Honoring CSA Soliders

Should Confederate Soliders Be Honored?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 59.1%
  • No

    Votes: 27 30.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 9 10.2%

  • Total voters
    88
Status
Closed
May 2019
209
Salt Lake City, Utah
No one is denying that America was a racist country in 1861, but the argument that the war was not a war about slavery is a fallacy of unfounded extension.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
The matter of Southern domination was covered by MacPherson in his book in depth covering the pre-war period, demonstrating how the Southern aristocrats were able to maintain their views over time.
Sorry for my prior hasty response. I have since found my file of Federalist Party history.

So first, there was no southern "dominance," your original word, in the Congress. The south was always the minority. Ah, but the Presidency, different story.

There was an elite, mostly in New England, that wanted a single centralized power versus a more 'southern' and more popular 'states' rights' agenda. This clash first appears at the finalization of the Articles of Confederation in 1777 and then at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. IMO, a lot of them didn't like the Constitution. It's a southern “states' rights” document. Eventually, these men would gather mostly in the Federalist Party. Hamilton later said he only went along with it, because he thought it would fail. He like the British Monarchical system.

The Federalists win the government in 1796 (J Adams become President 2), imo, because the “great” George Washington is nominally Federalist, even though he is a southern states' righter. Once Washington, who could quell dissent by his mere presence, retires, the Federalist make a move with the grotesquely unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Jefferson, the quintessence of their opposition, describes the Acts as part overthrow and part psy-op to accustom the people toward monarchism. He reasons, if they can get away with this, next they they can go for declaring life-terms, etc.. Basically, the Hamilton Plan, which originally called for doing away with states altogether.

This Federalist power grab backfires, not because of southern “dominance,” but because it is not popular. Jefferson and Madison (who will be Presidents 3 and 4) spearhead the opposition to the Federalists with their “Resolutions.” The downward cycle to demise of the Federalists Party in underway.

In 1800, Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans defeat Adams and the Federalist (though the Federalist leave their lasting brand on the Supreme Court with John Marshall et al). In 1804, Jefferson wins 15 states to 2. The Embargo Acts of 1807 send New England and the Federalists into a real fury, as this policy is killing their economy. Secession talk in New England, which began in 1796 intensifies.

In 1808, Madison wins 12 states to 5. During the war, Madison wants to invade Canada. The British government in Canada dispatched spy, John Henry, to make alliance with New England governors. Madison goes to Congress with evidence that New England politicians are 'colluding' with the British, via Henry. During the war, New England governors disobey Madison's order to turn over the militia. Most of the militia refuse to fight, anyway.

As the war ends, the Hartford Convention of 1815 convenes. Madison has guy reporting on the proceedings. Key point: during this 20 year period, from 1796-1815, I can find no Southern protests claiming that New England has no right to secede. Madison and Jefferson are on the record accepting the idea secession already.

In 1816, Monroe wins 16 states to 3. In 1820, there isn't enough left of a Federalist Party to field a candidate, and Monroe wins Monroe wins 23 states to 0. The cumulative total from 1804-1820 in Presidential elections is: Southern Democrats carried 77 states, Federalists 17

“Aristocratic dominance”? Or winning popular elections.

Southern and Northern Democrats continue to win Presidential elections. The Whigs win twice in the 1840s and then disappear. Multiple parties begin to arise. The Democrats divide into 2 parties in 1860, and the Republicans win the election. .
 
Last edited:

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
The Nazi justification for war was belief in White Supremacy. The Confederacy justification for war was White Supremacy. Perfectly reasonable comparison.
Reasonable, if one overlooks that you have the facts of history wrong, The southern justification for war was defense. First Lincoln threatened force, used force in Maryland - and you do know which side of the Potomac one finds Bull Run?

Again, the white supremacists of the north not only thought they genetically superior to blacks, but culturally superior to southern whites - and thus justified to use imperialism and force their will. In the next decade, Mssrs Grant, Sherman and Sheridan would do the same thing to the Western Indians.
 
Last edited:
Apr 2012
261
Iowa, USA
Reasonable, if one overlooks that you have the facts of history wrong, The southern justification for war was defense. First Lincoln threatened force, used force in Maryland - and you do know which side of the Potomac one finds Bull Run?
And Fort Sumter? Guess you sorta need to forget southern aggression don't you.

And speaking of Bull Run-look at the rebel order of battle: regiments from North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and a detachment from Texas. All there "defending" their homes.
 
May 2019
209
Salt Lake City, Utah
Lincoln had the constitutional right to threaten force, the south had no legal, moral, or constitutional right to use force.

The War of Southern Aggression's first shots were fired by the CSA at Ft Sumter.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,403
Caribbean
And Fort Sumter? Guess you sorta need to forget southern aggression don't you.
Not at all. I haven't forgotten that.

Go ahead, make your case. Connect something South Carolina did to Virginia.

Don't forget to mention, you assume that secession is not legal.
 
Last edited:

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,909
USA
In our modern world whether one likes it or not discussions involving the The CSA is a controversial topic. People bring up the Confederates today with other controversial countries and movements of the past and present.

The CSA actually had no international recognition. Thats different from that of the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan during WW2. But the CSA was its own state with slavery, similar to what for a few years in a small area in Iraq and Syria was the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The CSA was deeply Christian and justified slavery on Christianity as ISIL does with Islam. Of course ISIL and the CSA were wrong in the eyes of the Union Christians and Masses of Muslims that have died fighting for freedom and equality.

Confederate States Army revival - Wikipedia

Im against the CSA, in some ways they remind me of ISIL. To each there own, thats honestly how I feel. The US Civil War saw Northerners support the CSA, Southerners support the Union liberal cause. The US Civil War was not just North Vs South I feel its important to remind of that. IMO the Civil War had a lasting legacy, the liberal ways of The USA through WW2 and to today was in large part due to The Union winning the US civil war. Imagine if the CSA actually got real support from another world power at the time of The US Civil War such as from Spain, France, Germany or England. Had the CSA won the US civil war, some have said that years later WW2 may have gone differently....the South may have sided with the Reich, the middle east would like different today had that occurred,. The world itself today owes a massive debt to the Union soldiers whom defeated the CSA. IMO more Union monuments should be built in the USA. I do feel for any modern American whom had ancestors that fought for the CSA. As a Catholic I even feel for the CSA soldiers themselves, fellow Christians they were but they were in the wrong in the eyes of many other American Christians. The Issue of Abolition is of course related to the US Civil War, Abolitionist and pro Slavers often pointed to the Bible to support there views.

It must be a interesting thing to grow up today in the USA knowing one has CSA Ancestors, I feel for those folks and wonder how they view the CSA. We have free speech in the USA so there are in each state a few Americans that openly put out CSA monuments or flags. I personally am not against folks putting out any flag or monument on there own property including of the CSA, as I support free speech. But In the public sphere I would not build new CSA monuments and I dont know what to do about current ones, thats a tough issue. I am inclined to say we need monuments to Knights of the Middle ages, as well as Protestant Heroes, and of course monuments to Union members of the US Civil war. Its good to have monuments of those that are appreciated worldwide, like Ataturk, Jesus, Saladin, Richard I those are the types of monuments I want.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed