@ Jack_kleen- you are the one who is incorrect with your history. The civil war was initially only about the states' rights versus the federal government, with slavery being a very minor issue comparatively. Lincoln only brought slavery into the mix as a way to create more soldiers and get public favor.

So when the Confederate Constitution explicitly endorsed slavery, that wasn't significant?

Or when the VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens said "(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery– subordination to the superior race– is his natural and normal condition." that was really about states rights?

Get fucking real.

The Union only went to war because the south seceded. The South only seceded because of the growth of the federal government and the lessening of State power.

The states rights argument is regularly trotted out by Confederate apologists.

However, the gross weight of historical evidence shows its merely an attempt to justify what was done to preserve the Southern (slave-dependent) economy and way of life.

Example. If states rights was such an article of faith, why was there such a problem when territories and states attempted to keep it out? (Dred Scott)

Or if the US government was such a tyrannical force, why was the CS Constitution copy nearly the entire US Constitution with a few changes (most notably the protection of the institution of slavery, as well as invoking the protection of God explicitly vice the more Enlightenment phrases used in the US Constitution)

If the Civil War was not about the subjugation of the black peoples of the South, then why was it such an affair after the war to put them back in a subjugated condition for 80 odd years, using violence and murder as tools? It should be a non-issue, correct?

Klein, Lincoln himself said that his "objective is to save the Union.... if I could do it without freeing any slave, I would do it..." Are you calling Honest Abe a liar? Grant and Sherman were both slaveowners - Sherman even wanted California admitted to the Union as a slave state - while Robert E. Lee, Public Enemy #1 in the war "against slavery" freed all his wife's slaves and had a very negative view of the institution. A substantial portion of the Union army deserted over the Emancipation Proclamation; they obviously didn't perceive of themselves as fighting to make men free. The vast majority of those who fought and died for the Confederacy weren't even slaveowners, and they certainly would've given up quickly if they thought they were fighting for the right of the rich guy with the plantation down the road to keep the slave labor the common family farmer had to compete with.

I could go on at length here, but obviously that would be a waste of time.

The "Civil War was all about Slavery" meme is prominent in grade school textbooks because it's a helluva lot easier to repeat than an explanation of the principle of limited powers (States' Rights), the effects of protective tariffs on industry vs. agriculture, and the political vacuum created by the collapse of the Whig party. But even the Court Historians who dominate American universities all acknowledge that the causes of the Civil War were many and varied, and only one of them was slavery.

lol, Confederate apologists? I have never even been to a Southern State, and this is what I was taught in a Northern State.

From the Horse's mouth itself, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. 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 so that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps 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'm not talking about Northern motivations.

They feared that Lincoln would abolish slavery in much the same way that people fear Obama is going to take away their guns.

Read "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles Dew.... he details how there were secession commissioners that were sent by the states that seceded first to recruit the other states (entirely slave states.... no free state was approached.... very strange if it was about states rights and not the issue of slavery...), and the primary means of persuasion was an appeal to white supremacy.

The South seceded over slavery. Again, if it was about states rights, why was there no more protection of states rights written into the CS Constitution? Why didn't South Carolina insist on nullification being placed into it as explicit law?

The answer is that the hullabaloo about states rights was simply the easiest way to salvage Southern honor after a horrific war fought for the bases of reasons.... the right to continue to exploit other human beings as mere chattel.

There is very little material difference in my mind between those that fought for the South, and the German-Americans who joined the SS. Or John Walker Lindh. Or any other traitors.

And that is what the people trying to whitewash the Civil War history want to avoid thinking.... the Confederates were traitors. Not patriots. Not noble, selfless, people trying to maintain the rights of free men. They were traitors that wanted to continue to keep their society as it was... built on the labor of slaves.

Just remember. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

"I'm not talking about Northern motivations. "

That's kind of a major detail, since the decision of whether or not there ought to be a Civil War was entirely Lincoln's.

"Read "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles Dew.... he details how there were secession commissioners that were sent by the states that seceded first to recruit the other states"

I've added it to my Amazon Wishlist, but at this rate, I won't get to it until 2014. I don't doubt it happened, and I don't doubt these commissioners used race as part of their schtick (as Lincoln did in arguing for racial separatism and deporting freed blacks to Africa). But was it their sole argument? I notice you're completely avoiding the issue of tariffs here, and the corporate welfare which flowed from southern states to northern businesses - does the book you cite do that, too? As for why they never went to any northern states, well, I'd bet that had something to do with the fact that the northern states by and large had none of the same grievances the southern states did.

"The South seceded over slavery. Again, if it was about states rights, why was there no more protection of states rights written into the CS Constitution? Why didn't South Carolina insist on nullification being placed into it as explicit law?"

Well, you've inspired me to actually sit down and read the Confederate Constitution, and there are a number of HUGE changes vis a vis the US Constitution that did indeed reflect Southern grievances that had nothing to do with perpetuating slavery. Like "no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry". I'm fairly sure Lincoln the railroad lobbyist would be quick to tell us that particular line isn't in the US Constitution. Along the same lines, there's "the power to regulate commerce... shall [n]ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof." Gee, I wonder what *that* is about. Once again, perhaps Mr. Lincoln the Railroad Lobbyist can tell us. Could it have had something to do with all the complaining - probably unfounded - about the Southern States being taxed for "internal improvements" that always seemed to benefit wealthy northern corporations? Also, if the Confederacy was all gung ho on slavery, why did its constitution explicitly outlaw the slave trade? Ah, and look here - a 2/3 requirement for levying duties on exports! *AND* a 2/3 requirement for most appropriations! That certainly explains the lack of a nullification clause (assuming it isn't in the second half here somewhere) - the Confederacy was going to be so hamstrung by gridlock on any controversial issue there would've been no need. There, that's four major differences that have nothing to do with maintaining slavery, and I'm not even halfway through. Have you ever actually read this thing yourself, or have you always been relying on people who told you it was essentially the same as the US Constitution (as I confess I always did until about 45 minutes ago)?

"There is very little material difference in my mind between those that fought for the South, and the German-Americans who joined the SS. Or John Walker Lindh. Or any other traitors."

Does that mean you think the vast majority of the white population of the South (and even some blacks who fought for the Confederacy) should've been executed for treason or sentenced to lengthy prison terms? Do you feel a similar fate should befall all of us "Confederate Sympathizers"?

"While bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved the lives of numerous soldiers and maybe even civilians, more than were lost in the two cities, this bombing was a massive slaughter of civilians, not soldiers, using a technology that should never have been used as it opened a can of worms and made the world a more dangerous place."

First it ended the war much faster than would have happened otherwise - the Japanese surrender was less than sure even with the two bombings.

Second no nation has used nuclear weapons (outside of tests) since, this is because of fear - fear keeps us alive, it is a basic instinctual thing - people only feared these weapons BECAUSE the US used them. It stopped the cold war from escalating beyond regional conflict. If the US hadn't used them in 1945 and a conflict had started with the USSR when both sides had access to these weapons the results could have been signifigantly worse.

Third the can of worms was going to be opened sooner or later, assuming our technology continues to advance as it has (this is not certain every other civilisation has eventually collapsed under it's own weight) Given that it takes a country like Iran (GDP of about 286 Billion US dollars) about two decades to develop the technology to enrich Uranium - the chances of nuclear weapons being used by private citizens are fairly remote for the present. (where private citizens can be any nutcase with a grudge)


"Just to clarify, I meant the worst thing the government did *domestically*." - haha
well i can't really say because as a non-American i don't see/hear much of what goes on domestically but i'm sure it should be what you Americans care about.

"they died horrible and painful deaths from fire, bullet wounds, high explosives, and cyanide gas"

cyanide gas is not the same as CS gas - the former was used by Nazi's in the holocaust, the later is commonly used all over the world for riot control purposes.
That said if CS gas is used on people trapped in a room and who have no gas masks "...there is a distinct possibility that this kind of CS exposure can significantly contribute to or even cause lethal effects."see: http://www.veritagiustizia.it/docs/gas_cs/CS_Effects_Waco.pdf)

But it is a standard 'non-lethal' tool used by law enforcement - so when you are using something which is labeled non-lethal and it kills someone then you are guilty of manslaugther not murder.

@Jack: you said"And that is what the people trying to whitewash the Civil War history want to avoid thinking.... the Confederates were traitors. Not patriots. Not noble, selfless, people trying to maintain the rights of free men. They were traitors that wanted to continue to keep their society as it was..."

one man's traitor is another man's hero - it depends on how you group things is state loyalty more important than national loyalty, you obviously think so but they are both arbitrary lines drawn by people - thus each could be valid depending on the circumstances (even if state loyalty is loyalty to the economic system which exists in that state and only threatened by a fewderal ban on slavery)
And obviously the winners wrote the history - by which i mean whether they are considered traitors or patriots depends entirely on whether they won or lost.

my apologies if i don't know enough about the american civil war - i would have assumed it was about slavery but i don't think it came up in history class at all, we were probably busy learning about hte Irish civil war...

The American Civil War was as much about alvery as the War in Iran was about WMDs. Both were excuses to garner support but were never the real reason for the fight.

*slavery (stupid fingers)

which war in Iran? :p

Tolstoy, just because you don't care for a certain law doesn't give you the right to secede from the nation. Ok, the South didn't like tariffs and internal improvements.

However, these were legally enacted laws. And they made a big deal about making sure to keep the slave-free states balanced, so its not like the South didn't have the same power in the Senate as the North.

In addition, the South benefited from disproportional representation in the House, due to the notorious "3/5ths" rule giving them credit for the slave population.

Low tariffs at the time would have hurt Northern industries as much as high tariffs would have hurt Southern cash-crop agriculture. Obviously there was more support for protective tariffs at the time. This does not justify breaking the country into pieces.

I'll say the same thing that I say to the Tea Party people that scream about Obama violating the Constitution: Just because you don't like the law doesn't necessarily make it illegal.

Saying it was about states rights and whatnot makes the South feel better about their past (which in either case was fairly horrific). If slavery was a non-issue in the Civil War, then why did the whites in the South spend the next 80 years systematically denying rights guaranteed by the Constitution by methods of brutal torture and murder?

Riddle me that one, Batman.

Also, to clarify. When I say the Civil War was about slavery, I'm not strictly talking about that from a moral perspective. The bits from the CS constitution that you mentioned were designed to protect the method of agriculture that the South was reliant upon -- slave-based. Low or nonexistent tariffs allowed them to operate an export economy and get foreign manufactured goods in kind.

It was to protect their economic structure, which was based on chattel slavery. Which makes it about protecting slavery. Which is, by all rational standards, an evil. Therefore, the Civil War was about protecting the southern institution of slavery. Which makes the Southern cause not the romantic "lost cause", but evil.

And I'm not one to come out and say something is outright evil very often, but slavery is one of them.

"cyanide gas is not the same as CS gas"

That is certainly true. But one of the byproducts of CS when burned is hydrogen cyanide. Many of the autopsies of the Branch Davidians who survived until after the fire started had cyanide in their blood, and some of the bodies had deformities suggesting death from cyanide gas (an alternative explanation is that bodies twist and contort the same way naturally when exposed to high heat; I confess I do not know with certainty which explanation is the truth on this particular point.)

If it was all about slavery, then how do you explain the border states that were allowed to keep their slaves until the 13th amendment was passed?

"Tolstoy, just because you don't care for a certain law doesn't give you the right to secede from the nation."

Why not? Can you show me where in the constitution it says that a State can not secede from the Union? They all joined the US with a majority vote, so shouldn't they have the right to leave with a majority vote?

Because, much like nullification, if one can just basically take their ball and go home, you don't have a nation anymore.

Again, the South seceded because of slavery. The North went to war to preserve the union. Just because the South did it over slavery doesn't mean that the motivations of the Union was for slavery one way or another. They had different goals and motivations.

"Tolstoy, just because you don't care for a certain law doesn't give you the right to secede from the nation."

Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. all disliked certain laws of the Soviet Union and decided they were better off without taking orders from Moscow. Do you feel Gorby had a right to send in the army in order to keep the (Soviet) Union whole?

"And they made a big deal about making sure to keep the slave-free states balanced, so its not like the South didn't have the same power in the Senate as the North."

The slave state/free state balance of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was undone by the Compromise of 1850.

"In addition, the South benefited from disproportional representation in the House, due to the notorious "3/5ths" rule giving them credit for the slave population."

Even with the 3/5 rule, the southern states were clearly outnumbered in the house and senate by 1860. What you essentially had was a majority (the north) with the numbers necessarily to legally oppress an unpopular minority (the south) with unfair taxes, and there was absolutely nothing the southerners could do about it. Except to secede.

"I'll say the same thing that I say to the Tea Party people that scream about Obama violating the Constitution: Just because you don't like the law doesn't necessarily make it illegal. "

I agree, but even if it's legal it isn't necessarily right, just, and fair. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when a lawful government becomes an impediment to Liberty "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it". Do you disagree with that?

"It was to protect their economic structure, which was based on chattel slavery."

No, it was based on agricultural exports, and most of the agriculture of the South was actually the product of free white labor. While slaves certainly were forced to farm for their masters, they did not make up a majority of the agricultural output of the southern states; the large plantations we all instantly think of when we hear the word 'slavery' were in fact very uncommon; even among the population of slaveowners (about 1 in 4 white southern families if I remember correctly), most owned less than 5. Even after slavery was abolished, the south still had an economy dominated by agricultural exports - although their export market was a lot smaller after the war, of course.

"If slavery was a non-issue in the Civil War, then why did the whites in the South spend the next 80 years systematically denying rights guaranteed by the Constitution by methods of brutal torture and murder?"

That can be summed up in one word: Reconstruction.

Oh, don't get me wrong. The debate about if people have a right to overthrow their government is a different matter. We're discussing the historical reasons why this occurred, which are economic, and therefore directly involve slavery. This is true.

I have, in fact, in my student-teaching experience, have asked my students why its acceptable for the US to support the independence of Kosovo, but we fought a huge war over a similar issue ourselves.

There is no pat answer. My only objection is the whitewashing of the history of the South.


And to blame the atrocities of the South on Reconstruction is just wrong. If that was the case, once the state had been "redeemed", the black people in that state should have lived in equal rights and harmony with the white people.

This didn't happen. The South embarked on a single-minded crusade to eliminate all political power from the black citizens of their states. To say the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery is to try to convince people that the majority of the white population weren't engaging in horrific crimes against the black population.

And if 1 in 4 families had slaves.... ask yourself how much of the nations wealth is owned by the top 25 percent (assuming that the 1 in 4 were the richer families).

If the slavery issue was a non-issue, why was it seen as an essential compromise to ensure slave and free states were balanced (to the degree that California sent both a pro-slavery and anti-slavery Senator to Congress to keep things balanced).

If slavery was such a non-issue, then who cares if a state is free or not?

What bugs me is that many people who claim to be patriots are the same people who said they have a right to own weapons so that they can fight the federal government if necessary. Isn't this a contradiction? Do they think that the Southern states' secession was patriotic???

"Again, the South seceded because of slavery. The North went to war to preserve the union. Just because the South did it over slavery doesn't mean that the motivations of the Union was for slavery one way or another. They had different goals and motivations."

That still doesn't account for the border states, which were pro-slavery and did not secede. If the war was all about slavery this states would have joined the South rather then the North.

"Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc. all disliked certain laws of the Soviet Union and decided they were better off without taking orders from Moscow. "

These countries did not voluntarily join the Soviet Union. I'm not sure that comparison really works.

"What bugs me is that many people who claim to be patriots are the same people who said they have a right to own weapons so that they can fight the federal government if necessary. Isn't this a contradiction? Do they think that the Southern states' secession was patriotic???"

How is that a contradiction? I love America and, if needed, would fight to defend our freedoms, especially if that meant fighting a corrupt government that was infringing on those rights.
I would not object to the classification of the South as Patriotic. General Lee was one of the most patriotic men around during that era.

"These countries did not voluntarily join the Soviet Union. I'm not sure that comparison really works."

Why not? If someone voluntarily joins, shouldn't they have the right to voluntarily leave as well? I don't see how the formation of the country really is important here.

"If someone voluntarily joins, shouldn't they have the right to voluntarily leave as well? "

That's not my point, I'm not arguing for or against the right to leave. I'm just saying the comparison is flawed.

Dingleberry, I agree that the comparison is flawed, as all historical comparisons are to some degree. I think the attempted secessions of Greek states from the Athenian-dominated Delian league is a better comparison which overcomes your objection, but I don't know how many people would've gotten my point with that example.

I'm not sure I see the difference DbJ, could you explain what you mean?