Eugene Robinson: The Confederacy Isn’t Something to Be Proud Of

[babylonsister]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_confederacy_isnt_something_to_be_proud_of_20100412/

The Confederacy Isn’t Something to Be Proud Of

Posted on Apr 12, 2010


"Scars of a Whipped Slave" / National Archives

By Eugene Robinson


It was bad enough when Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell proclaimed Confederate History Month without mentioning slavery, but at least he came to his senses and apologized. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour’s contention that the whole controversy “doesn’t amount to diddly” is much worse.

“I don’t know what you would say about slavery,” Barbour told CNN, “but anybody that thinks that you have to explain to people that slavery is a bad thing, I think that goes without saying.”

And that’s the problem—Barbour thinks it “goes without saying.” The governor of the state whose population includes the highest percentage of African-Americans in the nation believes it is appropriate to “honor” those who fought for the Confederacy. Clearly, he has no problem with revisiting the distant past. Yet he sees no reason to mention the vile, unthinkable practices—state-sanctioned kidnapping, torture and rape—that those Confederate soldiers were fighting to protect.

It amounts to much more than “diddly” that so many Americans try hard to avoid coming to terms with the reality of slavery. It wasn’t just “a bad thing.” Littering is a bad thing. Slavery was this nation’s Original Sin, and yet many people will not look at it except through a gauze of Spanish moss.

snip//

This is a free country—for black people, too, thanks to the defeat of the Confederacy—and so if some white Southerners want to celebrate the “heritage” of slavery, they are welcome to do so. But while they’re entitled to their own set of opinions, they’re not entitled to their own set of facts. I’d say that Haley Barbour’s studied ignorance was “a bad thing,” but that would be a gross understatement.


Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.

[democrank]

1. K & R

[dotymed]

26. Isn't it amazing?

The state with the largest "African American" population, has a governor who is evidently a racist, "good ol' boy." If every American would and could vote their conscious, we might have a different nation.

[tblue]

32. How can you claim to love America and want to enslave Americans?

What a pig.

[Alcibiades]

66. They did vote their conscience

Mississippi is 38% black. Barbour beat his Democratic challenger by a margin of 58% to 42%.

What does this mean? To the extent that there are white Democrats in Mississippi, they are conservadems who voted for Barbour. They heard the dog whistle.

[MUAD_DIB]

74. What is the population of active voters in Mississipppi?

[Alcibiades]

100. In 2008, the voting age population was 2,109,000

There were 1,895,583 registered voters and 1,289,865 votes cast, for an overall turnout rate of 68% among registered voters and 61.2% among the voting age population.

Compare this to the 2007 gubernatorial election, which had a total turnout of 715,590, for a 38% turnout of registered voters. There's a reason why some states like to have their gubernatorial elections in off years.

[ccharles000]

2. k/r

[FrenchieCat]

3. I was thinking the same thing....for a while now.

We fought a war. They lost.
Normally, one doesn't celebrate
those who were at one point,
the mortal enemy.

[JohnnyBoots]

12. The attack on Fort Sumter would today be considered an act of domestic terrorism.

[greencharlie]

42. 600,000 AMERICANS died...

WHO won?

[LynneSin]

51. That's the thing about wars - once people die it's hard to say who 'won'

However you have to look at the final impact of the war. For WWII, we were able to put an end to the Concentration Camps that Germany was running all over Europe, camps that murdered over 6million Jews and other enemies of the state. For the Civil War it brought an end to Slavery.

I was watching 'Saving Private Ryan' and it just reminds me of how horrible war is and how we take these innocent kids from our heartland and turn them, essentially, into murderers. I don't think I could ever live down killing another person where it was done to protect myself or my country - it would haunt me the rest of my life.

War is hell!

[LynneSin]

49. You don't see Germany or Japan celebrating "We Lost!! Woohoo! Day

Hell we barely acknowledge the day we pulled out of Vietnam.

Go figure

[zbdent]

4. and yet they wonder why they get 9 percent of the "black" vote ...

[FrenchieCat]

5. They call those House ______________

There's always some of those around.
They want to be loved, no matter the price.
See Steele, Condi and Justice Thomas for your guides.

[zbdent]

6. maybe they're all the n*****s that the GOP can

afford to buy ... I mean, they're "conservative", right? That means they don't realize that the Civil War was over slavery, right?

[FrenchieCat]

7. Doesn't really matter what they think.

Part of *our* problem is that we are becoming as obsessed over this bullshit
as the media is. I'm trying to figure out what the fascination is with
these teabaggers and these racists folks. It's almost like it is a new
fad to report when they even fart round here.

[mrdmk]

41. There is a problem, a major problem, open rebellion with fire arms is not to be taken lightly

People are told to take up arms and protect themselves. The message is being spread around by people in government and the media. Unfortunately it gets worst, there are in the government (law enforcement officials) that are stepping-up handing out 'carry weapons permits', both open carry and concealed.

This also needs to mention, militia groups are on the rise. That is a fact. Another disturbing fact is Representative Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City believes legislation will be past that a militia group will be organize by the State of Oklahoma to oppose the Federal Government.

At this point in my opinion, these people need to be taken seriously because their fears are being enforced by national speakers, the media, and local and national leaders. The solution given to this group is to take-up arms and be ready to use them. This problem is not a fad by any means and needs to be dealt with in a constructive manner! Not in a violent manner...

[political_Dem]

9. +1000 eom

[political_Dem]

8. Mr. Robinson hit it out of the park.

That is succinctly the issue. People romanticize the Confederacy by viewing it in rose-colored lenses. The "apologists" who go all mushy when talking about Confederacy seem to ignore the intense pain and vile consequences of their love affair with this period of history.

Hell. It is crap like this that explains why one must say, "Goddamn America", or sing "Mississippi God Damn".

[AlbertCat]

31. People romanticize the Confederacy by viewing it in rose-colored lenses.

Boy! Is that true!

I'm a Southerner and I love it down here for many reasons. But this love of the Confederacy has done nothing but hold the South back and make those of us from here with a drawl have to prove we aren't hayseeds and bigots. It's DETRIMENTAL to the very area they profess to love so much.

If they knew their history they'd know that, yes, Confederate soldiers fought bravely. So did Union soldiers! And the Union DEFEATED the South with one hand tied behind its back. For instance.... it never stopped building the very Capital Building, where these Southern Senators work, during the entire course of the war. The Confederacy failed in every one of its goals.


About the only thing in "Gone With The Wind" that is totally true is Rhett Butler's speech in the drawing room at Twelve Oaks....the one about cotton & slaves....& arrogance. Reminds me of the Teabaggers.

The Civil War was a huge thing that changed more lives than the Revolutionary War did. It should be studied and even honored. Monuments to those who died on both sides are of course right and good. The question of how much power the Federal Government had was up in the air before the war (that's why "treason" is not exactly appropriate) but the war DECIDED THAT QUESTION FOR GOOD. (why it actually would be treason today.... you listening Alaska?).

I once heard some yankees from NJ complaining: "The minute you cross the Mason/Dixon line, it's "Civil War battlefield" and "Civil War Museum" all over the place!" Well, DUH! It was fought down here, not in NJ. There's a big ass battlefield and museum somewhere in PA, I think....that's not the SOUTH. So you see, ignorance on this fascinating and complex subject is not confined to the South.

[greencharlie]

45. well...

Since you're FROM the South... I thought you'd know better.

When Lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers to clean up the rebels... most expected this to be over in weeks. And for 4 years... with little to no industry, little to no international support, with little to no real depth of population the Confederates managed to keep the Union tied up and came within one or two battles of forcing a peaceful conclusion. Lee wins in Gettysburg, shatters the AOTP and threatens D.C. and Lincoln loses in 1864... and the new DEM POTUS signs a peace treaty.

[sulphurdunn]

56. Had your scenario played itself out

The newly independent Confederacy would have continued the process of Balkanization that began during the war. It would have fractured into petty little agricultural slave fiefdoms that would have fought each other to steal land and slaves because the North would not have either tolerated the importation of slaves or the expansion of slavery into the West. The Confederacy would finally have succumbed to free labor industrialization, abolition, the onrushing 20th Century and would have petitioned to rejoin the Union one petty little kingdom at a time.

[greencharlie]

61. agreed...

it wouldn't have been fragrant magnolias, Rhett and the happy gang.

Ironic thing is... if Lincoln would have just let them secede, how long until they would have freed the slaves anyways? 5 years? No more than 10 years with the pressure from all possible future trade partners. Woulda' kinda' saved 600,000 lives.

[Enthusiast]

70. LMAO!

They probably wouldn't have freed the slaves until the 20th century. Maybe they would still embrace slavery. We know how ridiculous they behaved over the civil rights movement. That should tell you something right there.

Why are so many white Southerners still racist? I remember when Obama's approval rating was around 60% nationwide it was only 28% in the South-that is racism pure and simple.

[hedgehog]

93. In a lot of ways, many blacks weren't free until the modern Civil Rights Era.

In fact, with the end of reconstruction, many freed slaves went back into a pseudo slavery.

[Enthusiast]

103. That is a fact! nt

[boppers]

80. LOL, 10 years?

Heard of Nelson Mandela?

Know what you might have heard of him?

[greencharlie]

99. please let me explain.

I know this is an emotional topic but let's go at it logically.

IF the South successfully seceded... they'd be an independent nation, the CSA.

let's look at some history:

The CSA had 2 main export products, Cotton for the textile industry and Tobacco.

Let's start with Tobacco, the CSA had very little agriculture for food production. Corn, Wheat and other foodstuff were grown mostly on a farm by farm basis for the consumption of the occupants. The CSA needed to IMPORT food because their own agriculture was hindered by the dependancy on Cotton which as a crop is destructive to land. The Union states of Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Iowa had corn and wheat... and they NEEDED Tobacco. If the CSA were to have a trade relationship with the Union, there would have been pressure on the institution of slavery.

The main purchaser of Cotton was England and France. By 1861 an overabundance of Cotton existed in Europe and England was especially hostile to the philosophy of slavery.

It takes NO SCHOLAR to understand that an independent CSA would need a dynamic economy to survive as a fledgling nation. The ONLY way that the CSA would have a healthy TRADE/EXPORT relationship with Europe would be to end Slavery. England would have INSISTED on it... we have records of the negotiations between William Lowndes Yancey, Pierre A. Rost, and A. Dudley Mann in England in the spring of 1861 conferring with Lord Russell, the British foreign secretary. These discussions included the future of slavery AFTER a potential CSA victory in the Civil War.

Slavery was intended to be a source of free/cheap labor to make $$ for a plantation/businesss owner. But the same government would be faced with the choice of continued slavery as an institution or ending slavery for financial prosperity.

Make no mistake... a Southern "Slave Nation" was not possible.

And make NO mistake, Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War to retain and restore the Union.

IMHO... I believe that IF Lincoln KNEW of the 600,000+ deaths this war would bring... he would NOT have executed the war. Lincoln got his foot caught in the crack and was forced to dance.

[Enthusiast]

104. But the Confederacy was willing

to sacrifice all those young lives to preserve slavery? But they would have voluntarily given it up because their trading partners didn't approve? With all due respect, this is fantasy, and it doesn't take a scholar to recognize that.

[boppers]

105. The glaring assumption is that ending "paper slavery" would have fixed the problem.

Last time I visited the south, I was *still* (to that day, 2005) treated, greeted, and looked at differently by white, and black, store clerks, street people, (etc.), and I could see huge differences in how people were treated within weeks.

Slavery is still alive there, only it has different names now, as it has for the last 140 years.

It's similar in other states, too, including some northern ones, but it's most pervasive in the South, IMNSHE.

[unc70]

47. They did not know NJ's slave history, or slave trade was New England

Hardly anyone seems even aware of Northern slavery, probably because those in the North wrote the history books. Most states in the North transitioned very slowly from slave to "indenctured fo r life", and I believe NJ was something like "apprenticed for life at birth". NJ still had a few classified as slaves not freed until 1865. NJ also had some of the worst slave conditions and punishments.

You will be amazed how quickly the stigma of slavery will disappear after you convert those embarrassing slaves into respectable indentured servants. Those near and far will wonder where those excess slaves had disappeared to: did they leave with the British? Get sold South? What could it be? You can sit back and smile smuggly, knowing they haven't gone anywhere and are still working for you. Act quickly and others will pay for their longterm care.

Thanks to efforts by the current generation of the DeWolf family and their continuing efforts -- "Inheriting the Trade" and POV "Traces of the Trade" -- more people will learn that horrors of the slave trade are the main story in the history of New England, its dominant industry not of the South except as customers.

It is an eye-opener for most people when they see the extent of slavery in the North.

http://www.slavenorth.com gives a quick overview.

[Fire1]

60. One can't defend the indefensible whether north or south.

I think THAT is the point.

[hedgehog]

94. If you want to bring up slavery in the North, you're also going to

have to bring up the Northern War to free the slaves.

Oh that's right, there wasn't one.

[The_Commonist]

52. Ocean City New Jersey...

... is south of the Mason-Dixon line.
For what that's worth...

[saltpoint]

10. With a few sentences Eugene Robinson blows the smarmy Governor Barbour

clean out of the water.

Terrific article.

Strongly recommended.

:hi:

[polichick]

11. Barbour should be ashamed, but right-wing blowhards like him have no shame...

Love Robinson and subscribe on my Kindle.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. Gov. Bob McDonnell and Gov. Haley Barbour

are trying to rewrite history, obviously. Reminds me of Texas.

The civil war was not only because the south wanted to remain a separate from the rest of the country, but the south was also DEFENDING slavery. However, in the end, they fucking lost!!

and that flag of theirs stands for "Secession, Bigotry and Slavery"

[Historic NY]

14. Barbour ought to be concerned about raising his states rankings from dead last.

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/yearcompare/2008/2009/MS.aspx

in health care, premature death, cardiovascular disease, obesity, child poverty, HS graduation rates and income.

I heard him whining to Candie Crowley the other morning that the health care bill would put more people in his state on Medicare. Interesting since they apparently need it. Barbour must chair the "Death Panels" as he gets to choose who get health care & who dies due to the lack of it.

Mississippi still struggles under economic & health care slavery.

[Cha]

17. Rec your post, too.

[Historic NY]

18. Thank you I had a cousin just die there, she should have stayed in Florida....

health care isn't even close. Her husband died a couple months before her shes was a retired teacher & librarian.

[Cha]

19. Sorry, it's an insane world where those who

can tell the biggest lies get to preside over life and death in certain areas of our country.

[KansDem]

33. Mississippi got back $2.02 in federal spending for every dollar paid in federal taxes in 2005.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

It's no. 2 in the nation, just behind no. 1 New Mexico's $2.03.

[Jennicut]

15. What is crazy is this even needs to be said at all. We are debating the acts of the Confederacy

this many years later. Back then, the Confederacy first said slavery was a key reason for secession. Later, after they lost they tried to claim it was for states' rights. Utter bs. It was to protect a way of life that included keeping and controlling slaves and any of the abuse that was involved with that. After all, slaves afforded them a certain lifestyle.
The fact that in 2010 that is not obvious to some conservatives is crazy. The confederacy was wrong. They are not to be celebrated or honored. Remembered, yes. History is important. Rewriting history is pathetic.

[Enthusiast]

71. The right wing is trying to rewrite

history on every front. They are attempting to smear FDR and the New Deal and they are even saying that fascism is left wing. It is ridiculous.

[unpossibles]

76. yeah, states' rights to own people nt

[Cha]

16. Leave it to haley barbour to open his ugly

stupid mouth and make a bigger mess..for himself.

Just curious, did he take Recovery Funds for his state?

[marew]

20. Heard Nicholas Kristof speak last week.

Slavery was and still is a nightmarish existence for so many individuals in many parts of the world. To attempt to sweep it under the rug or dismiss it so easily is inexcusable. Why should we chose to 'honor' those who fought to continue enslaving others? They have nothing to be proud of, absolutely nothing.

[blueworld]

21. Very true, but it's also no excuse for endless south bashing.

If some white northerners want to use the Civil War as endless proof that the North is "all good" & the South "all bad" they're welcome to their own opinions but not their own set of facts. That includes Mr. Robinson.

McDonnell is a moran who was attempting to appeal to the worst of the Old Dominion. IMO, he's scum. If he had to issue a "proclamation" it should have been for Civil War History & the inclusion of slavery as a US evil - North & South. But he didn't.

I'm glad the MSM got off their lazy asses to challenge & express certain outrage. I'll be more grateful when the outrage extends all over & I will be ecstatic when the Civil War is viewed as a horrific tragedy & not a weapon to continue to bludgeon the South.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. Mr. Robinson isn't a "white Northerner" and you clearly did not read his piece at all.

In addition, two southern states are under attack because their elected dumbfuck governors downplayed slaveryThis bludgeoning is self inflicted.

[fishwax]

29. the knee jerk conflation of "confederate bashing" wtih "south bashing"

Happens all the time in threads that involve the confederacy -- even if nobody is bashing the contemporary south; even if criticism of southern leaders is clearly justified by their attempt to glorify and celebrate confederate history; even if, as Robinson does in his article, the sins of northern states are clearly articulated as well.

[AlbertCat]

34. This bludgeoning is self inflicted.

Indeed it is.

there is however much ignorance of the subject on both sides of the Mason/Dixon and the Mississippi. See my post #31 above.

I remember several posts during the Bush years complaining about "Southern Politicians in charge....shoulda let them succeed...blah blah blah..."


TX is not the South (though they'd like to be) Long horns and cowboys are the WEST, not the South. No one wore a cowboy hat in the south until Nashville became the country music capital. Southern horsemanship is English oriented, not Western oriented.... and so on...

Cheney is from WY
Bush from CT
Rummy from Il
Rove from CO

none of them Southerners.... even if they pretend to be.

But this knee jerk reaction that all bad politicians are from the South is partly due to good ol' boys whooping it up about fond memories of antebellum times....which they obviously know nothing about.

[SwampG8r]

75. need to fact check yourself

florida was full of cowboys with big hats way before anyone ever heard of texas
aand spanish cattle like we used to have here would put a longhorn to shame

[boppers]

81. Closer, but wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_cracker

It probably helps to note the distinction between a vaquero, a cracker, and a cowboy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy

From the first article:
"The Florida "cowhunter" or "cracker cowboy" of the 19th and early 20th centuries was distinct from the Spanish vaquero and the Western cowboy. Florida cowboys did not use lassos to herd or capture cattle. Their primary tools were bullwhips and dogs. Florida cattle and horses were small. The "cracker cow", also known as the "native cow", or "scrub cow" averaged about 600 pounds, had large horns and large feet.<1>"

[fishwax]

24. what is it about Robinson's article that you take exception to?

"... they're welcome to their own opinions but not their own set of facts. That includes Mr. Robinson."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

25. His white northerner attitude, I guess.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_D3eD9fIy3no/SfCQht7HR6I/AAAAAAAAAFk/2r-yad6pyGY/s400/Eugene+Robinson+2.jpg

Eugene Robinson
Born: SOUTH CAROLINA
Currently Lives in: VIRGINIA

[fishwax]

27. ha!

:thumbsup:

[Fire1]

46. I don't "see" the attitude to which you're referring and I DID read

and comprehend the article to it's fullest extent. Care to elaborate?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

50. The poster to which I was referring to said that the article had a "white Northerner" attitude

demonizing the South.

I was pointing out that Mr. Robinson is neither white nor a Northerner.

[Fire1]

57. Glad I asked. Gotcha. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

78. LOL

[provis99]

82. so you're the one who just equated the South with the Confederacy.

No wonder others are constantly bashing the south as the beacon of the confederacy. People like you can't even figure out the difference between bashing the south and bashing the confederacy. I think black Southerners, who are as southern as anyone, would mostly support bashing the confederacy at any and all times.

[Hekate]

23. Well-said, Mr. Robinson. KnR.

[Zoeisright]

28. Those fucking losers are just plain sick.

They LOST. And they can't get over it. Bunch of fucking whiners.

[uponit7771]

30. Amen!!!

[Fire1]

35. Let alone "CELEBRATE." Thank you, Mr. Robinson!!! n/t

[my2sense]

36. +1

[riverwalker]

37. Sons of the Union

You know how they have "Sons of the Confederacy", we need Sons(and daughters) of the Union for descendants of union veterans. To tell their stories of why they fought the war. Mine were Norwegian immigrants, some were here less than five years before they enlisted in the 15th Wisconsin. Their revulsion at even the idea of slavery was passionate.

[marew]

38. One of my direct ancestors died for the Union

and his widow and child suffered for it. He was from Pennsylvania and I am proud of him. If he'd fought to enslave other human beings, I'd just keep silent. Slavery anytime, anywhere is a horrendous crime against humanity.

[Divine Discontent]

39. regardless of what anyone says - the civil war ultimately is about the enslaving of a race, and

freeing them.

What was done to people, who were ignorant because they were treated like animals and not given human dignity and education, was disgusting and America did it, well a good portion of it. Thankfully, many whites said enough. Sorry that it had to be most of the South being against civil rights and freedom, but that's just the breaks of the game. You can't claim you yearn for the old days when you didn't live in them, and the old days were marred with slavery, and not be considered evil!

[Fire1]

44. Correction: The CAPTURE and "enslavement of a race...." n/t

[Divine Discontent]

53. exactly - even worse!

[quiet.american]

40. My God, that photo puts things in perspective.

Thank you, Eugene Robinson.

[struggle4progress]

54. That man walked across the lines to fight for the Union. Before

it was a famous photo, it was a famous engraving: Harpers ran a story about him when it happened, with a print based on the photo. You can probably still find it online with a bit of work: I'm pretty sure I posted a link to the original Harpers story here a few years back

[quiet.american]

65. Thank you for the additional info. I'll definitely look it up. nt

[struggle4progress]

69. Harper's, July 4, 1863 n/t

[quiet.american]

72. 'Preciate it. nt

[1776Forever]

43. I agree! My ancestor was a bugler in the CW. At least 618,000 died of which 360,222 were Union.

He left his family as many did to fight for the Union and to end slavery and keep the country as one. I don't think we hear enough about that and I am proud of his service!

...............

The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

[LynneSin]

48. I guess that depends on where you are from and what color your skin is

:grr:

[SemperEadem]

55. treasonous traitors are no heros or patriots

fuck what ya heard.

This country is a Union. You don't like being a part of the united, then you are welcome to leave and go back to where your ancestors came from.

The train ain't going in reverse, so either get on board or get the fuck out.

[lefty2000]

58. Reminds me of William Faulkner Quote

"The past is not dead. In fact, it is not even past."

[Number23]

59. "many people will not look at it except through a gauze of Spanish moss."

Ain't that the damned truth. It's either completely ignored or bastardized/misinterpreted/misappropriated/whitewashed so goddamned much to be almost unrecognizable. And that includes alot of stuff about black history in this country, not just slavery.

When I did my black history thread in February, I was really happy with 99% of the responses but I wasn't surprised that someone came in and posted that my thread was "unnecessary and divisive" as if the very THOUGHT that the pain, suffering, triumphs and contributions of black people in this country should be acknowledged was offensive. And this is on a "progressive" board. Truly makes you wonder what folks say in private if stuff like this is what gets said on message boards and in the media. No wonder we haven't come as far as we could.

[paparush]

62. Around my parts, there's a bumper sticker you see every once in a while-

Picture of the Rebel battle flag with the caption - "If this symbol makes you uncomfortable, you need a history lesson."

I need to run off copies of the pic in the original post to leave on their windshield.

[boppers]

84. How about "If you think this was the confederate flag, you need a history lesson".

The army of Tennessee flag was not the confederate flag. Plain and simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

[Grand Taurean]

63. The only "states rights" that the Confederate were interested

in was making their own economic decisions, which INCLUDED THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP SLAVES AS A MEANS OF CHEAP LABOR!

[gorfle]

68. This was probably true for rich Southerners...

The only "states rights" that the Confederate were interested in was making their own economic decisions, which INCLUDED THEIR RIGHT TO KEEP SLAVES AS A MEANS OF CHEAP LABOR!

This is probably true of the rich, powerful elite of the Confederacy, but not for the vast majority of Confederate soldiers who fought.

It is very similar to today. We embark on imperialistic wars designed mostly to protect economic interests, while the common soldier fights for the nationalistic idea of honor and duty to country, and benefits little, if at all, from the conflict.

[provis99]

83. poor southerners fought to own slaves, too.

They may not have owned slaves at the time, but they WANTED to own slaves. They were willing to fight for the POSSIBILITY of owning slaves, which to my mind is even more pathetic than slave-owners fighting to keep their slaves.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

87. Similar to the way many people fight tax increases for the top 1% even though they themselves are

working poor.

You wouldn't want that tax increase in case you became super rich, right?

[gorfle]

96. Interesting assertion.

They may not have owned slaves at the time, but they WANTED to own slaves.

An interesting assertion. I don't know if it's true or not. I suspect not. Do today's soldiers hope to benefit from oil profits gained by having a chokehold in the middle east? I don't think so. I think they are driven by nationalistic pride and a sense of honor and duty.

[Hosnon]

98. I agree that it's likely not true. The poorer Southerners likely

fought for a multitude of different reasons, including employment and societal pressure.

[myrna minx]

64. K&R n/t

[gorfle]

67. It's a harsh issue.

I believe that slavery was definitely a big part of the Civil War. But only for rich people, as they were the ones who owned slaves, and they were the ones with the most to loose since their wealth was built on slave labor. I suspect that then, as today, large monied financial interests incited the war, and whipped up nationalistic (state-listic?) furor in the masses to encourage them to fight for their cause.

Most of the Confederate soldiers did not own slaves - they were far too poor to own them. They fought for an ideal - the ideal of self-determination as they thought the nation was intended to function - with most power in the hands of the states.

I can admire the Confederate soldiers of old, much as I can admire, for example, the u-boat crews of Nazi Germany in spite of how terrible the Nazi regime was. This is not the same thing as admiring SS soldiers, or concentration camp guards.

[DirkGently]

73. Here's to Eugene

It goes without saying that it does NOT "go without saying."

[SwampG8r]

77. oh great

another opportunity for DUers to bash the south

sheesh

i aint stayin fer this here nonsense i got moonshine to bottle and cousins to fuck

[flyarm]

79. neither is what was done to the American Indians.eom

[Dank Nugs]

85. No, Slavery was not this nation's original sin. Genocide was.

Sorry, but I disagree. The Confederacy isn't about celebrating the "heritage" of slavery. Besides, why the heck is everyone overlooking the fact that the Framers actually wanted to prohibit slavery when they were writing the Constitution? The only reason it was left out was because they didn't think enough states would ratify it, IIRC.

Our slavery past is certainly a black mark, but it's nothing compared to what we did to the Native Americans. We killed them indiscriminately. Then compare this to all of the atrocities that have happened throughout humanity's past. Yes, it's horrible. But it happened. Also, I love that last paragraph -- the facts are written by the victor and often slanted. I doubt he examined the issue objectively, because both sides in this conflict had their points. If the author of this article expects me to feel guilty over this, he failed. I wasn't alive, I didn't do it. My ancestors did. Quit taking responsibility for something that you never did. Why saddle yourself down with that baggage? It happened. It ended.

People should try to remember the past while remaining in the present and worry not about the future. For the future doesn't exist and never shall. There is only now. If the author wants his intended audience to feel guilt and take responsibility for their actions, then perhaps he should focus on something more... recent.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

86. Yeah, you clearly couldn't be arsed to read the harrowing page of text Robinson wrote

Nor do you sound as though you know what this controversy is all about. He didn't just pull this from thin air. Two dipshit governors were dismissing slavery as unimportant.

[Dank Nugs]

88. No, It was a war of economic systems / states rights; slavery was just the catalyst.

Yes, but slavery pales in comparison to the systemic eradication of an entire culture. I'm saying that it's a bit disingenuous to tie slavery to something, just because a state wants to remember its role in the War Between The States. I grew up just outside of Winchester. The Union were the aggressors. I just don't see where the outcry is coming from since people in my generation have never directly experienced slavery, but their ancestors did. We celebrate Thanksgiving still, and you don't hear anyone making a big fuss over the Native Americans that were literally wiped out as we expanded Westward. What happened in the past is horrible, but we can't change the past. All we can do is remember it and learn lessons from the mistakes that were made. That's part of you know.. the whole.. Confederate History month.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

89. Yeah, sure it was. That's why the Declarations of Secession all said "This war is about slavery!"

The attempts to paint it as states rights is just a sorry excuse to try and whitewash over the reality.

Also, I have no idea where you've been, but people sure as hell DO make a big deal about Native American genocide. See: Every Columbus Day.

[Dank Nugs]

90. If you could just quote the relevant passage..

Where one of the States who seceded actually declared that their sole reason to do so was because of 'slavery'.

The point is that secession is a right that is reserved to the states, if you were to read the 10th. It's never been officially recognized but after Secession, the Union had no jurisdiction over the Confederate States and were invaders of their native land. It was a war over competing economic models, along with States Rights. The free market would have eventually phased out slavery. Lincoln, when issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, did not free the slaves in the 4 slave states that had joined up with the Union. It had nothing to do with slavery but Federalism trumping States, and whether secession was a right -- no matter how scurrilous the reasoning. Had slavery been prohibited over night, it would have devastated the Southern economy. If the issue hadn't been forced, the free market would have eventually forced the South to shift from Agrarianism to another economic system.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

91. Read them yourself. Here:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Slavery continued to exist in the form of "sharecropping" well into the 20th century. So your suggestion is that all presidents should have agreed to return fugitive slaves and allow slavery to expand into the new territories until the 1950s? Really?

[Dank Nugs]

92. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam. You need to qualify your arguement.

Yeah, Sharecropping was akin to a serf farming the land he didn't own for the benefit of the feudal lord. It's pretty fucked up how people can exploit others like that, but that's what happens when you dehumanize a class of people on the basis of appearance/beliefs/sexuality. See: Israel v. Palestinians. My suggestion would have been to let the states secede and then compete economically with the South using their heavy industry. The Free Market would have eventually demanded that the Southern Aristocracy shift from the Agrarian system to a more competitive system. I would have made it conditional that any new territory wanting admission to the Union would have to prohibit slavery.

The War Between The States was such a horrible tragedy. We lost more American lives in that war than any other war we've ever fought in the history of the US. Then it took a few decades to repair the relations between the South and the Federal Government vis a vis Reconstruction. I am not justifying slavery at all. But I certainly do think that people have the right to self-determinism, and part of that includes the ability to choose whether or not you want to be a citizen of a certain country. If the State votes for secession, they have that right to do so. That right cannot be infringed upon by any man or State.

My assertion is simply this: Even to this day, a lot of people have a bitter taste in their mouth because of it. It was about slavery, but it wasn't. The free market would have made the Agrarian model that had incorporated slavery a non-competitive one. Industrialization would have killed that off. The South literally would not be able to compete. You've got to realize that the South had a completely different philosophical approach to the land, the home and hearthstone than the urban populations in the Union States. The person who farms the land has a connection to the area, a sense of identity, tradition, belonging to a place. America was founded on the fundamental belief in self-determination.

I believe that Government that governs closest, governs best. Which, I think was part of the reasoning behind the Framers making a weak, centralized federal government who had the authority to regulate currency, levy taxes, defend the borders, etc. All the other rights were reserved to the States. That's the 10th amendment. The right to secession was not an explicit one, so logically, the State has the right to secession since there was nothing in the Constitution that prohibited it.

Slavery should note have expanded any further into the new territories and part of the requirement for admission to the Union would have been outlawing it.

Again, the Union would have literally economically crushed the South as they lost their ability to compete with an outdated model of slavery. Also, you presume that all slaves were treated horribly, abused and lived in horrible living conditions. This is a false conception. Even then, 75% of the whites who lived in the South didn't even own slaves. It was literally the rich, aristocratic elite exploiting both classes of yeomen whites and blacks. The whites that farmed the land but didn't own slaves, were pro-slavery because they one day thought they would be rich and aspired to own slaves as well. Wow, that sounds awfully similar to those who identify as Republican yet consistently vote against their own self-interest by voting Republican because they too, one day hoped to be rich.

Now, the upper like 10% of the aristocracy who owned slaves? Their treatment of their property was pretty variable and dependent on economic circumstance. The slaves who had children even taught their children that black people were superior because the white people were lazy and incapable of running things properly. (Boy, that sounds familiar....) The slaves were one of the most exploited classes economically, and abused in all sorts of horrible ways. However, that has always been the general rule of thumb since the inception of time. I disagree with the South on their stance, prior to and during the War Between the States, that a black person was considered property and not human. Recall the 3/5 compromise? If you're 3/5 a person, that means they have inalienable rights. Rights that cannot be taken away by any man or State -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I'm wondering if anyone argued that to SCOTUS at the time.

The reason why the War Between the States didn't occur sooner than it did was because of the increased representation the Southern States had in positions of the Presidency, Speaker of House, SCOTUS. But right around then, that dominance began eroding and the Northern states gained control. That's where it takes off. The Southern was heavily dependent on slave labor due to their economic model. But as more states joined the Union, they would have industrialized and out-competed the South. That's why I assert that the free market would have phased it out eventually, which would then make it a lot easier to pass favorable legislation without staunch opposition.

Like I said, it was about slavery, but it was not. That's why you know.. stuff like the Census is important. Because of that, we now enjoy the protections of the 13th and 14th amendments -- the 14th is the perfect vehicle for the federal incorporation of rights in the States. Besides, large swaths of the south did not own slaves. You can't argue that it's about slavery when the vast majority of the South did not own them as property but rather, the wealthy aristocratic elites. It was about the viability of an economic system and its ability to compete. The Southern states, in my opinion, had the right to take their ball and go home with it if they didn't like being governed. That's where self-determinism comes into play. The State governs at the consent of The People. If they voted to leave the Union and form a new Confederate States of America, they were within their rights to do so.

Lincoln disagreed. He did what he did because he wanted to preserve the union. That was his number one objective. The reason behind his issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation was because the Union was having trouble getting enough soldiers, so slaves were freed in the Southern, slave states whenever the Union Army come across them. You do have to admit it's interesting that he didn't require the 4 slave states that were a part of the Union.

With all due respect, I believe you to be guilty of arguing from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. The War Between the States was about slavery, but it wasn't.

Also, that's an informative link, thanks.

[hedgehog]

95. When Southern governors praise the Confederacy, they're glossing over a lot of their own history.

Most people are familiar with the New York City draft riots and know there was a lot of opposition to the Civil war in the North. What people tend to be unaware of, is the opposition to the Confederacy in the South. First of all, the slaves certainly had an opinion, yet they are left out of most discussions entirely. Aren't African-Americans Southerners as well? Second, they were entire counties that opposed secession, mostly above the cotton line. Even below the cotton line, there were individuals who opposed secession.

[Hosnon]

97. Great article. The whole topic is an odd one in the South.

But I can honestly say that those people who I know who "like" the Civil War are generally history and/or war buffs in general. I imagine that their being from the South makes the topic that much more interesting to them as there is somewhat of a personal element. And if they have distant relatives who fought for the South, I can understand their pride from a military point of view (i.e., a good soldier can be a good soldier regardless of the underlying war).

Then there are those who "like" the Old South (a la "Gone with the Wind"). Those individuals worry me a bit more because I have a hard time believing that they don't realize that the Old South was built on slavery. But I do recognize that generally they are explicitly romanticizing only the non-slavery aspects of the time period (I hope).

Moving on down the continuum are those who "like" the Confederacy. As a Marxist in the sense that I view all history as the history of struggles between classes, I recognize that the instigators of the rebellion were more likely motivated by money than slavery. Modern Confederates don't have the benefit of that "mitigating" factor. Anyone who idolizes the Confederacy today is presumed racist by me.

Finally, as a Southerner, I am glad he points out the North's role in slavery (via Wall Street).

[Cha]

101. It was a sin.

[yurbud]

102. What if we made the South celebrated Confederate History Month by letting blacks buy, beat, rape...

and kill whites (especially the confederacy loving ones), so both sides develop appreciation for the other's ''heritage''?

That would probably be the last we ever heard of confederacy.

[Brewman_Jax]

106. Here are their own words

in the Declarations of Secession, at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

They don't mince words.