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
Jan 2017
4,331
Sydney
during "the war of northern aggression" the far western theater had quite a lot of tribes joining on the confederate side
they were pretty bad soldier , standing and being shot at with artillery was just not their thing
 
Feb 2011
1,035
Scotland
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. .

Thank you for researching and posting all of this, also the quotes on your previous post regarding quotes from Confederate soldiers, indicating that they were fighting for the upholding of slavery.

This is all useful information. I don't see mention of the three-fifths compromise, which certainly contributed to slaveholding states being overrepresented, or 'punching above their weight'. The later period certainly consists of new parties and serial compromises, regulation of admission of slave and free states to keep a 'balance' all of which took place against a background of increasing friction over the slavery issue and bespeaks Southern influence above and beyond their numbers, whatever the mechanism. Regardless of how or by what influence the balancing act was accomplished by this smaller section of the states up to then, Southern Interests abandoned the Union upon Lincoln's election.

The legality of secession seems to have been debated from an early stage by various parties, without any decision being reached until Texas v White in 1869; several legal sources cite the Constitution as being silent on the matter, albeit you contend you have opposed this view in other threads. I wont chase those down, although you are welcome to state your views of course. Are they based on the Tenth Amendment? Clearly, it was at the time a matter of bitter dispute, however wedded you are to your view. Nevertheless I'm not looking to debate the legality of secession, because primarily I'm trying to keep the answer to the OP and I don't think the legality of secession is particularly relevant to it.

It is entirely understandable when it is considered that upwards of 800,000 to 1,000,000 men fought for the Confederacy, that their views, politics and reason for fighting should run the whole gamut from wholehearted support of the regime and all that it stood for down to disinterest, self protection and self interest. We cannot have a full view into the hearts and souls of all these men and cannot judge them, good or ill. That would require a higher power.

I note your points in which you appear to take two views; (1) That you consider Lincoln's actions as illegal or even wicked.
(2). It seems to me that your arguments upon the supposed legality of secession point to a position that if the secession was legal, then Lincoln and the Union should simply have left the Confederacy in peace and that they acted wickedly in not so doing.

You also attempted to demonstrate that the example of William Wallace in Scotland demonstrated that a rebel can be held to be a hero. This can be so, if his cause succeeds, in his own now-independent country even if he died the death of a traitor. The same view might not be held in the previous ruling state. First and foremost this requires success, which of course Wallace and the US Founding Fathers achieved; the Confederacy did not, but you imply that this was a result of illegal actions by Lincoln and the Union in conducting war against the legally-seceding Confederacy. This in itself ignores the activities of the new Confederacy in committing initial acts of war themselves.

Ultimately, I think the key factor in considering the OP is not how the Confederacy came into being and whether this was legal. It is to consider the very nature of the Confederacy itself.

The Confederacy- as evidenced in the ordinances of secession for the states involved- was built upon a dogma, at its very core and integral to the meaning of its existence, that white race was superior to the black and that slavery of the black race was and always would be the natural order of things. Slavery and White Supremacy were the very key, reason and rationale for its very existence. It is therefore unsurprising that comparison is rapidly made to the Nazi Third Reich state, which also subsisted upon a racist foundation, albeit here it was the supremacy of the 'Aryan' race. Both states persecuted certain minorities on this basis, though the manner of their persecution was different. One exploited a race for profit without care for the feelings of the people involved- they were chattel property to be used as capital- the other sought to expel, then destroy its persecuted minorities. It goes without saying that both racist states were innately evil.

Although religion and religious fanaticism has been raised as an element, religious belief was the rule at this period and fanaticism was perceived across the divide, both sides invoking scripture in their support. Further, the fundamental motivator for the slaveholding class was the protection of and expansion of their capital and wealth, ie, the profit motive, especially when cotton was so profitable. The Confederacy remained committed to expanding slavery into more territories.

Casual racism was also commonly encountered on an individual basis, in both South and North. Throughout the war much of the Democratic party in the North supported peace with the Confederacy and promoted racist belief. The border states included slaveholders.

Nevertheless, they key issue was not individual attitudes but that the Union itself was not founded upon a racist dogma. This difference was exacerbated once secession had taken place and sealed by the thirteenth amendment. By the end of the war support for Lincoln and abolition in the North was overwhelming.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of whether the Confederacy was legally founded, are you trying to suggest that it should have been left in existence to undertake the systematic persecution and exploitation of millions of people on the basis of their race, without even considering them as human beings and preserving them only for profit's sake? That that brutal persecution should have been permitted to continue, unmolested and uncontested, over further territory and unbounded in time?

I do not think that contention can stand. As for the men that fought for the racist state, given that we cannot know the soul and thoughts of each individual, the example set by the modern successors to that other racist state is helpful. They quietly remember those members of their family that fought and were lost. But no glorification of their activities, nor of their leaders, should be made, nor monuments raised.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2019
59
Chicago Suburbs
  • JPK

    JPK

No, the rest is as I said, Hitler putting for the same arguments that are put forth on this forum to claim secession is unconstitutional..

Can't you do better than imply selectivity, without evidence? If you think any of the points I made about Hitler and States' Rights (generally and US) are disproved by the rest of the text, make your case.

If your avatar is who I think it is, he did not engage in guerilla warfare, harry and run skirmish.
Actually, I believe, in the rest of that paragraph of Hitler's you cited he points out that the vast majority of the US states were not parties to the original constitutional compact - in fact he called them (and I'm paraphrasing here) no more than territories given statehood for administrative purposes only - i. e. to organize the population in a republican form of government under the blanket of the constitution. For once Der Führer was right. The vast majority of states never had autonomy, let alone sovereignty and never "ceded" any powers to the federal government. One of the primary concepts of the "secession was legal" argument was that the states had been sovereign prior to the constitution and could therefore revert to that sovereign status. Of the Confederate states, only Texas had been sovereign; four others had been colonies; and the rest were created from scratch and granted statehood by acts of Congress under the constitutional federal government.

No hit and run attacks.
 
Likes: sparky
Jan 2017
1,194
Durham
As Americans, as the heirs of traitors to the Crown, we have nothing left but force and violence, we are justified only in our arms and vindicated only in victory. Rebellion must be punished as a matter of necessity, but we have no right to condemn it on the grounds of morality.
From an outsider's perspective, neither events appear to be the mark of traitors. It's hardly an earth shattering event when a relationship of any kind breaks down and one party wishes to go it alone. 'Pretty standard behaviour in human history really.

Out of curiosity, 'say the same situation arose today: would the use of force be palatable or was it a product of its time? I'm thinking of England, Scotland, Wales and there's no way on this earth the use of force to maintain the union would be acceptable but it certainly would have been once upon a time. What about the United States? Similar, or would the response from the North be the same today?
 
Feb 2015
3,790
Caribbean
several legal sources cite the Constitution as being silent on the matter, albeit you contend you have opposed this view in other threads.
There is a lot of spin-doctoring on the part of the deniers. As I often say, suppose there is a traffic sign. It states: "No Parking: Mon through Fri." Is the sign "silent" about whether one can park on Saturday or Sunday? The Constitution is "silent" same way.

It is entirely understandable when it is considered that upwards of 800,000 to 1,000,000 men fought for the Confederacy, that their views, politics and reason for fighting should run the whole gamut from wholehearted support of the regime and all that it stood for down to disinterest, self protection and self interest. We cannot have a full view into the hearts and souls of all these men and cannot judge them, good or ill. That would require a higher power.
Exactly, that is why I challenge those who would push the motives of politicians into those souls.

I note your points in which you appear to take two views; (1) That you consider Lincoln's actions as illegal or even wicked.
Not necessarily more wicked than other politicians. Even those historians who praise him, call him a dictator. Of course, the Congress wasn't making a fuss. They passed confiscation acts, even banning free speech - and those were good against the US. Mostly, I am pointing out that he didn't necessarily have majority support in the north. I think secession was more generally accepted as normal, than it is now. Again, in the book Northern Editorials. Perkins estimates 70% of the newspapers were against him. And the Supreme Court? Do you really think they were going to rule that Lincoln was wrong?


It seems to me that your arguments upon the supposed legality of secession point to a position that if the secession was legal, then Lincoln and the Union should simply have left the Confederacy in peace
It was surely an option. And it my opinion, it was the law.

I don't begrudge politicians their "right" to conquer. That means, I don't begrudge Davis and his pals the right to steal the SE quadrant of the US, or Lincoln's right to conquer a neighboring country. Such is the nature of the beast. However, I do not relinquish my right to know which it is.

The Confederacy- as evidenced in the ordinances of secession for the states involved- was built upon a dogma, at its very core and integral to the meaning of its existence, that white race was superior to the black and that slavery of the black race was and always would be the natural order of things.
No more so than the US.

The Confederacy remained committed to expanding slavery into more territories.
As the southern states themselves were an expansion of slavery from the founding. IMO, the had a legitimate claim on a share of the land taken in the Mexican War. They did most of the fighting and dying for it.

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of whether the Confederacy was legally founded, are you trying to suggest that it should have been left in existence to undertake the systematic persecution and exploitation of millions of people on the basis of their race, without even considering them as human beings and preserving them only for profit's sake? That that brutal persecution should have been permitted to continue, unmolested and uncontested, over further territory and unbounded in time?
I think you exaggerate for effect. And slavery was the norm in the 1800s.

Actually, I suggest the issue of slavery should have peacefully resolved long before. I suggest that important men like William Seward and Abraham Lincoln had no regard for the well-being of the blacks, said so, then instigated a war that (according to them) had nothing to do with ending slavery, and then freed the slaves as part of destroying their enemy in a way that killed hundreds of thousands of slaves. So, while I don't mind you getting on your soapbox and waxing moralisms about inhumanity, keep in mind, I know the difference between your sensibilities and the ambitions of the politicians involved.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
80
Cheyenne
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?
Laughable.

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.
Source?
 
Jul 2013
10,337
San Antonio, Tx
And also, my reading is that there were agents provocateur (and not patriotic either) in both camps fomenting war.
Gosh, my untutored “guess” is that the provocateurs were all or mostly from the South. Who fired on Ft Sumter? Who created an army and navy to attack the North with? And No, Secession was illegal as hell: once “in”, never “out”. As has been amply discussed, the South didn’t fight to protect the price point of blackstrap molasses; it fought to protect human bondage, chattel slavery in other words. Firing on Sumter was the foundation act that declared the South was going to be its own country.

Even though the slave trade with Africa was mostly curtailed (except to Brazil and the country of Liberia was intended to be a haven for ex American slaves. Long term this has not been allthateffectve.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions