Heyward Stuckey Top fanDecember 22, 2023 at 11:29 am
Interesting piece. Pleasantly stereotypical in many instances, but some good points. Many might disagree with your thesis statement that “The War Between the States began because rich men, north and south of Richmond, made it happen.” You might be giving the wealthy far too much credit, cf., the charge that arms dealers helped provoke World War One . And young men don’t give themselves up to horrible deaths over simply better food and a better life., and certainly not 0ver such an arcane issue (at least to many) as a tariff. In the end what you have is the moral issue of slavery (and moral issues cannot be compromised, e.g., abortion) and the cause so eloquently stated by Lincoln at Gettysburg, that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people should not perish from the earth.” I did enjoy your thoughts.
No kidding. If the Civil War was not about lazy Southern plantation owners desperate to not lose their free labor (and way more nefarious sexual reasons). Then:
Why are Republicans trying their hardest to remove teaching about slavery from public school history curriculums?
While at the same time trying their hardest to keep loser confederate statues and names of loser confederate figures from public and federal buildings/bases/monuments?
Because nobody is buying their lame ass revisionist history. They want your kids dumb and looking to fools like this blogger to learn “history”.
It so transparent and obvious now, thanks to these MAGA dipshits.
All you have to do is point out what many states wrote as their reasons for secession, or just quote the cornerstone speech. There’s no question why South Carolina seceded.
America has from its inception been a slave holder nation, from the founding fathers who opined about inalienable rights while owning slaves to their dying day, or our current lust for obliteration of domestic labor rights in addition to sweatshops, mining operations, call centers, etc. across impoverished nations. The confederacy is only guilty of harboring the most direct and inhumane flavor of the same institution that persists today. Exploitation, coercion, and theft of the value of labor is the oxygen of empires.
jbamberg@bamberglegal.com Top fanDecember 22, 2023 at 7:12 pm
Interesting viewpoint. As I see it: at its core the war was fought over slavery covered later in a coat of “state’s rights” to operate as they choose…with regards to slavery.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession, 1860
[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….
[A]n 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. . . .
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . .
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.
Good and very interesting commentary. But for most confederates I would say this quote sums it all up
“His captors asked why he, a nonslaveholder, was fighting to uphold slavery. He replied: “I’m fighting because you’re down here.” And the north has continued to fight to destroy the south to this day. Modern carpetbaggers move and set out to turn the south into the cesspools they left behind in the north
Uh. How is the north fighting to destroy the south to this day?
The Republicans that run the south states are ding that all on their own. While other, more successful States’ Federal tax dollar go to places like South Carolina, to prop you up economically. The rest of the country has to keep you all viable, probably because all the real
Work building the South up was done by slaves.
That’s why we have confederate apologists writing blog posts on blogs run by peo ok e who wish to preserve the confederacy “to this day”.
This is why republicans don’t want people learning history. So bloggers can give you your info.
Non-slaveholders fighting in the Civil War honestly sounds like people signing up for the War in Iraq because they were told “They hate us for our freedoms!” after 9/11.
It’s dangerous to assume individual people go off to war for legitimate reasons when states use heavy amounts of propaganda to rile people up into signing their lives away. Sometimes participating in war is self defense. Most often though it is in service to the interests of a powerful minority, one who would happily chew you up and spit you out homeless, missing limbs, and traumatized to make an extra buck somewhere.
I’m all for renaming wars to implicate those who profited from them. The War of Halliburton Aggression sounds pretty dope if you ask me.
The War of Northern Aggression was about the Morale Act, witch Taxed the South at 37% of our sales to Europe on Cotton , Tabaco , indigo Rice . We could not make a living so SC opted out and became a free country . Ken Boone
Prioleau Alexander states that it was the one percenters in the north and south who benefitted from slavery and had the economic and political power to preserve it. So I’m still confused as to how the northern one percent got coopted by the abolishenist, who’s beliefs were antithetical to their preservation of wealth.
Elaine Zimney Top fanDecember 23, 2023 at 11:02 am
Brilliantly written! The FACTS are the FACTS and you did a masterful job of presently them in one article! The “winners” are always the ones that get to write the history from their biased point of view! This article of very timely! I always look forward to your writings!
Thanks Mr. Alexander. Your article is a breath of fresh air in the staleness of today’s “America.” War is hell — always has been and always will be. To believe that hundreds of thousands of people had to die awful deaths to free the slaves doesn’t make sense. No other nation had to free slaves this way. Neither did we.
Money is usually the reason for war and the War to Prevent Southern Independence was no different. The Southern economy paid for the northern infrastructure projects via the tariffs and was blatantly unfair. That wasn’t going to change in Congress because the more populous northern states had the votes. Lincoln took office and couldn’t let the money go away. In his mind, force was the only option.
We haven’t learned much since then either. Many still think war will solve problems despite centuries of evidence to the contrary. When will we finally see the benefits of liberty, peaceful trade, and leaving people alone?
Either you conveniently and dishonestly ignore the fact that the warring Southern states instituted a draft or you are ignorant of it.
Draft evasion was a team sport throughout the Confederacy and, combined with chronic desertion, its consequences severely diminished the South’s chances. Not everyone joined the moronic lost cause.
See:
CONSCRIPTION IN THE CONFEDERACY by Albert Burton Moore [University of South Carolina Press]
Also:
DISLOYALTY IN THE CONFEDERACY by Georgia Lee Tatum [Bison Books]
Every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised Union troops — traitors to the Confederacy, in other words.
In fact, an Alabama unit fighting under Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s command patrolled the unfinished capitol building in Columbia during its occupation by Federal troops.
Source: DISLYOALTY IN THE CONFEDERACY by Georgia Lee Tatum [Bison Books]
All of this commentary and not a word about Westward expansion and the concurrent debates about slavery in the new territories. Anyone think that the Missouri Compromise (1820) or the Compromise of 1850,the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the outcomes of those last two, namely the Fugitive Slave Act and Popular Sovereignty in the territories may have had something to do with the North/South balance of power in the Congress? Public opinion was loud, divided, and informed by the press on each side of the issue of slavery expansion. And what of the Dred Scott decision and the popularity of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? Perhaps the violence in “Bleeding Kansas” and radical abolitionist raised the social and political temperature. Did Harper’s Ferry and John Brown’s execution impact public opinion just a bit?
All that said doesn’t disprove a single point raised in the original article or subsequent commentary. Heartfelt opinions are always a part of civic discourse. But do not confuse opinions with history. Basic sources would include mainstream historians such as; Eric Foner, James McPherson, David Blight, Bruce Catton. Of particular interest would be David Potter’s “The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861”. Published in 1977 it’s critical to understanding any other studies of the War.
16 comments
Interesting piece. Pleasantly stereotypical in many instances, but some good points. Many might disagree with your thesis statement that “The War Between the States began because rich men, north and south of Richmond, made it happen.” You might be giving the wealthy far too much credit, cf., the charge that arms dealers helped provoke World War One . And young men don’t give themselves up to horrible deaths over simply better food and a better life., and certainly not 0ver such an arcane issue (at least to many) as a tariff. In the end what you have is the moral issue of slavery (and moral issues cannot be compromised, e.g., abortion) and the cause so eloquently stated by Lincoln at Gettysburg, that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people should not perish from the earth.” I did enjoy your thoughts.
Alternative facts.
No kidding. If the Civil War was not about lazy Southern plantation owners desperate to not lose their free labor (and way more nefarious sexual reasons). Then:
Why are Republicans trying their hardest to remove teaching about slavery from public school history curriculums?
While at the same time trying their hardest to keep loser confederate statues and names of loser confederate figures from public and federal buildings/bases/monuments?
Because nobody is buying their lame ass revisionist history. They want your kids dumb and looking to fools like this blogger to learn “history”.
It so transparent and obvious now, thanks to these MAGA dipshits.
All you have to do is point out what many states wrote as their reasons for secession, or just quote the cornerstone speech. There’s no question why South Carolina seceded.
America has from its inception been a slave holder nation, from the founding fathers who opined about inalienable rights while owning slaves to their dying day, or our current lust for obliteration of domestic labor rights in addition to sweatshops, mining operations, call centers, etc. across impoverished nations. The confederacy is only guilty of harboring the most direct and inhumane flavor of the same institution that persists today. Exploitation, coercion, and theft of the value of labor is the oxygen of empires.
Interesting viewpoint. As I see it: at its core the war was fought over slavery covered later in a coat of “state’s rights” to operate as they choose…with regards to slavery.
South Carolina Declaration of Secession, 1860
[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….
[A]n 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. . . .
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. . . .
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . .
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.
Good and very interesting commentary. But for most confederates I would say this quote sums it all up
“His captors asked why he, a nonslaveholder, was fighting to uphold slavery. He replied: “I’m fighting because you’re down here.” And the north has continued to fight to destroy the south to this day. Modern carpetbaggers move and set out to turn the south into the cesspools they left behind in the north
Uh. How is the north fighting to destroy the south to this day?
The Republicans that run the south states are ding that all on their own. While other, more successful States’ Federal tax dollar go to places like South Carolina, to prop you up economically. The rest of the country has to keep you all viable, probably because all the real
Work building the South up was done by slaves.
That’s why we have confederate apologists writing blog posts on blogs run by peo ok e who wish to preserve the confederacy “to this day”.
This is why republicans don’t want people learning history. So bloggers can give you your info.
Non-slaveholders fighting in the Civil War honestly sounds like people signing up for the War in Iraq because they were told “They hate us for our freedoms!” after 9/11.
It’s dangerous to assume individual people go off to war for legitimate reasons when states use heavy amounts of propaganda to rile people up into signing their lives away. Sometimes participating in war is self defense. Most often though it is in service to the interests of a powerful minority, one who would happily chew you up and spit you out homeless, missing limbs, and traumatized to make an extra buck somewhere.
I’m all for renaming wars to implicate those who profited from them. The War of Halliburton Aggression sounds pretty dope if you ask me.
The War of Northern Aggression was about the Morale Act, witch Taxed the South at 37% of our sales to Europe on Cotton , Tabaco , indigo Rice . We could not make a living so SC opted out and became a free country . Ken Boone
Prioleau Alexander states that it was the one percenters in the north and south who benefitted from slavery and had the economic and political power to preserve it. So I’m still confused as to how the northern one percent got coopted by the abolishenist, who’s beliefs were antithetical to their preservation of wealth.
Brilliantly written! The FACTS are the FACTS and you did a masterful job of presently them in one article! The “winners” are always the ones that get to write the history from their biased point of view! This article of very timely! I always look forward to your writings!
Truth. Semper Fi.
Thanks Mr. Alexander. Your article is a breath of fresh air in the staleness of today’s “America.” War is hell — always has been and always will be. To believe that hundreds of thousands of people had to die awful deaths to free the slaves doesn’t make sense. No other nation had to free slaves this way. Neither did we.
Money is usually the reason for war and the War to Prevent Southern Independence was no different. The Southern economy paid for the northern infrastructure projects via the tariffs and was blatantly unfair. That wasn’t going to change in Congress because the more populous northern states had the votes. Lincoln took office and couldn’t let the money go away. In his mind, force was the only option.
We haven’t learned much since then either. Many still think war will solve problems despite centuries of evidence to the contrary. When will we finally see the benefits of liberty, peaceful trade, and leaving people alone?
Either you conveniently and dishonestly ignore the fact that the warring Southern states instituted a draft or you are ignorant of it.
Draft evasion was a team sport throughout the Confederacy and, combined with chronic desertion, its consequences severely diminished the South’s chances. Not everyone joined the moronic lost cause.
See:
CONSCRIPTION IN THE CONFEDERACY by Albert Burton Moore [University of South Carolina Press]
Also:
DISLOYALTY IN THE CONFEDERACY by Georgia Lee Tatum [Bison Books]
Civil War Fun Fact:
Every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised Union troops — traitors to the Confederacy, in other words.
In fact, an Alabama unit fighting under Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman’s command patrolled the unfinished capitol building in Columbia during its occupation by Federal troops.
Source: DISLYOALTY IN THE CONFEDERACY by Georgia Lee Tatum [Bison Books]
All of this commentary and not a word about Westward expansion and the concurrent debates about slavery in the new territories. Anyone think that the Missouri Compromise (1820) or the Compromise of 1850,the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the outcomes of those last two, namely the Fugitive Slave Act and Popular Sovereignty in the territories may have had something to do with the North/South balance of power in the Congress? Public opinion was loud, divided, and informed by the press on each side of the issue of slavery expansion. And what of the Dred Scott decision and the popularity of Uncle Tom’s Cabin? Perhaps the violence in “Bleeding Kansas” and radical abolitionist raised the social and political temperature. Did Harper’s Ferry and John Brown’s execution impact public opinion just a bit?
All that said doesn’t disprove a single point raised in the original article or subsequent commentary. Heartfelt opinions are always a part of civic discourse. But do not confuse opinions with history. Basic sources would include mainstream historians such as; Eric Foner, James McPherson, David Blight, Bruce Catton. Of particular interest would be David Potter’s “The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861”. Published in 1977 it’s critical to understanding any other studies of the War.