Poll: 4 in 10 Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

Originally posted by BlackOps719

Nice song dude.


That pretty much sums up the entire Southern attitude that remains for many to this day.

The Civil War has never ended... The country is as divided as much now as it was in the 1860s by the same wealthy families or ones like those that orchestrated the war between the states... I live in a county that was going to celebrate Confederate Heritage Month by flying the Stars and Bars on the flag pole at the courthouse and did for about 3 days before it had to be taken down... This is the county that took in the Captain of the Night Riders during the early days of the reconstruction period... This founder of the KKK in this state was able to drop his alias name and have no fear of reprisal by Union Troops while living here and rose to the highest levels in Free Masonry in this state... This county also has numerous members of organizations like The Daughters of The Confederacy as well as the lowest literacy rate and IQ scores in the nation.. Just a little local trivia I thought I might as well share.

reply to post by hypervigilant


And what county is that?

The trivia is fine but you left out the most important detail!

The idea that the war was not about slavery is ludicrous. Those of you who make that claim should be ashamed of yourselves. The conflicts between the North and the South were many, but slavery was at the top of the list.

Originally posted by Grumble
The idea that the war was not about slavery is ludicrous. Those of you who make that claim should be ashamed of yourselves. The conflicts between the North and the South were many, but slavery was at the top of the list.

Maybe "the top of the list" in your Rockefeller-funded history book, but like has been mentioned many times on this thread, the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. If you asked them why they were fighting, it was because their states were invaded by Northern states at Lincoln's command.

reply to post by bsbray11

Anderson County Texas... Using words with more that 3 syllables will immediately identify you as being an outsider as will driving something other than a pickup truck.

I'm confused. Please help this Canadian out.

I was taught that the civil war was about state's rights, and money.

Slaves being the 'tools' of the day, were intrinsically linked to money, and therefor to the war.

But, as stated above, I was taught that the 2 primary reasons (in order of magnitude) were rights followed by economics (money).

Now after reading this thread I am at a little bit of a loss. I have a 50/50 shot of being taught bs. Or, could it have been 6 of one, half dozen of the other?

reply to post by peck420


Well your country wasn't subject to its history being written by the winners of our war, apparently, so take that for what you will.

What you were taught is also a common understanding in the South, that slaves were obviously intricately related to the war but were not the sole or even primary cause of about a million Americans taking up arms against each other.


Most people don't seem to realize that only a few states had been considering secession when Lincoln ordered armies to be drawn up to invade South Carolina. Virginia was one state that did not secede until Lincoln told the Virginia legislature to begin assembling armies to invade South Carolina. It was only then, that Virginia voted to secede, and rapidly began destroying the North's railroads so they couldn't even reach South Carolina.

Originally posted by bsbray11
the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. If you asked them why they were fighting, it was because their states were invaded by Northern states at Lincoln's command.

And they would be dead wrong. They were fighting because the ruling class of the south was parasitically dependent upon chattel slavery. As western territories came into the union mostly as free states, it was inevitable that slavery would be eliminated under the constitution, eventually (despite the machinations of the slave power). Once this became perfectly obvious, the slave states decided to duck out of the constitution that some of them had ratified (several slave states were not independent before statehood), and attacked the federal fort Sumter.

Many times, Neo-confederates will tell you that other nations abolished slavery without bloodshed. What they fail to observe, is that this is exactly what would have happened in the U.S., if the Southern Traitors had not seen fit to abrogate the constitution and attempt secession.

There was only one irreconcilable dispute between North and South. This was the institution of chattel slavery. At the time of the civil war, over four million black slaves were held prisoner at hard labor for no crime at all. Lincoln only ever insisted that the institution of slavery not be extended to newly formed states in the western territories. Over the course of generations, this would have led to the gradual, peaceful abolition of slavery in the United States. But the Slavocracy wouldn't have it. They were more than happy to use the constitution to enforce slavery in the northern states (fugitive slave act 1850), but when the tables were turned they wanted to take their tiny, shriveled balls and go home. To his eternal credit, A. Lincoln would not allow this.

Some less educated (or willfully ignorant) neoconfederates will tell you that there could have been an amicable split, with the Slavocracy allowed to go its own way. This is a ridiculous fallacy. There would have been and immediate and inevitable conflict over the remaining Western Territories, not to mention the continued prescence of European Empires in Canada and Mexico.

Lincoln did what he must to preserve government of the people, by the people, for the people, against the Slavocracy and Tyranny of all stripes.

Originally posted by peck420
I'm confused. Please help this Canadian out.

I was taught that the civil war was about state's rights, and money.

...

That is true, in a certain sense. The antebellum Southern economy was extremely dependent on slavery for its economic viability; if slavery had been abolished immediately, it would have been chaos, so there is a certain amount of truth to the idea that economics was at the heart of the issue. Unfortunately for the Neo-confederates, immediate abolition of slavery was never imposed, nor proposed by the Federal government. They will eagerly state that Lincoln did not start the war to free the slaves, but they refuse to recognize that the Southern Aristocracy sought to preserve slavery at all costs.

The states rights question is simple; the only states rights at issue in the U.S. civil war were the right to maintain chattel slavery, and the right to secede from the union to preserve the right to maintain chattel slavery.

The slavery issue, the states rights issue, and the economic issue all boil down to one thing and one thing only: Slavery.

Before any ignorant "Southrons" (rhymes with morons) chip in that the union was divided over tariffs; Yes, that is so. And there was such a division for over 40 years before the war. This was not a deciding factor.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by bsbray11
the vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves. If you asked them why they were fighting, it was because their states were invaded by Northern states at Lincoln's command.

And they would be dead wrong. They were fighting because the ruling class of the south was parasitically dependent upon chattel slavery.

The politicians who instigated the war in the South may have been wealthy slave owners, but two wrongs don't make a right, and it was even taught at West Point in those days that secession from the union was legal and could be done peacefully.

So when Lincoln issued orders to gather soldiers to invade South Carolina, that's when SHTF and about twice as many states seceded.

Many times, Neo-confederates will tell you that other nations abolished slavery without bloodshed. What they fail to observe, is that this is exactly what would have happened in the U.S., if the Southern Traitors had not seen fit to abrogate the constitution and attempt secession.

Once again, it was fully understood at that point in time that any state that peacefully entered the union, could peacefully leave it. It was Lincoln who said otherwise, and caused 600,000 or however many it really was Americans to die. No number of excuses you make after the fact change that, and all your harping about slavery is irrelevant. Slavery would not have been able to survive much longer as an institution and even Jefferson Davis himself was determined to phase it out by educating African Americans.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Once again, it was fully understood at that point in time that any state that peacefully entered the union, could peacefully leave it...

This was the (false) understanding of the secessionists, I'll grant you. The only reason for their secession was to maintain the inhuman, unjust and vile institution of chattel slavery. Again, you claim that slavery would have soon been antiquated. However that didn't seem to factor into the thinking of the Slavocracy of the time, now did it? The Secessionists of the time stated openly that the issue at hand was preservation of slavery. If the sainted Jefferson davis wanted to educate the slaves, why did he never do so? If slavery was soon to go the way of the dodo, then why sacrifice all those soldiers for nothing. This is nothing but post hoc rationalization by sympathizers of the most vile barbarism.

Originally posted by 547000
Considering that even some educated people long for it and many want it for the future it is neither ignorant nor backwards.

Yes there are a few "educated' "people" who "long for it", but they are nevertheless backward and ignorant.

To propose the restoration of slavery is barbaric.

To propose the restoration of the Confederacy without slavery is to propose nothing at all, for the Confederacy without slavery is nothing whatsoever.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


I've read through and I am still confused as to how you can say the Confederacy and slavery are not separable?

To me that would be like saying the US in general couldn't exist without exploiting, killing, and displacing Native Americans. Just an erroneous argument from what I can tell.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, it was fully understood at that point in time that any state that peacefully entered the union, could peacefully leave it...

This was the (false) understanding of the secessionists, I'll grant you.

No one thought it was "false" until it was clear Lincoln decided he'd rather go to war than let South Carolina secede peacefully. That was his call. And for Northerners it seems to have been about as popular as the Iraq War at the time, and after the union loss at First Manassas the war was nearly called off immediately. Again, Lincoln was determined not to let a single state secede without bloodshed.

Like I said, it's a documented historical fact that even West Point (where many military officers on both sides of the war graduated) taught that secession was a legal option for all states who had ratified the Constitution.


Read:

William Rawle, who was appointed United States attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791 by George Washington, wrote an important study on United States government. His book was in use at West Point when men such as Robert E. Lee attended the U. S. military academy. The Rawle’s textbook says this about secession: "The secession of a state from the union depends on the will of the people of such state." He adds, "It depends on the State itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principles on which all our political systems are founded; which is, the people have, in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed." Rawle does not treat secession lightly; he says "To withdraw from the union is a solemn and serious act", yet states retain the right to do so.

arkansastoothpick.com...


Again, this was taught at the same institution where Robert E. Lee graduated 2nd in his class, and Ulysses S. Grant graduated near the bottom. It was mainstream political philosophy of the time.

It went completely unchallenged, until Lincoln ordered South Carolina be invaded for seceding. And again, this is when Virginia and many other states finally seceded. They did not secede before that, even at the idea that slavery would be curtailed or eventually abolished. Virginia was the first state to pass laws against slave importation. Virginia seceded only when Lincoln ordered these states to invade their own neighbors.

you claim that slavery would have soon been antiquated. However that didn't seem to factor into the thinking of the Slavocracy of the time, now did it?

What is this, circular reasoning? It wasn't about slavery in the first place. South Carolina may have seceded because of slavery, but not all the other states, and the war itself was most definitely not just about slavery. It was more complicated than that, and two wrongs still don't make a right. It was not considered legal at that time to invade another state just because it wished to exercise its right of secession. That meant more than slavery, it meant hundreds of thousands of grown men murdering each other on top of that. Which is why I say two wrongs don't make a right. It was Lincoln's decision to cause this.

If the sainted Jefferson davis wanted to educate the slaves, why did he never do so?

Well let's see, he only had 4 years and the resources during those 4 years were kind of tied up in other places, you know? Do you know how the Northerner carpetbaggers treated African Americans during reconstruction in those same states? Let me guess, you think the Yankees came down and treated everyone like royalty after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by 547000
Considering that even some educated people long for it and many want it for the future it is neither ignorant nor backwards.

Yes there are a few "educated' "people" who "long for it", but they are nevertheless backward and ignorant.

To propose the restoration of slavery is barbaric.

To propose the restoration of the Confederacy without slavery is to propose nothing at all, for the Confederacy without slavery is nothing whatsoever.

I disagree. I don't think confederacy without slavery is nothing at all. I think you're trying to make those two things equivalent to silence debate.

If lincoln and the north went to war because of slavery, answer me this:
Was a Constitutional convention ever held before the war with an attempt to pass an amendment that ended slavery?

Yes or no?

Originally posted by cardicorona

Also, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. If the war was about slavery then why did Lincoln not free the slaves in the four Union slave states?

The war started when South Carolina seceded from the Union because of northern tariffs. Sorry, not slavery.

I think you're confusing S.C.'s secession with the nullification crisis in 1832. Though one could argue that Andrew Jackson's preparation to invade S.C. with 30,000 troops just because S.C. thought (quite rightly) that the Tariff of 1828 was unjustly skewed for the North was the catalyst for the War for Southern Secession.

The so-called Civil War was about many things, not the least of which was slavery. It wasn't about slavery from a humanitarian viewpoint, but from a property rights one. However one feels about slavery (it's abhorrent), slaves were legal property. When one bought slaves, it was no different than buying land, horses or milk. Slave owners felt (quite rightly) that taking their slaves was taking their property, and they would not be reimbursed. This is theft as far as the definition goes!

As for Lincoln's views on slavery, here is an excerpt from his debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858:

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

While Lincoln didn't agree with slavery ethically, he felt it was legal (which it was). The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come about because of altruism or philanthropy. It came about because the North was losing the war and Lincoln needed more soldiers. What better way to get them than to declare the freedom of slaves and gain 200,000 more angry men to fight against a cause for you? Lincoln didn't really care about them, he only cared that the states stay together under the control of the federal government.

Did anyone here know that after the war, Lincoln wanted to send all of the blacks to Liberia, a country created by the United States for the North to send freed slaves?! He didn't think they should be here because of his views that they weren't equal and actually inferior to whites! Does that sound like the old Honest Abe we learned about in school? As has been said here before, history is written by the winners. The losers get a footnote if they're lucky.

/TOA