While on my way to a separation of church and state rally at the capitol, I happened to pass by the monument on the left. It’s a monument to the Confederate dead. There are many similar monuments throughout Texas.
I paused to read the inscription:
DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS, WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216
“FOR STATES RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION?” That sentence made me laugh out loud. Is there a state’s right to slavery in the Constitution that I am unaware of?
Whom do they think they’re kidding? Only themselves.
-David Drumm (Nal)
Larry might be right
1, November 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Blouise:
I assume you have documentary evidence to back up your assertions?
I would be interested in reading your sources.
======================================================
Which assertions would those be?
Ignorance for firing on Fort Sumter. Ignorance in assuming England wouldn’t go elsewhere for its cotton? Ignorance that the North would be easily beaten by the sons of the Southern elite? Ignorance of the dangers posed by the Old World to the territories not yet incorporated as states and thus to the expansion of the United States of America and its overall security as a nation? Ignorance of the blindness wrought by the profits from the human-slave-trade industry? Ignorance of the Southern non-elites to the ruse being employed by their “betters” in order to gain their service and eventual death of almost a quarter of a million of them to protect an industry that profited only a few?
The sources are numerous as are the documents and, quite frankly, the fact that you don’t know them is very telling. Do you own reading, sport, I’m not your water-boy/grad assistant. (Hint, there is a whole thread on this site which will give you plenty of sources and enlightenment will follow … or not … the gene pool being what it is.)
Nal—–the revisionists are the ones that say slavery was the ONLY issue, because the Union had more slaves.
“Larry might be right”—–thank you, finally another voice of TRUTH on this thread. Everything you said was 100% CORRECT. No one mentions the tariff of abominations on here, but you did. Excellent.
mespo said:
“Slavery was the flash point between the cultures, with the North refusing to accept the practice and the South seeing its way of life”
The North didnt accept the practice????? PLEASE tell me youre joking. There were MORE slaves in the NORTH! This is undisputable fact.
Whelp, I gots my Sival Wur ‘aknowin frum ‘dis sheer song called I’m a Good Ol’ Rebel. My momma alwayz told me, ‘Son them Yankies don’t thank strait like usin’ southern folk does!
The South is a’ gonna rise a’gin n’ that is fur sure n’ fur sartin’ Yep, rise juss like homemade bread whut aint got no yeast…flat as a fliver. That’s why them folk down yunner et cornpone.
So, I’m left with two possibilities:
1) The 13 states that seceded just forgot to mention tariffs in their Declaration of Causes of Secession, or
2) Revisionists went back through history to find something other than maintenance of slavery as the cause of secession.
Hmmm, I choose number 2. It has the ring of truth.
Blouise:
I assume you have documentary evidence to back up your assertions?
I would be interested in reading your sources.
Larry might be right,
“The next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.”
=================================================
Thus I reassert my point from a previous post:
“Had the South sat quietly, adding more states to its Confederacy while running diplomatic mission to Europe, then, perhaps, you might have a point to argue … but the South, considering itself a separate nation, chose to fire on Fort Sumter, a Federal property of the nation to its north, The United States of America. That was an act of war and an act of incredible stupidity.”
Further, all that you claim in your post was part and parcel of the original ruse for abolitionists also peopled the south necessitating that the “property” issue of slavery had to be avoided as the motive for seceding.
However, had the Confederacy leaders been smart enough to stick with their original ruse and deal with Lincoln on a Constitutional/legal basis … well that’s a hindsight 20/20 position … for they were not smart enough to do that and it’s too late now to relive the times for them or to invent an intelligence they did not possess.
The elites who sent their sons to the Citadel wanted a little saber slashing, a bit of plumed hat waving for, of course, their sons would easily defeat the likes of northern nigger-lovers and immigrant peasants.
Such utter foolishness played right into the hands of Lincoln who well knew that an independent Confederacy opened the door to France, England, and Spain and the territories would once again be up for grabs by Old World empires and the “sea to shinning sea” security that was envisioned for the United States of America would be forever lost.
Like the corporations of today who are blind to everything but profits, the Southern Slave industry elites were blinded by their human-slave-trade profits.
Foolishly those same ignorant Southern elites thought England would remain dependent on Southern cotton and continue to ignore the slave labor that produced it and would therefore recognize the Confederacy. England sat on the fence obviously unimpressed by the strutting sons of the Confederacy elites and turned to Egypt. Thus the South lost its cotton dominance forever and, ironically enough, its need for slaves to pick said cotton.
The corporations of today and the politicians they pay should take note of history. Hah, who am I kidding.
The Confederacy did its best to destroy the United States of America and failed. But the corporations of today and the politicians they pay, partnered with the fundamentalist churches that got their start as a reaction to women getting the vote, may very well succeed. Ignorance is in the genes I guess.
Larry:
is this what you are talking about?
“The Nullification Doctrine
A precursor to the War Between the States came in 1832 when South Carolina called a convention to nullify the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832. Branded “the tariff of abominations,” the duties were multiples of previous duties. The convention declared them unconstitutional and authorized the governor to resist federal efforts to collect them. After reaching the brink of armed conflict with Washington, a settlement to reduce the tariffs in steps—the Great Compromise of 1833—was reached.
South Carolinians believed there was precedence for the nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. Both Jefferson and James Madison suggested the doctrine in 1798. It was used to nullify federal laws in Georgia, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and the New England states. The reasoning was that the federal government was created by, and hence was the agent of, the states.
When Congress threatened to raise tariffs to unprecedented levels and the Republican Lincoln was elected president, a special South Carolina convention unanimously adopted an Ordinance of Secession and a “Declaration of Causes” stating that “We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfill their constitutional obligations. . . . Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States; and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. . . .” Continuing, the Declaration, asserted, “We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.” The next year war started when South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter, an island in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.”
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-civil-wars-tragic-legacy/
@Blouise: Well said.
@Marnie: Thanks for the daily reminder of why I want to move out of the South. In most places, ignorance is treatable. Down here, not so much.
Marnie,
The monument was erected in 1903.
The claim that they died other than for the maintenance of slavery is laughable. See previous comments regarding the “tariff” myth.
Larry
1, November 7, 2010 at 4:58 am
“quite right, all other issues were\are a smokescreen, slavery was the one problem with which no compromise was possible”
then why didnt Lincoln end it peacefully, through compensated emancipation like every other country did between 1800 and 1860????
==============================================================
That’s a trick question, right? Read your history
South Carolina had voted to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860 (Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas by 2/1/1861)
Citadel cadets fired on a civilian merchant ship bringing supplies to the Federal garrison at Fort Sumter on January 9, 1861
Lincoln’s first inaugural was on March 4, 1861 and as of that date the 7 states mentioned above had already seceded with the other 4 doing so after the April 12th attack on Fort Sumter noted below)
The South again fired on Fort Sumter itself on April 12 and 13, 1861
Lincoln did not have the choice you mentioned … the South wanted war, started the war, got war, and lost the war.
Had the South sat quietly, adding more states to its Confederacy while running diplomatic mission to Europe, then, perhaps, you might have a point to argue … but the South, considering itself a separate nation, chose to fire on Fort Sumter, a property of the nation to its north, The United States of America. That was an act of war and an act of incredible stupidity.
Lincoln could have responded with negotiations that addressed your point but that ignores the realities of the time which included the expansion of slavery into the territories. Thanks to the firing on Fort Sumter, Lincoln didn’t have to worry about negotiations, he met an act of war with war.
Once again, read your history.
The stupidity of the southern male, the majority of whom didn’t have the means to own a slave, going off to fight and die for an elite subset that controlled the Confederate economy through the cotton and slave industry has always amazed me. The “States Rights” issue was the camouflage used by these elites to con the peasants into dieing with them.
The corporations and churches of today use a variation on the same ruse and I’ll be damned if it doesn’t still work!
NAL
REAL reason for the South’s secession was the incredibly high protectionist tariffs that were being dumped onto the Southern people. The tariffs doubled for them and they simply said “no’ to them and seceded. Slavery wasn’t an issue at all [in relation to the secession] because for …
In the end and in the beginning all wars are fought for profit.
Forget the PR bloody shirts from the North or the South, and look at the economic realities and the direction of flow of money.
Who was richest, and still is, the North, who was Poorest, and still is, the South, who controlled(s) the flow of money,the North, and still does.
Th other lesson, which Iraq proves we still haven’t learned, is what would motivate southern poor whites to fight and die to protect slavery? The very thing that killed them in the competitive market. Look for what motivated the foot soldier to leave home, business, to fall into ruin, farm, to return to forest and weeds,family, to go hungry, to go and suffer and die. Then you will know why the South fought.
That knowledge applies to pretty much every voluntary combatant anywhere.
Who is the “they” that is kidding.
When was the memorial built?
Recently?
Probably not by around 100 years.
So why is this an issue?
There are also thousands of memorials in Texas to Texans who died in every war that has been fought by the US since the founding of the Texas Republic. Are “they” also kidding?
Surely the patriotism of thousands upon thousands of “they” who have fought for this nation both before and after the erection of this one memorial deserve more respect.
Historical materialism demonstrates that all wars boil down to property. The rest is all smoke screen. In the case of the Civil War the property in dispute were slaves. Only reactionary historical revisionism posits that the Civil War was fought over something other than slavery.
Nal: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is true. However, slaves were not then considered to be citizens of the United States. The Dred Scott decision is again key here. The Supreme Court ruled that Scott, a slave taken into free territory and arguing for his freedom, had to standing to even bring a case in federal courts because he was not a citizen.
@Larry
Sorry, but you have already been debunked. I guess you didn’t notice. Your main point is that “Slavery wasnt an issue at all [in relation to the secession].” As I’ve pointed out, and provided links to prove, the states that seceded don’t agree with your contention. According to them, slavery was a big factor in their decision to secede.
You also go on and on about tariffs, but again, the word “tariff” does not even arise in the declarations that the seceding states made stating their reasons for secession. So why should I believe that tariffs were the main cause of secession and slavery was not an issue at all?
On a few other points, Nal has already noted that your statement concerning the number of slaves in the North is suspect. Also, you note that Lincoln in his inaugural indicted that he had no desire to end slavery. You are correct. Lincoln said:
“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.”
Source: http://americancivilwar.com/documents/lincoln_inaugural_1.html
What you fail to note is that by the time Lincoln gave that address, several states had already seceded. In fact, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy BEFORE Lincoln was inaugurated as President of the United States.
Lincoln’s true intentions notwithstanding, the southern states jumped the gun and behaved irrationally. (This is a bit like all those people who ran out and bought guns after Obama was elected, even though he had no intention of taking people’s guns).
I would note that both Nal and I have provided links to back up our evidence. So far you’ve provided nothing to back up your “facts” and just made naked assertions.
I honestly have no intention of debating you further. However, given the fact that so many Americans have been misinformed about the causes of the Civil War thanks to Confederate apologists that I wanted to present some information in case anybody who reads this thread is not aware of the truth.
In your case, I doubt that this information will change your mind one bit: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Good day.
Buddha,
I wasn’t referring to your comment; just a generic observation.
The negative implication of the 13th Amendment is to say that the government can exercise power over the right of self-ownership.
We call that…
That is to say, the government cannot restore what it never had the power to take away; for if it could, it could also repeal said amendment re-create slavery constitutionally?
Yeah right.
I think the more accurate answer is that the Southern culture differed considerably from the northern culture. Agrarian, feudalistic, and elitist, the South stood in direct opposition to the industrialized and more democratic North. Slavery was the flash point between the cultures, with the North refusing to accept the practice and the South seeing its way of life threatened if denied the ability to exploit captive persons for its benefit. States’ Rights was merely the pre-textual defense of slavery. Southern legislatures passed the Constitution despite full knowledge that it signaled a death to (or at least a crippling of) notions of States Rights under the AOC.
Bob,
I didn’t say slavery wasn’t an issue, but it wasn’t the only issue.
Hey Buddha,
Far as I see, the fugitive slave clause and the 3/5ths compromise were void ab initio; sort of a 2-206 knock out result from the DOI.
And don’t you have any problems with the negative implication of the 13th amendment?
Hint: It all comes down to that crucial distinction between usurpation and tyranny.