Confederate Legacy

Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of government myself, but the whole states rights crowd strikes me as cryptobigotry. It's a thinly veiled excuse to permit atrocity. A larger government is held to higher standards. There's a lot more people that are a lot more pissed off. Small government only works to such an extent before you get a bunch of minor warlords subjugating their people however the hell they want.

 

Lol, what? What is this, feudal Europe? And what is this nonsense about being held to higher standards? The federal government is basically isolated from ANY standards. It is local governments that need to worry about what the people in that locale think about them. You are all backwards, I think.

 

Preliminary indications suggest I understand the Constitution a million times better than you do, so what the hell's your point?

Most likely that's because you've never read the Declarations of Secession, the Cornerstone Speech of Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, or the Confederate Constitution.

 

apparently you don't.

So, you think the hundreds of thousands of brave southerners who fought in the civil war were all fighting because they couldn't stand to see the 5% who owned slaves lose their slaves? That makes no sense and was not the case. Sure, slavery was a big factor, but it was not the be all and end all of the South's case for war.

 

I have a lot of anarchistic sympathies, but I recognize that the least abusive form of hierarchy is the kind that's centralized and removed from the average population. A government over there is better than a government over here. A closer, smaller government allows for more efficient subjugation and hierarchy, whereas it's easier to ignore a more distant and central government.

 

A closer smaller government can more accurately reflect the wills of the people living there. With larger governments, the will of one locale can be totally steamrolled by groups from a totally different area with totally different values, resulting in the values of that locale beig completely ignored. Small local government is better, except in certain cases like national defense.

 

racism was prevalent in the North but showed up in housing and employment patterns. Most northern and western states did not prevent Blacks from voting or by passing racially based laws as was done in the South.

Slavery was illegal in most northern and western states. A few slave states remained in the Union, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky were the Slave states that choose to remain. Here is a chart of the number of slaves in each state from the 1860 census.

 

yer makin it up

 

Constitutional illiterates will surely agree.

They didn't have to want that, as long as they found the idea of free blacks in the south intolerable, regardless of how that affected slave owners.

Then surely you will have no problem citing contemporaneous documents representative of the prevailing opinion in the slave states which contravene those I referred to.

 

Enlighten us

 

As long as the small/local government isn't overrun by small-minded and corrupt individuals, I can agree.

In certain cases in American history, the Federal Government applied good and proper solutions to resolve many problems. So, we do need both, but I don't begrudge either their most proper roles.

 

During the war, the confederate leadership talked about preserving a way of life. After the war, they wanted to make themselves look better, so they started talking about state's rights.

 

I don't want governments that work. A large government doesn't work and is inefficient. It's closer to no government, ironically enough.

Really though, I don't care about "values". Governing based on values usually consists of enforced bigotry. If we let Alabama govern itself, it'd become a totalitarian hellhole with a state religion, legalized racism and homophobia, etc, because those are their values.

Until the day that government can be toppled entirely, a useless and large government is the best way to minimize hierarchy.

 

Exactly. "The Southern Way of Life" and "Southern Values" are basically code for "Making life worse for everyone that isn't a straight white male".

 

Yes, the moral equivalency and desperate revisionist patriots here would have you believe that the North was just as racist, evil and wicked as the South as regards black folks (aka slaves) which of course explains why the Underground Railroad ran south before the war and black folks deliriously flocked to the Stars and Bars to fight for the Confederacy during the war. Good God.

Only 5% of rebs owned slaves so the war wasn't about slavery? Really? So if slavery had never existed or had been abolished the same time as in the North or by Great Britain the war still would've happened? Good luck with getting that book published by anyone other than Stormfont Press or Moonbarking Publishing.

 

Just to be clear, the question of why confederate soldiers fought is separate from the "cause of the civil war"

Sort of like why did soldiers fight in korea, viet nam or iraq,
Those soldiers fought for their country pure and simple... They felt it their duty.

The secession and consequent war was a power struggle
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.

Basically, unless new states were equally divided between slave and free,
The south would lose political power. And ultimately would be forced to end slavery
There were other power struggle issues that divided north and south... Tariffs for example
But the over riding issue was the fate of slavery... Did the states have the right to decide this issue
Or must they accept union (yankee) dictates on this and other issues
,

 

Yes. Good post. No slavery, no war. Pretty simple.

 

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

 

It was a clear example of the fact that a rural economy had no chance against an industrial economy. If the Confederacy had won we would probably have had a Confederate nation that economically would rival Mexico and a wealthy industrial country in the North.

 

The USA is just an association of States aligning themselves for a particular goal in mind. The US Constitution clearly stated that goal and the State's own constitutions further expanded on the scope they would handle. Now if you want an example of how it would benefit you that's passed purely on an IF scenario.

1) The 1930s and roughly 60% of the US population wants to smother the Jewish people in their sleep. Your state is vehemently opposed to such an ideal but, the Federal government wishes to actively go along with the majority of the country. Do you accept it or do you resist it? Given the ability to legally separate yourself and it's seen as the duty of a citizen is all the better. How are you traitor if you're not bound to the centralized state such as province is?

A. Instead of killing the Jewish population you become a Haven instead.
B. The Federal government takes military action and slaughters you whole sale. No one cares. But at least you died defending someone who committed no aggression.
C. The Federal government doesn't intervene and is forced to accept your stance. Other states follow.
D. C. The Federal government doesn't intervene and is forced to accept your stance. No states separate.

Plenty of possibilities but, the benefits are immense if you can take everything you have out of their hands. If a particular company is found to have child slaves working in their factories you can get rid of your stock in that company or if it's funded by a bank you can no longer save your money there. Once you have the ability to make choices as to whom you associate with the possibilities are endless and it enforces a check on those who do have power. Having the small amount of power to take away your investment and rally for others to follow suit could destroy, injure, or maim them.

 

The Rural vs. Industrial wasn't that large of a problem.. it was the economic stranglehold the north was placing upon the south. They (Companies) wanted cotton for a cheaper price and definitely didn't want their competition (England) being able to use the raw product. Forcing the south to sell at such an undesirable price and bitterly preventing their ability to trade elsewhere sparked a deep resentment.

 

The idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery has become orthodoxy among contributors to internet discussion forums. This is revisionist history at its finest (or worst, depending on your perspective). The facts say otherwise.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. . . ." -- A Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of Mississippi from the Federal Union (1861)

Does it get much clearer than that?

 

What about it?

 

Preservation of state rights, everyone knew slavery was not economically sustainable, and slavery would have been over without the civil war like everywhere else in the world. The south would be forced to end slavery when the rest of the world would embargo slave cotton. Brazil got rid of slavery without a civil war, so did the rest of the world. Lincoln was a tyrant, who got what was coming to all tyrants in a republic.

 

Sure... And the US won in Korea and Vietnam. CSA got their asses kicked. Don't know why some people still want to be associatedwith such a ccolossal failure.