The South Celebrates The Bloodiest War In U.S. History

[Harry Hope]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Civil+South+rises+again/4027610/story.html

U.S. Civil War: The South rises again

Peter Goodspeed, National Post · Sunday, Dec. 26, 2010

They held a ball in Charleston South Carolina last week to celebrate the onset of the bloodiest war in U.S. history.

Men in frock coats and militia uniforms joined women in silk hoop skirts to sip mint juleps, as a band called “Unreconstructed” played “Dixie” and a squad of historical reenactors staged a replay of the Dec. 20, 1860 signing of South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession, which severed ties with the Union and paved the way for the American Civil War.

The 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s secession is the first in a long list of Civil War memorials scheduled to be staged over the next four-and-a-half years that could end up re-opening old war wounds.

Festive and defiant, in character with the Old South, Charleston’s Secession Ball sparked a revival of an old debate about whether the most deadly conflict in U.S. history, which claimed a total of 620,000 lives, was fought over slavery or states’ rights.

It also has echoes of contemporary U.S. politics, where organizers of the ball — sounding like a collection of red state Republicans and Tea Party movement supporters, say it was “a way to honour the brave South Carolina men who stood up to an over-domineering federal government, high tariffs and northern states that wanted to take the country in an economic direction that was not best for the South.”

Critics, most of whom were black, stood outside in the cold during the ball, holding a candlelight vigil and signs that read “Don’t Celebrate Slavery and Terrorism.” They sang: “We Shall Overcome.”

“What would happen if Japanese-Americans decided to have a ball to celebrate Pearl Harbor?” demanded Rev. Nelson Rivers, pastor of the Charity Missionary Baptist Church in North Charleston. “Or if German-Americans celebrated the Holocaust?

“For African Americans that is exactly what is happening here,” he said.

______________________________________

What wonderful occasion will they celebrate next?

Harry

[47of74]

1. These celebrations of treason and terrorism are sickening

[GSLevel9]

14. agreed...

any celebration of Lincoln, Sherman or Grant excuses their sins.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Ahem.

[JVS]

72. +1

[SwampG8r]

52. amen

[sharesunited]

2. This bullshit was the crucible of the 2nd Amendment.

How did we like the results?

Oh let's do it again!

[former9thward]

8. You have your history backwards.

The 2nd amendment was 70 years before the civil war.

[sharesunited]

9. Ah, but the Civil War was the rebellion envisioned by the 2nd.

And it was not good for anybody except certain war profiteers.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Are you joking? An entire population was freed from slavery as

a result of the Civil War. And you say it "was not good for anybody except certain war profiteers"?

[sharesunited]

20. No shot needed to have been fired. The only reason any shot was fired is because of the 2nd.

Because someone thought that going to war with the federal government was a good thing to reserve unto the states and the People.

What folly. Laughable.

I marvel at the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment by Virginia and Tennessee PRIOR to the surrender of the Confederate forces at Appomattox.

Why did this happen?

Because the 2nd Amendment was resoundingly defeated.

[ttwiddler]

27. You're viewing the past through the lens of the present

The 2d amendment had nothing to do with that war. It was never mentioned. You're injecting a current political issue into a period in the past.

[sharesunited]

30. The 2nd was injected to induce ratification of the Constitution. It was an appeasement.

An appeasement of those skeptical of a federal government.

It was intended to give refuge to those who might decide at any given moment to scrap the Union in favor of individual force.

The lesson of the Civil War is To Hell With Secessionist Bullshit Artists.

It is the same lesson to be learned in recognition of the fact that the 2nd is an obsolete anachronism.

[ttwiddler]

37. Not really

You do have an argument in that the 2d has its roots in concerns about an overbearing central government. You have no argument when you mention individual force. Despite Scalia and the NRA, any rational reading of the 2d amendment merely says that the federal government can't abolish the state militias. Given that the militias in their current form are extremely useful, particularly for disaster relief, your claim that the 2d amendment is obsolete is ridiculous (obsolete anachronism is almost a redundant oxymoron).

The seceding states never invoked the 2d amendment. They invoked the natural right of revolution claimed by the original revolutionaries. They would find your obsession with the 2d amendment amusing because if they'd invoked it, they'd have undercut their primary claim. They claimed that the constitution was formed by a grouping of states, not the general population. Invoking the constitution would have meant submitting to it.

I think you want to argue against the modern conception of the 2d amendment in that guns are an individual right. That's why I said you're viewing the past through the lens of the present.

[sharesunited]

40. If you are saying the 2nd is in there because of state participation in disaster relief??

Then I must insist that you are mistaken.

It is in there to give those who want an excuse to scrap the entire concept of one nation under God.

Because guns and ammo are apparently more precious than worship of God.

We can see and understand from the 2nd what was important to certain assholes in the final draft of the writing.

[ttwiddler]

58. Again, no

I said you were partly right in that its underlying motivation was fear of an overbearing central government. I said you were wrong about it being obsolete based on a rational reading of it (preventing the National Guard from being disbanded).

You are trying to rewrite the past based on your feelings about current issues. This is a mistake.

[krispos42]

54. The South seized Federal arsenals...

and used former Federal officers to found their army. The various state militias (standing armies are bad, remember, a sentiment popular on DU) had arsenals of standardized weapons. When the war broke out, the people manning those arsenals turned them over to the state governments.


People just didn't show up with whatever squirral gun they had... it would have been a logistical nightmare. The .58-caliber rifled muzzleloader was the predominant battlefield weapon, whether it was an American-made Springfield or a British Lee-Enfield.

[reformed_military]

133. Just a clarification

You were not likely to see the Enfield in the beginning of the war as they were not imported until after the war began.

From the arsenals you are most likely to find 1844 "Mississippi" and 1816 "Springfield" (both converted to Percussion and flintlocks) left over from the Mexican War and the 1842 Springfield.

State militias entered into private contracts with the gun manufactures, so there are stories of weapons being delivered after Sumter to the south from the north.

[lepus]

89. The southerners envisioned the same thing

They truly believed that all the blood from their secession could be wiped up with a handkerchief.

Sharesunited. You have a fixation with the second amendment that is not born out by history.

The issue was not the second amendment that enabled the south to believe that they had the right to secede, but the constitution itself. They did not believe that joining the union was an eternal pact.

You might want to reread your history a bit. The second amendment continued to be enjoyed by the south even after the end of the civil war.

[lepus]

88. You might want to check your history a bit

Freedom of the slaves was only a punitive measure against the south.

Slavery in the north continued for the next 20 years where it was allowed.

Odd bit of trivia, slave labor was used to build the current white house.

[coalition_unwilling]

92. Do you have a source for slavery continuing in the north for the

"next 20 years where it was allowed"? I've read pretty widely on the subject and have never heard that claim mentioned before. Not saying you're wrong, just that I'd be more prone to accept your caution that I check my history a bit with a source backing up your claim.

[reformed_military]

134. Coalition_Unwilling

Here is an excerpt of the text of The Emancipation Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth<)>, and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

Why would Lincoln specify states in rebellion if the intent was to free all the slaves? Why specifically exclude the cities of Norfolk and New Orleans? Lincoln had expressed in '61 that freeing ALL of the slaves could cause border states (Maryland and Kentucky most noteably) to also succeed.

Remember that Virginia actually didn't succeed in '61 until they were ordered by the Federal Government to provide troops to quell the rebellion. At the time he wrote the Proclamation the Battle of Gettysburg hadn't happened. The war was looking bleak, the Confederates were really laying the lumber to the Yanks. Losing Maryland and Kentucky would have most likely caused him to lose the 1864 election and then the U.S. would have most likely sued for peace with the South. "Freeing" slaves in states that already didn't believe they had to answer to him was a calculated gamble on his part. I think he thought would hopefully appease the Abolishionist in the North and possibly cause some issues back home for the South.

As far as the 20 year statement, I am not sure where that number comes from as the 13th Amendment put that issue to bed (December 6, 1865).

There was a system post war (into the 1880's) called "convict leasing" where a land owner could lease convicts from the state. Add to that some "selective enforcement" of laws thereby creating a defacto slave class.

It was a form of bondage distinctly different from that of the antebellum South in that for most men, and the relatively few women drawn in, this slavery did not last a lifetime and did not automatically extend from one generation to the next. -- Douglas A. Blackmon, Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II

[former9thward]

23. That is not what the founders were thinking about when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

You should read some of Jefferson's comments on the subject. Whether the Civil war was 'good for anybody' or not I think it was probably inevitable and necessary.

[sharesunited]

25. Inevitable when you say the People have a right to go to war with their government.

That is the 2nd in a nutshell. Everything else is mere window dressing rationalization.

[former9thward]

42. The writers of the Bill of Rights made the 2nd amendment

the 2nd because they said it was needed to protect the 1st amendment. So yes it was put in for that reason as Jefferson said.

[sharesunited]

45. What utter crap.

Yell fire in a crowded theater. Threaten the life of a public figure. Download child pornography.

Your reason for wanting guns and ammo in your life doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

[former9thward]

49. You don't know me or anything that is in my life.

What is utter crap is your substituting your opinions for the recorded history of the background of the Bill of Rights.

[sharesunited]

50. The background has to stand up against the challenge.

If it doesn't, then it is just a goddamn fettish.

[RegieRocker]

121. Fiddle Faddle

[lepus]

90. The second amendment provided the means to be able to go to war with the government.

The constitution itself and the writings of the people who wrote it provided the right. There are limits to the federal government's grasp of power.

The civil war was fought over the limits of that power.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. John Brown certainly thought it was inevitable. It was good for

slaves who were freed as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation and combat operations of the various Union armies.

[FrancisTreptoe]

3. Let the trolls be trolls

If they want to celebrate the existence of a country that enslaved a race of human beings, then let them. Maybe they will stop if we ignore them. They seem to like the attention.

[GSLevel9]

17. Psssstttt... there were slaves in the North and South

and Lincoln himself said:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

translate:

I will do whatever it takes to preserve the Union. Too many believe the spoon-fed 6th grade History version of the Civil War.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. At the time of the start of the Civil War, slavery had become a purely Southern thing.

I remember something about a line with two surnames.

[lepus]

91. Slavery continued in northern states for over 20 years after the civil war.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

109. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Please provide details.

[DeadEyeDyck]

124. If you were black, slavery has never stopped!

[DeadEyeDyck]

125. Got my arm-chair and pop-corn

Wish I would have caught this one early. It is a "Locker" for sure. LOL

[Synicus Maximus]

126. Slavery was outlawed in the United States by 13th amendment.

The 13th amendment was ratified December 6, 1865)

It reads:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Aside remember when they wrote laws that people could read and understand?

[sofa king]

116. Like in that hotbed of rebellion, Delaware.

http://www.slavenorth.com/delaware.htm

For those too slack to read it: there were at least 1800 slaves in Delaware at the outset of the Civil War, and the state legislature never did muster the votes to abolish slavery on their own, instead voting against ratifying the 13th Amendment and having it go into effect on a federal level without it ever being abolished in the state.

Connecticut "abolished" slavery by refusing to count slaves on their census after 1840.

2nd Edit: Lest I be confused with one of those "slavery didn't cause the war" doofuses, I cite Delaware as proof that, if supported by the ruling elite, slavery cannot be easily abolished except by coercion from an external source, such as the feds. That makes slavery one of those rare issues that almost inevitably leads to a fight--if one side is not tiny and geographically indefensible, as Delaware is.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

119. It seems the dividing line was a bit farther North than I thought. Wikipedia:

[sofa king]

131. Yes, the Mason-Dixon Line doesn't even include Virginia, anymore.

It was originally surveyed to settle the borders between Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, but now that part of Virginia is West Virginia.

Strangely enough, the closest Delaware ever got to abolishing slavery was within one vote in their Senate. One of the dissenting votes was from a Senator who lived in "The Wedge," an area of disputed territory unresolved by the Mason-Dixon survey.

Which pretty much means that the key vote against abolishing slavery in Delaware was cast by a closet Pennsylvanian serving with dubious legality in the Delaware Senate.

Edit: As a military history guy, however, it's easy to see which way Delaware went in the war. Delaware produced no formal infantry regiments for the CSA (that I know of, but I'd love to be corrected) and no Confederate generals (that I know of). It delivered nine or ten regiments to the Union.

Maryland, the next closest border state, delivered several regiments to the South as well as several of the south's better generals, including Arnold Elzey, Isaac Trimble, and C.S. Winder (And "Maryland" Steuart, who was one of the worst). Before all of those generals were swept away by death, injury, incompetence, and capture, it was intended that they would help form The Maryland Line, a division-sized unit that never came to be because of the loss of those generals and because Maryland simply wasn't producing pro-confederacy volunteers in any useful numbers.

[coalition_unwilling]

33. Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here. Lincoln

believed in the value of preserving the Union with slavery contained within its current borders. Now we could have a debate about why Lincoln believed the Union was something worth preserving -- something about the last, best hope of mankind, I think, or the mystic chords of memory or maybe the grand experiment in representative self-government set against the hereditary monarchic systems of Europe. But if the matter became a choice between losing the Union because slavery in any form was preserved or saving the Union by destroying slavery, Lincoln's actions leave no doubt where he stood. (He chose the latter.) Lincoln was not an Abolitionist, true, but he detested and despised slavery.

[FrancisTreptoe]

41. Did I ever state that the North was slave free?? I clearly didn't

You assume too much. The preservation of the union was without a doubt the main reasoning for the war. Going back to the main point and the article, Why don't southerns just say they believe in state's rights instead of celebrating the good ole days in dixie like they would like those times to return?

[Kalyke]

129. You mean, like yours? The U.S. of A. ENSLAVED a race of

human beings, not just the South.

God, I dislike uniformed people.

Get over your big, bad "Yank" self and realize YOUR ancestors did it, too.

[FrancisTreptoe]

132. I never once stated the north was always slave free. But nice try.

You assume too much. Going back to the main point and the article, Why not just say they are in favor of state's rights instead of celebrating the good ole days in dixie like they would welcome it's return?

[Kalyke]

135. Why not just realize that that's how the elite sold it to the masses?

Because that's what happened. If you think for a fucking moment that rich people fought in that war, the you're full of shit. The poor did - and the bill of goods they were sold was states' rights.

Same thing as WMD.

[coalition_unwilling]

4. That's OK. I'm holding a ball in 2015 to celebrate the 150th anniversary

of Sherman's troops burning down the state (South Carolina) where the treason began. I don't want to hear any South Carolinians whining or bitching about how unfair my celebration of burning South Carolina to the ground is.

[GSLevel9]

18. and you'd have the RIGHT to make that celebration. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

35. Like the jerks in SC. But unlike the jerks in SC, he wouldn't be a jerk.

[JVS]

77. I'll join you.

[roamer65]

93. ...or the burning of Atlanta.

These knuckledragging civil war revisionists will all of a sudden either start to shut up or whine around 2013, 2014 and 2015. As Sherman once said, "War is hell".

[coalition_unwilling]

96. LMAO - If they can celebrate their secessionist treason, I can celebrate

their getting their asses kicked. :)

[RegieRocker]

123. Yeehah!

Yes we can!

[Kalyke]

136. Do ahead.... and where are you holding this "shin-dig"

Because if you expect to actually do it, you'd be guilty of arson.

A flag is a piece of cloth.

A fire is murder.

In this day and age and all that jazz.

[coalition_unwilling]

139. Did you bother to read the OP or to read my response to the OP?

The OP was about a ball to celebrate the 150th anniversary of secession. I proposed to hold a ball in 2015 to celebrate Sherman's troops burning down South Carolina. And it was in jest, for God's sake. I certainly never proposed to commit arson or burn anything or anyone. Holding a ball to celebrate Sherman's opening a can of whoop-ass on a bunch of redneck traitors is not the same thing as arson. Jeesh.

[Kalyke]

140. Red necks are in the mid-West.

WE are hillbillies.


And, yes, I read your OP. The point is that you don't counter stupid with more stupid.

[Swamp Rat]

5. They should burn some fucking crosses while they're at it too.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[B Calm]

117. Gee, and my lying ears heard Rush Limbaugh uttering that racist shit. .

enjoy your short stay.

[Tunkamerica]

6. charleston sc is not "the south"

[GoCubsGo]

70. The hell it is not.

It's "The South" with more money, sophistication and a fancier accent.

[Tunkamerica]

101. It is one small city in South Carolina.

If, when people speak of "the south", they are always and only speaking of Charleston, SC then you are correct.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. So this isn't even some kind of stupid tradition? They just decided now would be a good time to

start doing this?

[struggle4progress]

28. It's the sesquicentennial of the war. Back around the 50th anniversary,

the children and grandchildren of confederates pushed to extend Jim Crow and to build the Klan into a national organization; around the centennial of the war, the great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of confederates pushed back against the civil rights movement; now the great-great-great-grandchildren and great-great-great-great-grandchildren of the confederates are all hot under the collar to attack the fourteenth amendment

So we'll get five years of whining about how the war was really all about preserving the rights of lily-white southern women to serve the menfolk minty julips on airy porches at breaktime during their constant gracious and hospitable cotillions

http://www.elcivics.com.nyud.net:8090/slave_beat_1863_peter_baton.jpg
http://www.elcivics.com/abraham_lincoln_esl_p2.html

[struggle4progress]

10. Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina

from the Federal Union

... We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation ...

Adopted December 24, 1860

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

[d_r]

53. there's something ironic here

The successionists talk about "state's rights" - that the states had a right to decide if slavery should be legal or not. But the complaint here that SC was making was the non-slave owning states were not abiding by federal laws to turn over run away slaves - one way of thinking about that is those non-slave owning states were expressing "state's rights" by passing those state laws.

On the issue of the reenactment, I think it is racist BS.


ETA - it is the same thing with their intellectual descendants today - they support individual rights and state's rights, as long as the state or individual want to do something they agree with. Legalize marijuana, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc. not so much support for those individual/state's rights.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. That's the war where the South's ass was whupped.

It set them behind economically for decades. Come to think of it they're still behind.

[Kalyke]

137. Really?

We have all your jobs.

At lower pay, of course, but our standard of living isn't quite as high.

Granted, I wish there were unions down here, but to your post, you're wrong. We have all the jobs that didn't go overseas.

[GSLevel9]

12. written by a revisionist moron. nt

the article, not the OP

[HEyHEY]

15. Why's that?

[GSLevel9]

19. actually...

the writer was factual but I took one of the quotes he listed as a part of the editorial. Better to say "One of the people quoted for the story is a moron"

[HEyHEY]

24. Which guy and what did he get wrong?

I know very little of the history of this war.

[GSLevel9]

39. well...

the 6th Grade History version of the Civil War states the heroic President Lincoln rode into D.C. in 1860 with the goal of freeing the slaves and was forced into a confrontation with an evil people fighting to preserve the right to enslave a man for their own profit.



That's only HALF true, maybe LESS.

Powerful political interests in the South INDEED tried to protect the institution of slavery for their own selfish economic well being in fact.
President Davis was as bad as any of them.

The first states to secede were Sc, Ms, FL, Al, Ga, La and Tx. I believe that these states were motivated by the economic factor and preserving slavery was paramount.

Now this next part is REALLY important.

Lincoln was presented with a quandary. How to deal with these seceded states... South Carolina was particularly aggressive. South Carolina requested that Federal soldiers be removed from Fort Sumter located in SC. Lincoln was sworn in on March 4th. Lincoln directly played out the Ft. Sumter situation refusing to withdraw 80 Union soldiers from Sumter. Obviously 80 soldiers were no great threat to SC themselves but the SC gov't wanted them withdrawn on principle as they believed they were no longer a part of the Union. At this time the South sent delegations to D.C. offering to buy Federal property and land and to negotiate a peace.

Lincoln refused to accept the Confederate delegations and refused negotiations. Davis made the ill fated decision to fire upon Ft. Sumter on April 12, 1861. The fort was set on fire and burned. There were ZERO casualties from the attack.

Now is where it gets interesting. THIS is where history turned. Fate rested on President Lincoln's next move. Lincoln encouraged the States to send state militia to retake forts in all seceded states and called up 75,000 volunteers to be part of a Federal Army to defeat this secession.

AFTER Lincoln's decision... 4 MORE states seceded including states that had previously voted AGAINST secession. Three of these 4 states also represented the South's most powerful military states including Virginia.

Lincoln's clumsy diplomacy had cost the Union dearly. His actions were viewed as an attack on state's rights and sovereignty. He had taken possible allies in a fight against a small band of slave holders and turned it into a battle and war against state's rights and sovereignty.

Evidence of such, Lincoln had offered command of the Union military to Robert E. Lee AFTER the attack on Ft. Sumter. Lee declines on he basis that the Union force being raised would be marched THROUGH or AGAINST his native Virginia.

So then Lincoln orders a blockade on all Southern ports and increases his call for volunteers to 500,000 men.

Lincoln states to Congress:

"a People's contest...a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men..."

and the rest is history.

This might get me ts'd... but IMHO Lincoln had the diplomatic grace of GW Bush.

Lincoln held all the options, Lincoln had the opportunity to defeat the 7 Confederate states in a few months with a Union army led by Robert E. Lee. Lincoln was directly responsible for the end state of the Civil War.

Defeat the secessionists, use the power of Law to get rid of slavery. But keep the border states and Virginia WITH the Union.

A clumsy dolt who evolved into a butcher by the end, that's the real President Lincoln.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Sources please?

[GSLevel9]

47. for which part?

it's mostly opinion. My own opinion based on historical events. All the facts are well documented everywhere from wikipedia to numerous books.

I don't blame Lincoln in 1861, he just made a mistake, lots of them actually.

And I'm 100% sure... 100% sure that if Lincoln KNEW in 1861 that the war would cost 620,000 lives he would NOT have made those blunders. He got caught... campaign rhetoric and "first day on the job syndrome" led to some bad decisions. Lincoln took the oath literally in the middle of a HUGE constitutional crisis. He wasn't ready.

There was a window open to resolve the issue. Slavery was already a dying institution relegated to just a few deep South states. Europe put tremendous pressure on the Southern states to end slavery. Negotiations WOULD HAVE WORKED, of that I'm sure.

And then... it was too late. Once Virginia, NC, TN and Ar were part of the Confederacy the military might ensured a long battle. Plus... during the war there were no attempts made at diplomacy... what a waste.

[NashVegas]

95. I Have Strong Doubts

Having lived in the South for almost 20 years, now. Anti-labor (that's a small "l") sentiment continues; letters to the editors in my paper show how much the working classes are treated with scorn. Slavery by that name may have stood a chance of being eliminated, technically, but I have no doubt it would have continued to exist by other names.

[Kalyke]

138. Hey... it's KNOXVegas, not NashVegas. You STOLE that.

LOL

:hi: from your liberal friends in the eastern part of the state (we're few, but we're strong!)

[coalition_unwilling]

48. Exactly what 'clumsy diplomacy' are you accusing Lincoln of? Would

you have had Lincoln meet with the South Carolinian traitors and negotiate with them? Should Lincoln have allowed Beauregard's attack on federal property at Fort Sumter to go unanswered? What exactly did Lincoln do or not do that you think should have been handled differently?

[GSLevel9]

51. At that point...

SC was guilty of no more than arson? Destruction of Federal property perhaps?

Lincoln could have used the attack on Sumter to galvanize support for the preservation of the Union. Instead he used it to incite the Northern states who all wanted to raise armies and attack the Southern states.

On April 4, the Virginia State legislature voted 88-45 AGAINST secession. Just days later, after Sumter they switched course and voted FOR secession. What happened in that 2 weeks?

Here are some EXCELLENT documents:

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Civil-War/Secession.htm

To sum it up... Lincoln and his administration did SOMETHING to radically change the tone in Richmond. It was probably one thing or a couple things. Governor Letcher hoped for compromise... the 75,000 volunteer thing was probably the biggest inflammatory gesture or the saber rattling at the state government level.

But anyways... as goes Virginia, so went the other 3 states.

SC destroys Sumter without harming anyone... you hold congressional hearings. You send a delegation. You don't kill 620,000 people.

[coalition_unwilling]

55. At that point (to use your phrasing), SC was guilty of (at best)

armed insurrection, at worst treason. Again, in the face of armed insurrection, what exactly would you have had Lincoln do, hold congressional hearings and\or send a delegation to negotiate with a bunch of fire eaters?n e

On edit: This is what really pissed me off when I read the article originally. You keep blaming Lincoln for the 620,000 (think it was actually closer to 1,000,000). But I blame those bastards in South Carolina and the deep South.

[GSLevel9]

57. yes, you're right...

indeed when I'm with other geek history type friends we call it a million.

And YES Davis and his knuckledraggers started it... idiots.

BUT without the secession of the "big 4" it would have been some pro-secesh militias fighting against armies. Probably over in 90 days as Lincoln had hoped for.

Ironically the Confederacy was divided into the state's rights folk and the slavery folks.

[Tsiyu]

100. You have no way of knowing whether or not

diplomacy might have worked.

Directly after Ft. Sumter was fired upon, non-slave-owning, non-war-mongering individuals burned down the home of Leonidas Polk here in TN. He was one of the wealthy fucks who thought he could fight his way to a dignified life. I believe he died with a musket or cannonball in his side.

The spawn of these avaricious turds have "won" the war on their own little DisneyLand of the Confederacy near here, and their forebears would not have rested until they had the entire South in a Rebel lockdown or died trying.

Fortunately, the latter was the end result. They are greedy, classist and intellectually lazy to this day.

[Tunkamerica]

102. used it to incite the Northern states who all wanted to raise armies and attack the Southern states.

That sentiment seems to be alive and well.

[ieoeja]

103. For accuracy sake: one Union soldier was killed during the assault on Ft Sumter. (nt)

[JVS]

75. Strawman. That's not the 6th grade version. And your estimation of Lincoln is ridiculous.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I will never understand this

[The Midway Rebel]

21. Gonna' catch you a trophy bass!

Son.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

22. For real.

:eyes:

[ttwiddler]

29. This article is trash

It's bad enough that the author decides to equate Charleston with the entire south, but the Tea Party comparisons are laughable. The resemblance is superficial at best.

Everytime some idiot in the south says secession, it gets people all riled up. I'd have appreciated the same response when that town in Vermont voted for secession several years ago. It would have been a lot less hypocritical than this.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

34. No.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. Psst. Hey. Lookie here.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. ROTFLMAO -- 'Lost' is a mild understatement. More like 'Got your

asses kicked, you racist, treasonous bastards.'

[steve2470]

43. The civil war revisionists give the rest of us (the southerners) a bad name

Complete idiocy.

[Cali_Democrat]

56. Charleston is now the entire South?

Wuh?

[kevinbgoode]

59. When I was living in South Carolina, I was told. . .

that it was the "War of Northern Aggression". . .and there were monuments to the South Carolinians on every other block in many cities.

Of course, while Charleston is celebrating, perhaps someone should remind them that this war would have been over quickly - and South Carolina might have won - if the State had been smart enough to fire those rancid boiled peanuts at the Yankees. Those would make just about anyone turn tail and run back across the border!

[notesdev]

60. Now that I live in the South

I get a totally different perspective on the Civil War.

In the South, the Civil War is about self-determination, not slavery.

Failure to understand this and recognize the legitimacy of the principle is why the Democratic Party is virtually locked out of the South.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Which is REALLY ironic

for states who elect people who think that ALL states should have:

no abortion
Christian prayer in ALL schools
taxpayer-funded religious schools
strict marijuana laws
sodomy laws
prohibition of gay adoption

Those are off the top of my head. From my perspective, they're not interested in self-determination, they're interested in determining how everyone else should live. My husband is a southerner and we have these discussions all the time. He keeps insisting there is such a thing as the "New South," however, he has a difficult time explaining Hayley Barbour and all the representatives from the South who are EXACTLY like him.

[notesdev]

64. Here's the difference

The South didn't invade the North and attempt to impose its ways on the North by force.

The North did. And the legacy of Sherman's march in particular is something that left deep, deep scars.

The North wasn't very nice to the South in the aftermath of the war, either. The North has effectively told the South how Southerners should live ever since - it's not much surprise that resentment persists.

If you learned about the Civil War in a northern state you would think there was no virtue whatsoever to the South's point of view, and no flaw whatsoever to the North's. The truth is that the situation was a lot more grey than black and white.

[Le Taz Hot]

67. The subject was self-determination

and the double-standard much of the South seems to have in that regard. Focus is important in debate.

[notesdev]

68. The double standards were all around

In order to allegedly stop slavery, the North enslaved the South.

Actually if you really dig into the roots of the Civil War, you'll find the same thing that is at the roots of almost every modern war. Big money looking to make more of it by having other people kill each other and lending money to both sides at enormous profit.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. OK, I'm apparently dealing with ADD.

Have a good day.

[notesdev]

71. Eh?

I'm not ADD.

Maybe you have been brainwashed and are unable to comprehend information that contradicts your programming?

Life is much more interesting when you open your mind to others' points of view.

[JVS]

74. As a Pennsylvanian, I know that the South invaded my state at least twice.

Chambersburg in 1862 and Gettysburg in 1863. Those traitorous bastards got what they deserved when Sherman avenged their attacks.

[notesdev]

76. uh...

You mean after two years of defensive war the South managed to stage a counterattack?

I guess it's pretty clear at this point that some here will never understand the South's point of view. History written by the victors got drummed into you pretty solidly.

Guess we can keep writing off the South for a few more generations. Hope you like Republican Presidents, because we are going to look forward to a lot of them as long as the refusal to understand the point of view of increasingly-influential Southern states persists.

[JVS]

78. No. After 1.5 those puking dogs raided and destroyed a town and abducted people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambersburg,_Pennsylvania#Civil_War_era

[notesdev]

79. Peanuts

The North did that to huge swaths of the South, not just one town. Destroyed economic assets for a generation in the process too.

If you're upset about what happened in your town, maybe that will give you an inkling to the feelings of Southerners about the entire war.

[JVS]

80. Payback is a bitch. They got what they deserved. And our side didn't abduct, we liberated.

[notesdev]

81. Well there you go

You have an unforgiving approach to events long before your time, why should you expect Southerners to have any different approach? Especially since they, unlike you, live daily with the direct consequences of being a conquered nation and the certain knowledge that they have been denied the basic human right of self determination.

Either way, you suffer the consequences of your own intransigence, as this attitude prevents any significant movement of Southerners into the Democratic camp.

It's funny how principles of tolerance, understanding, and respect for others' culture comes to a full and complete stop when it comes to the US South. It's definitely not slavery alone which is the issue, since there are cultures today which practice slavery on a very extensive basis yet receive no similar treatment.

[JVS]

82. They were in the wrong. I'm not going to "respect" them or their problems.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

106. You mean The War of Southern Aggression?

The war was started by a Southern military attack on a Federal facility.

In case you missed that part. By the way, almost nothing else you said was historically accurate. So, how does one who has just moved to the South by the revisionist line of bunk so quickly?

I am not anti-Southern, by the way. I am very anti-ignorance, especially as regards to the neo-Confederates falsifying "history" in pursuit of a Southern ideal that never existed. Ask the poor slaves about that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

111. The last regimes who "self-determined" the way you'd like fell 16 and 65 years ago respectively.

And none like it will ever show up again.

[neverforget]

112. Sherman destroyed the South's ability to wage war by hitting their economic

targets. If Lee could've done that, he would have. It's war. The object is to win and make the other side pay.

[Dappleganger]

86. The truth is that civil war SUCKS.

It utterly destroys BOTH sides.

Nobody wins in a civil war. Yes, slaves were freed but at the cost of humans on BOTH sides, and true freedom wasn't for many years to come.

The biggest lesson here is that we do not EVER want to go back to a civil war in this country.

[d_r]

110. war is horrible

http://tinyurl.com/3x9fxuu

[sofa king]

127. Oh, that's so cool!

JVS, I don't wish to offend you, but you sound exactly like some of the students in the Civil War adult education classes I teach, here in the Shenandoah Valley (which is sort of a geographical extension of the Pennsylvania valley which contains Chambersburg, PA). But of course, in my classes, you guys are the invaders.

It's almost impossible for me to teach that class straight up the middle, because everyone here is much more familiar with the defender's geography (it's their home), the defender's leaders (now the names of their roads and schools), the defender's maps and reports, and so on.

The punch line is that maybe half of my class-takers are actually transplants from more northerly states (or DC), but they seamlessly fell into the mindset of the defender on our tours. It tickled me to no end to hear one of my students say, "so our boys must have been along this ridge," referring to Georgians defending Virginia, delivered with a Boston accent.

There is something so compelling about the idea of defending one's own valley that almost all my students are willing to ignore the snaggle-toothed politics of that war and identify instead with the simpler idea of "this is mine, and you can get the hell out."

[malaise]

65. Self-determination

to maintain slavery - OK then.

[notesdev]

66. Slavery is a red herring

Slavery was already well on its way out at the time of the Civil War.

[JVS]

73. "Slavery was already well on its way out"

How? The South was advocating its spread into new territories and a retention of agrarian economic policies based on slaves.

[JoePhilly]

97. "The slave-holding states will no longer have the power of self-government."

That comes straight from South Carolina's actual succession documents. That document puts slavery as a foundational reason for succession.

And here is a very funny video which makes the point very clearly.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-9-2010/the-south-s-secession-commemoration

[d_r]

108. great video thanks

[neverforget]

113. It was about States Rights: the right to hold slaves.

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/csaconstitution/article.i.shtml
From the Confederate Constitution:
Article 1, Section IV 4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Nope, not about slavery. :eyes:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

85. What flavor was it?

Grape? Pineapple? Orange?

[coalition_unwilling]

94. Oh, come on. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 is why the

Democratic Party is virtually locked out of the South. LBJ predicted the lock-out to come and Nixon's Southern Strategy was predicated upon it.

Prior to 1965, the Democratic Party was the majority party in most parts of the South. It was a Democratic Party full of segregationists and states rights' loonies, but it was the Democratic Party.

[xchrom]

61. the only point these people have to make is to be 'in your face' offensive.

they know it's stupid and hurtful -- and that's why they do it.

[Dappleganger]

87. There are only certain areas of the south which do this...

we have lived in Jacksonville for nearly a decade and have never encountered people like this (celebrating the Civil War). Back in VA (where I'm from) there were re-enactors but I don't ever recall anyone celebrating it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. The South was invaded and occupied; the North wasn't.

Easy enough to tell a conquered people they need to get over it and it was a long time ago; much harder to erase the history. I live in Wales, which was conquered by Edward I over seven hundred years ago. Despite centuries of English rule and English attempts to expunge the Welsh language and Welsh cultural identity, the Welsh have never really gotten over it; there's a Welsh nationalist party and Welsh language movement, etc. Same thing in Scotland, and Bonnie Prince Charlie was driven off from the field at Culloden with his tail between his legs in 1746. (Scottish nationalists dynamited post boxes bearing the royal cipher ERII, for Elizabeth Regina II, because Scotland never had an Elizabeth the First, being at the time an independent kingdom).

And yes, the South seceded because of slavery, but it's also worth remembering the Union didn't fight because of slavery but to put down the rebellion of seceding states (there's also the question of whether the South had the right to secede, leaving slavery aside; under modern international law the answer might be 'yes'...self-determination being a principle established at least since the Atlantic Charter).

[coalition_unwilling]

99. Slavery was the sine qua non of the entire matter. You say that

the Union didn't fight "because of slavery," even after you acknowledge that the South seceded because of slavery. This strikes me as sophistry of the worst sort.

[Spider Jerusalem]

107. Sophistry? Not at all.

Abraham Lincoln: "If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do so." Tell me how what I've said is sophistry if Lincoln said the same thing?

[coalition_unwilling]

120. It's sophistry not because Lincoln said the same thing (he most assurendly did not), but

because the North would not have had to smash the armed insurrection and treason of the South were it not for the fact of slavery that was the cause presumptive of the secession.

Without slavery, there would have been no secession. Without secession there would have been no Civil War. Q.E.D.

[Spider Jerusalem]

122. Slavery was one of the causes and indeed the primary cause, yes.

But 'treason'? Never really answered; it's one of those unsettled constitutional questions. (And the difference in view between a strong union with the Federal government being primary and a loose confederation of independent states was one of the other causes of the war.)

It's also pretty conveniently managing to overlook the fact that there was slavery in the North and that slave states remained in the Union. Not to mention that the Emancipation proclamation didn't apply in those slave states still in the Union.

[lunatica]

83. WTF? Talk about holding a grudge!

[JoePhilly]

98. The Daily Show covered this perfectly. Link to video enclosed.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-9-2010/the-south-s-secession-commemoration

[TexasObserver]

104. The term "Confederate" and "worthless" are synonymous for a reason.

People who celebrate the Confederacy also seem to feel they're the most patriotic Americans, too.

That's plum goofy, but it's true. I've known a bunch of them over the years.

[JVS]

105. Hear hear!

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalyke]

128. Without reading a word of any subsequent post:

I live in the South. We don't talk about the Civil War with our family, neighbors or friends as much as it's talked about on DU.

Just sayin'...

[coalition_unwilling]

130. Well, did you read any of the preceding posts (specifically, the

OP that got the thread going)?

Just wondering . . .