil War conversation.

    It never ceases to amaze me how simplistic the “conventional” historical explanation for the South’s Secession continues to be. While slavery was an important issue to the South, the primary engine behind the Secessionist movement was that of states rights and the increasing obtrusiveness and size of the Federal Government.

    Indeed, as far back as 1832, individuals like John C Calhoun from South Carolina were speaking out against the excessive taxation and loss of state’s power. One of my favorite quotes:

    “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is,
    whether ours is a federal or consolidated government;
    a constitutional or absolute one;
    a government resting solidly on the basis
    of the sovereignty of the States,
    or on the unrestrained will of a majority;
    a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones,
    in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”

    The institution of slavery was abhorrent, let me be clear. Let’s remember that there were states that supported the Union that were slave states. And Lincoln the famous emancipator said the following at his first inaugural address:

    “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

    And remember the famous quote of Thomas Jefferson regarding bad government:

    “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

    In summary, the issues surrounding the Secessionist movement are complex. While I don’t condone their support for slavery, I do condone and approve of the stand that they took against an out of control Federal government.

    Indeed, their warnings have proven to be prophetic as we are faced today with an even bigger out of control Federal government. The powers they have assumed for themselves (IE Patriot Act, income tax, Federal Reserve Act, death tax and countless regulations and laws that infringe on every American’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

    If only we could get more Americans upset at our current condition which is far worse than that in 1861, we will all be better for it.

  19. PD Shaw says:

    “Along those same lines, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with honoring the Wehrmacht for their honorable service in WW II…”

    But we do honor them; German flags (modern) are placed on the graves of German prisoners of war buried in national cemeteries. At some level, we accept the soldier’s service as honorable, though the “national” cause may not be.

    (Although we don’t honor them with the actual flag they fought and died under, being repulsive)

  20. PD Shaw says:

    It’s hard to offer a partial a defense of a position, when it’s proponents say things like this:

    “If only we could get more Americans upset at our current condition which is far worse than that in 1861, we will all be better for it.”

    ahem, slavery?

  21. Double Eagle says:

    I mostly refer to the war of Northern agression. Aparently pea. Picking is not your proffesion but whining about victimization is. We have far more freedom liberated from us than faced the States at the time of their Succession.
    Would the North continued their aggresion regardless if the ownership of human beings? Yes. Did the Northern States continue their violent invasion after the Slaves were granted their freedom by Jeferson Davis? Yes. Was the War of Northern aggresion about the issue of slavery? It depends on your perspective.
    Certainly by Lincoln’s Second Inaugural he had a chance to sort it all out and being the ‘victor’ had the first right to interpret its meaning. The victory was God’s. But I won’t hold your understanding it above a pea picker’s, which is certainly against the law with the Food Health and Safety Act.
    I feel safer already with all you very intelligent fellows. Remember, only the bad parts of history repeats. You could do yourself a favor and research the Reconstruction Amendments, they continue to be controversial on the resriction of Constitutional liberties to this day.

  22. michael reynolds says:

    DEC:

    I always wonder with guys like you.

    Are you a teenager, so we should smile indulgently at your ignorance?

    Are you an adult just cluelessly regurgitating whatever nonsense you half overheard from talk radio?

    Do you not know how to open the Google and check some of the ludicrous things you believe against actual, you know, history? Because there are people here who could teach you.

    It’s a serious question. And I really would like to know. Are you just forgivably ignorant, straight-up not very bright, or a deliberate liar and propagandist for a racist organization?

    I’m not sure which I find more disturbing. Either the schools are in much worse condition than even I thought, or you’re hearing some amazing drivel somewhere, or you’re just a racist asshole.

    Can you help me out here? Can you give me an honest answer?

  23. sam says:

    @DEC

    “While slavery was an important issue to the South, the primary engine behind the Secessionist movement was that of states rights and the increasing obtrusiveness and size of the Federal Government.”

    Ah, the Lost Cause lives. Dude, slavery was the issue for the secessionists.

    And there’s this gem:

    “While I don’t condone their support for slavery, I do condone and approve of the stand that they took against an out of control Federal government.”

    Could you tell us just what characterized the “out of control Federal government” prior to April 1861? Can you tell us what exactly the federal government did to the states that seceded ( before Lincoln was inaugurated) that caused them to secede? Can you give us the details of the federal laws that were passed that the seceding states believed encroached on their sovereignty, and, more important, in what way did these laws burden the seceding states?

    Can you do that for us? Because if you can’t, if you can’t list out the specific federal actions vis -a-vis the seceding states that led to their secession, and explain to us how those federal actions so adversely impacted the seceding states as to leave them no alternative, if can’t do any of that, then I’m afraid you’re just full of Lost Cause, lame revisionist bullshit. So, what’s it going to be?

  24. sam says:

    Dear Mr. Eagle:

    “We have far more freedom liberated from us than faced the States at the time of their Succession .”

    It’s ‘Secession’ not ‘Succession’ — I mean, if you can’t even get the word right…

  25. The Q says:

    The old states rights argument was invented to mask the despicable, rotten traitorous calumny of red neck racists hell bent on retaining slavery even if it meant destroying the Unites States of America in the process. States rights was used so as to not offend the confederate’s ally (England) and convince them that there was something noble about the struggle

    This attempt at ameliorating the disgusting, brutal defense of an inhumane system began the very next weeks after the surrender at Appomattox with the Lost Cause editorials etc, trying to revise history away from the awful truth of the south’s heresy.

    If I were a Jew, I don’t think I would look too kindly if there were German commemoration of Krystallnacht as a celebration of German independence from the tyranny of the Versaille treaty.

    The facts are that Sherman’s march to the sea should have been thousands of miles wide so that we could have smitten any initial attempts by Johnny Reb to whitewash history.

    Ike made the villagers of Dachau bury the rotting corpses when he got word that some didn’t believe the atrocities that occurred there…blaming it on rumor and Allied propaganda

    Ike was so incensed he forced men, women and children to see firsthand what had been done in the camps, so that revised history couldn’t be written that the Holocaust was exaggerated.

    Those of you with your cute “they’re only honoring the service and not the cause” are killing me…thats like saying the Muslim world was honoring the 911 hijackers commitment to faith and their courage to carry out their convictions, not that we agree with the murder of 3000 innocents.

    Quite simply, the story of the last 5 decades has been the rise of the backward, brain dead southerners into positions of leadership in the congress and the media, much to the detriment of the Union.

  26. Trumwill says:

    That’s the problem with posts about the Civil War. It brings out the confederate a-holes as well as the anti-South bigots.

  27. PD Shaw says:

    With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

  28. tom p says:

    >”With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

    PD: What Lincoln said….

  29. michael reynolds says:

    Trumwill:

    It’s hard not to cop an attitude toward the south when significant portions of it cannot face or accept the truth of their own past. The truth will set you free. Lies? Not so much.

    I don’t ever believe in laying the sins of the fathers on the children. Certainly not the great, great, great grandchildren. But if I thought that as many Germans engaged in revisionism as southerners do, I’d be worried.

    I’ve lived a lot of my life in the south — Virginia, North Carolina, Texas and Florida. I know that most southerners are, well, pretty much like any other American. But a non-trivial number are apologists for the confederacy. And they are far too tolerated by other southerners.

  30. michael reynolds says:

    I can’t believe I left out Tennessee. Although we were in the union-supporting part of that Southern state.

  31. Trumwill says:

    I’ve lived a lot of my life in the south — Virginia, North Carolina, Texas and Florida. I know that most southerners are, well, pretty much like any other American. But a non-trivial number are apologists for the confederacy. And they are far too tolerated by other southerners.

    I have no problem with condemning confederate apologists. I’m certainly not coming to their defense.

    The tolerance thing is a bit trickier. Southerners are often left with the choice of picking sides between someone that has views that they don’t care for and someone that transparently doesn’t like them due to their regional heritage. It’s unfortunately, but not surprising to me, that people view this as a “picking sides” matter. I have personally rejected that mentality. Not to get too high on myself, but it requires a degree of fortitude that most people (southern or otherwise, left or right) have. Sometimes I wish I were from Vermont so that I wouldn’t have to deal with this [excrement]. Not that any of this matters, cause per AlexR, his country would still be better off without me. Not me, specifically, cause maybe I’m “one of “the good ones”, but, you know, the sum of us good ones is less than the sum of the bad ones and so a pox on our house.

    I recognize that to some extent, grouping is inevitable and sometimes negative overall appraisals must be made. They should, however, be made with some degree of care.

  32. michael reynolds says:

    Trumwill:

    Well, I don’t feel we’d be better off without the south. The south gave us gospel and delta blues and Dixieland and an awful lot of rock and roll; Cajun and Creole food; Faulkner and Mark Twain and Harper Lee, (all of whom may even be better writers than me!) Not to mention a pretty long list of notable American soldiers and presidents. Jefferson was a southerner. Winfield Scott. MacArthur. It’s a long list. And let’s not forget a certain Southern preacher named Martin Luther King.

    Besides, they’re family, fellow Americans. And even though I’ve said and thought some harsh things about it at times, the south is part of the United States.

  33. george says:

    “It’s hard not to cop an attitude toward the south when significant portions of it cannot face or accept the truth of their own past. The truth will set you free. Lies? Not so much.”

    Ever talk to a northerner about what was done to the Indians?

    The point isn’t so much accepting the truth of the past, its to act properly today and in the future.

  34. An Interested Party says:

    re: michael reynolds Thursday, December 23, 2010, 03:03

    Well said…

  35. Double Eagle says:

    Sam

    Your argument consists of the proper use of spell check? Good Heavens, some will never, ever give up their ignorance and implies more than a whiff of bigotry.

    But since the topic is honor perhaps we could forgive your lack of manners.

  36. Double Eagle says:

    DEC

    “f only we could get more Americans upset at our current condition which is far worse than that in 1861, we will all be better for it.”

    Indeed, I concur and ad that School House Revisionist and Socialist Experimentors along with Community Organizers In Cheif have distorted our country and freedoms but enablist A-holes have given up on the idea that a man and his wits are all that is needed to continue in the persuit of happiness if it means lining his own nest and not the governments.
    There was a time when the people could be trusted with the ultimate power in this Constitutional. Republic. That title was Supreme and was known as Citizen. We did not have princes or potentates and to take a mans property was much larger a crime than it appears to be today.

  37. Wayne says:

    Re “It is a rather bizarre thing to wish to celebrate the rejection of the US Constitution”

    States rights are a big part of the Constitution. I guess we shouldn’t honor the fighters in the North then.

    There goes Michael pulling out the quick insults handbook. Oh I forgot the Civil war was fought simply over slavery and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know history. Please.
    It is not like state rights and the intrusion of the federal government are issues today.

    AlexR let the secessions begin.

  38. @Wayne:

    This is tiresome. What “state right” was being fundamentally fought over? This is not hard to understand and one needs only read the documentary history of the era from the confederates themselves. The war was about slavery. The “states rights’ argument is a fig leaf that allows people, if they are so inclined, to pretend like there was a real and noble cause being fought over.

    If one wished to honor the memory of dead loved ones in one’s family, or whatever, fine by me. The notion, however, that we need to glorify the grand honor of the noble soldier who fought in a war whose primary goals were to tear apart the union for the purpose of maintaining slavery in perpetuity is an odd move in my opinion.

  39. sam says:

    “Oh I forgot the Civil war was fought simply over slavery and anyone who disagrees doesn’t know history. Please.”

    Please, yourself. List the states rights that were being infringed by the federal government that led to those states to secede. Can you do that?

  40. Double Eagle says:

    Mr. Tyler

    It is a simple matter to just google these things but you will do what you want when you want with whatever knowlege comes your way.

    http://www.southernnationalcongress.org/viewpoint.shtml

    None so blind as those who will not see.

  41. None so blind as those who will not see.

    The irony is deep, I must confess.

    However, claims such as “If only we could get more Americans upset at our current condition which is far worse than that in 1861, we will all be better for it.” make taking you seriously more than a tad difficult, to put it mildly..

    And btw, not that it is that big a deal, but Steve Tyler is the guy from Aerosmith. I, on the other hand, am the far less wealthy political scientist, Steven Taylor.

  42. @Double Eagle:

    I will confess: following the provided link is illuminating, but not in the way you hope it to be.

    Tell me: are the African-Americans in the South part of the “nation” of the South?

  43. anjin-san says:

    > It is a simple matter to just google these thing

    Aside from showing that there are a lot of right wind rant sites that celebrate ignorance in Google’s index, what is your point?

  44. Double Eagle says:

    So, the axiom of being denied property is tantamount to slavery is not illuminating to the degree I wish it to be is it? You have no idea what I wish.

    I do not delude myself that you will modify yoour position. I gave that up on the first comment. I merely provide the link so that you gain some incite into the bredth to which this debate has reignited in the public consciousness, despite my terrible spell check.

    Then what were the abolitionists and Bloody Kansas about? Perhaps I got you all wrong. You ARE a progressive.

    Are Blacks also American? Brother, I am beginning to wonder if you are. There have already been 600,000 dead in this issue, I could see easily 6 million more. Is there such a thing as tyranny in political science? I also wonder about that too.

  45. @Double Eagle:

    My question was based solely on the Manifesto at the web site you provided that speaks of the South as a nation and the Southern people as being “A Separate and Distinct People.”

    So I will ask again: are the African-Americans who reside in the South part of those designations? You are the one who pointed me out to the internet in quest for understanding, so I am seeking to understand your exact POV. Or are you saying that the Southern National Congress website does not represent your views?

    In regards to the rest of your comment, I must confess that your comment is cryptic at best.

  46. sam says:

    I think he’s drunk.

  47. Wayne says:

    DE facts are irrelevant to liberals. They think if they say something over and over enough it becomes fact. If they can’t argue the facts they call names and point out typos as if that proves their positions.

    They like to pretend the North went to war in order to free the slaves and the war was solely due to slavery. Simply not true. Slavery may have been a focal point but was not the underlining issues. Unfair tariffs and regulations imposed on the Southern States because the Northern States had the majority of votes had more to do with it. A majority unfairly punishing the minority will often cause outrage from the minority.

  48. anjin-san says:

    > They like to pretend the North went to war in order to free the slaves and the war was solely due to slavery

    Who is saying that? Clearly, Lincoln’s position was that the Union was invoilate, and that the south could not simply pack up their marbles and go home.

  49. @Wayne:

    Speaking for myself, I am well aware that the North did not go to war to free the slaves. I don’t recall ever even intimating that fact.

    If you read what I have written, my specific focus has been why the Confederate states seceded and what motivated their actions.

    Slavery is the original sin of the United States of America, a formulation that includes the northern states as well as the southern. It further indicts the Constitution itself and the Founders.

    BTW: the tariff in question did not pass the Congress until after secession began–an act that changed control of the Senate from the Democrats to the Republicans. We cannot know if the tariff would have become law if the Senators from the South had remained in the Congress.

    It is worth noting that the filibuster mechanism did exist at the time (although not in its current form).

  50. anjin-san says:

    Steven,

    Interesting stuff, though I doubt the history lesson will disrupt the Festival O’ Ignorance.

  51. michael reynolds says:

    They like to pretend the North went to war in order to free the slaves and the war was solely due to slavery. Simply not true. Slavery may have been a focal point but was not the underlining issues. Unfair tariffs and regulations imposed on the Southern States because the Northern States had the majority of votes had more to do with it. A majority unfairly punishing the minority will often cause outrage from the minority.

    Then why do you suppose that South Carolina’s declaration of secession was all about slavery?

  52. sam says:

    Indeed, as Steve points out, prior to secession, the Republicans were the minority party in the Senate

    36th Congress, 1859-1861
    Majority Party: Democratic (38)
    Minority Party: Republican (26)
    Other Parties: American (2)
    Total Seats: 66

    Only becoming the majority party with the withdrawal of the secessionist senators. What regulations did the North impose on the South that were so onerous as to cause the states to secede? You still haven’t answered that question in particular. Indeed, on the core issue, the record seems to me to be pretty clear that the North went out of its way to placate the South: Compromise of 1820, Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave Act. Once again, please supply us with the list of the regulations/laws that prompted to seceding states to decamp.

  53. An Interested Party says:

    This all echoes a lot of what’s going on now, although not in the way that some people who want to make the comparison might think…we are told how in the 1860s the southern states had their rights trampled on and had to leave the union because they were treated so unfairly…meanwhile, as sam points out, there were numerous compromises made to try to placate them, but no, many of them wanted slavery to be legal in as many places as possible, and when they thought they weren’t going to get that and slavery might actually be threatened (in their minds), then it was time to commit treason and cover that up with the fig leaf of “state’s rights”…

    Now we have some complaining how the big scary federal government (Democrats in particular) is trying to trample on people’s rights, in terms of something like HCR, and yet, the president tried to reach out to Republicans but they wanted no part of HCR, and even when the president diluted HCR and we ended up with something that was a Republican plan in the 1990s, the GOP and some conservatives still screamed bloody murder about “government takeovers” and “tyranny”…

    The more things change…

  54. While I struggled with this as a teenager, when I proposed the question of the Civil War in a certain way it helped me grasp the situation better: Would the Civil War have ever happened had the nation abolished slavery in say 1782? The obvious answer to this question is no, or at least probably not. Suffice it to say then that slavery was the predominate cause of the Civil War. The more interesting question to me is the legality of the South’s v.s. the North’s cause within the confines of the Constitution.

  55. the Q says:

    “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.”

    The above from the state of Texas cessation statement….yeah, just good ole’ boys eloquently defending state rights so morons 160 years later would unambiguously argue that us yankess are deluded in describing the civil war as being waged against a tyranny of backass crackers hellbent on perpetuating a wretched culture based on slavery.

    Now, come on defenders, grow the fu*ck up for christ sakes, lest we have to fight the same battle again against the forces of stupidity, ignorance and intellectual indolence.

  56. Double Eagle says:

    Christmas for Dave http://tinyurl.com/245fpx4

  57. Double Eagle says:

    I place the debate firmly on Hamilton and Jefferson. And Q better harden the Fu#x Up, Princess.

  58. Double Eagle says:

    I really don’t care what kind of idiocy you folks are on about; always about raaacists and all about the prejudicesof the past. My church is filled with every color and stripe it matters nothingb to me but I strive to understand them and perhaps they will me. I regard them as much as I do all of Gods creatures.

    But you folks are so intent on making everything about raaaacism, you see poooor people and thing it is because they are brown but really, its because you are so black in your souls that you can’t give it up.

    I came here to prove a point; we are here, we are right next to you, we don’t carry identifying brands but we won’t remain in the little box you have put us in and told to shut up and sit dowwn and threaten us with your laws and control. You have so much to loose and solittle knowlege. You complain like hell when things don’r go your way but you haave no argument and lack independence of thought and sloppy logic.

    People I have engaged here as well as the writer of this worthless article are not able to adress one single thing I bring up without a resort to ad hominem. It has been this way for as long as I have been engaging you people and you never learn.

    In the spirit of Christmas, turn back from this path you are on, you will destroy the country again. The soft bigotry of your positions has traded my freedoms away. You have eliminatted the posibility of political reform and control the level of discourse. For God so loved the world, now you must look on it with love to.

    What is so hard and drunk and threatening and scary abou that?

  59. @DE:

    And yet you have twice avoided answering my basic question about the web site you provided.

  60. Double Eagle says:

    Because the question is raaacist, like you are. I don’t offer an opinion on something that does not apply to me. You answer it. Are people of the black race citizens? Of course they are. Are you endlessly prattling on and condescending? Yes.

    But that belies the fact that most southernerwere not slave holders but their economy was supporter by anagrarian system. You systematic reply is that that was immoral, so the outrage that people of the South were immoral. For watching total war happen, including rape by Union soldier, is also immoral is an infantile argument because of your bigotry and own personal prejudice.

    Th argument could be made by others certainly more eloquent than me that modern day treatment of political enemies is tantamount to rough treatment the South objected to in the mid 1800’s, I don’t think I can make that argument well since I am no southerner but I can empathize with it.I will offer the argument that too big to fail and presidents beyond reproach owned by foreign interest is tantamount to eliminating the balances of power directly, to which citizens a re duty bound to oppose, if needs be with their lives and this point absolutely escapess you because it is not made inside the groupthink bubble of beltway politics.

  61. @DC:

    But I did not ask if Blacks were citizens. I asked about the web site you linked as allegedly providing information the I was lacking. To wit:

    My question was based solely on the Manifesto at the web site you provided that speaks of the South as a nation and the Southern people as being “A Separate and Distinct People.”

    The exact question, in case you have forgotten, was: “Tell me: are the African-Americans in the South part of the “nation” of the South?”

    I find it telling that you don’t want to answer.

    Perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning for linking that site?

  62. sam says:

    @Wayne

    “DE facts are irrelevant to liberals. ”

    When someone makes this claim:

    ” Did the Northern States continue their violent invasion after the Slaves were granted their freedom by Jeferson Davis? Yes.”

    Are we expected to take him seriously? If this is evidence of his knowledge of the Civil War, nothing he says about that war is worth any consideration at all.

  63. Double Eagle says:

    Mr. S. Taylor

    Of course the Blacks were a part of the nation of the Confederacy. They also formed the first ever all Black unit to fight on in the Lousiana Native Guards. Jefferson Davis even proposed to free the slaves if Britian would recognise the Confederacy, which Lincoln and Secretary Steward vehemently opposed.

    Andrew Jackson had over 32000 employed in his army as Teamsters and Cooks and many took up arms and fought alongside their Confederate brothers. Blacks have always fought for America whenever and wherever they could. It is your condescendant rascism that plainly attacks them with the need to ‘help’ them and cultivate their dependency.

    Certainly rascism and slavery were a big part of the issues of the day, but the sense that the North would forever use its power aggresively against the Southern Jeffersonians and States Rights and 10th amendment proponents proved to bear fruit when Kansas and California were admitted into the Union after the Missouri Compromise.
    Google has much more on this but your bigotry and rascist prejudices prevent you from understanding that the victors have been propogandizing this issue for 150 years and will continue ad infinitum

  64. Double Eagle says:
  65. Double Eagle says:

    The Emancipation Proclaimation did not free any blacks. Its restriction was only for conquered souhern lands and was intended to foment a violent uprising of black in the Confederacy. Its like Obama declaring minimum wage at $50 an hour for Mexico.
    It did not free any slaves being held in States that did not secede. It did nothing.

  66. anjin-san says:

    >Of course the Blacks were a part of the nation of the Confederacy.

    Yep. They were the equipment.

  67. Double Eagle says:

    Anjin San wins the official puzzler Award. Does that contribute anything worthwhile to compare human beings to luggage?

    Pray tell, what else should we do and say that may insult the races?

    Merry Christmas

  68. sam says:

    DE

    You wrote:

    ” Did the Northern States continue their violent invasion after the Slaves were granted their freedom by Jeferson Davis? Yes.”

    The link you provided says:

    “As late as 1864, Jefferson Davis proposed to release slaves in the South if Britain would recognize the Confederacy.”

    Proposing it is one thing granting it is another. No slaves were freed by Davis (he was prohibited from doing so the the CSA constitution). Freedom for slaves was discussed (and voted down by the Confederate Congress) in terms of military service. That is, there was talk of some slaves serving the Confederate army in combat roles, for which service they would be granted freedom (maybe, the legislation was silent on that). There was never, ever any realistic hope or chance that the slaves would be freed by the Confederate central government. For a concise history of this, see James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, Chap. 28, pp, 831-838.

  69. sam says:

    “Certainly rascism and slavery were a big part of the issues of the day, but the sense that the North would forever use its power aggresively against the Southern Jeffersonians and States Rights and 10th amendment proponents proved to bear fruit when Kansas and California were admitted into the Union after the Missouri Compromise.”

    DE, for your own sake, do get a copy of the book I cited in my previous comment (best one-volume history of the Civil War and its antecedents in print). That last thing I quoted is from you is so messed up as to make me embarrassed for you.

  70. Double Eagle says:

    Sam.

    There was talk that only landed gentry could vote, too. However theb question were they freed by Jeff Davis. The answer is somewhat more complex then either of our positions originally let on. Plato reserved a special place in the Republic for those who serve. Indeed they were the first citizens of the State. In Socrates own time, it was the traditional way that a slave could earn the condition of free citizen.

    Are you implying that blacks were to be excluded from earning their freedom though they took their turn on the firing line? Are they not good enough? Do they not bleed the same red color? Or, are somehow not worthy to receive their full measure because their color by day is not the same color as ours in the dark? Fredrick Douglas had to plea and lobby to get the North to recognize this and allow Black units to be formed.

    Even Jefferson Davis warned his Countrymen that regardless of the outcome of the success of the war, Slavery as an institution was finished. This news prompted West Virginia to break away from eastern Virginia in order to keep the slaves. If you read the Emancipation proclamation it specifically excluded the 46 counties of Western Virginia as well as Parishes outside of New Orleans for declaring themselves an open city. I believe that I have already stated that Jeff Davis was willing to offer freedom for the Slave of the Confederacy for a treaty that Recognised the Confederate Union of southern states. But they weren’t properly Southerrn at all, just Confederates trying to ensure their victory in the expulsion of the rapine Yankee Invading Hoards. Read any first hand account of Shermans March and you will by God feel a grip in your gut and a chill in your blood that this could ever happen in America.

  71. Double Eagle says:

    Sam

    The whole of what I have read from you, plus your ability to think critically, makes me more than a little embarassed to call you my countryman. I also assure you I am no where near as dipso as you think I am, though I am assured that you will not soon forget the pleasure of meeting me.
    I find your views lazy, dull and boring. If you were my student I would feel sorry, but I take that back, I won’t feel sorry at all for giving you a C average.

  72. W Williams says:

    Michael Reynolds,

    And I wonder about guys like you. As I responded to you on another page of this site, I pointed out the moral bankruptcy of your challenges. You wrote there: “Sherman did his best with South Carolina. People talk about his march through Georgia, but it was SC that took the worst of it. One of the reasons I’ve always liked Sherman despite his rather unenlightened views on race and a free press.” What you wrote above reveals much about you and makes you look ridiculous when you try to show moral outrage about racism and the institution of slavery. Do you, who portray yourself as so knowledgeable about history, have any inkling of what Union soldiers did in SC to both white and black people? I know a lot and not from “googling” for info. Rather I know from primary sources. I am appalled at what I hope is your ignorance of Union atrocities; otherwise, you have the heart of something quite near to a Nazi.

    W Williams