The Confederate battle flag

Also, you've skipped some of Georgia's declaration, and I'm pretty sure the last sentence is from Texas, not Georgia. I'll go into more detail later, but you should ask yourself why Georgie begins and ends its declaration talking about slavery. No other specific cause other than slavery is mentioned with anywhere near as much frequency, and this cause alone was used as the primary identifier that theses states gave themselves. If we take them at their word, slavery was the primary cause of secession. To claim otherwise would be to rewrite history.

 

Of course! The restriction of states' "rights" to own slaves. Or to keep them from voting.

Are you kidding? It doesn't matter what Lincoln believed. It matters what they believed. They feared that what Lincoln was doing (or promised to do) would put in jeopardy their white supremacy. They couldn't care less what his personal beliefs were.

That is absurd! It makes no difference if they owned slaves. The economy of the south, they believed, depended on slavery. So whether you owned slaves or not, they felt that freeing the slaves would affect their livelihood.

But, as I have said many times, the fear of losing their white supremacy was then, like now, also very much a factor for those who (then and now) support the Confederacy

You are completely confused. You are confusing the reasons why individuals fight with motives for the war. Of course somebody might have been living close to a battlefield and wanted to keep soldiers off their land. Or was motivated by one of the usual propaganda elements (real or not) that are usually associated with a war, like "they're savages who want to rape your daughters and wives".... Or, as I said, they felt their white supremacy was at risk.. But that was not why the was was declared. It was declared for one thing and one thing only: slavery. And all surrounding issues. Such as the southern economy.

 

It is true, in my opinion, that President Trump is instigating anger in his base.

But it should also not be overlooked that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, et al. are instigating anger, similarly, in the Democratic base.

This is an excellent recipe for polarization (which we now have).

 

It is true that if the Confederacy had prevailed, race-based slavery (which is no worse than any other form of slavery, it seems to me) would have continued for another 20 or 25 years--until it became obsolete.

But most of the Confederate soldiers were simply not slaveowners--and had no realistic hope of ever owning slaves. So they were fighting, not to preserve slavery, but to repel an invader.

 

And why should we listen to him about the causes over those who actually made the call to secede?

What states' rights, other than those involving slavery? And, again, this recording doesn't hold a candle to the actual primary sources we have, from the time period, written by those who actually made the choice to secede.

Straw man.

I'm going to cover this one in a separate post simply because it is so glaringly misleading.

It was THE primary cause of secession. It was THE primary reason states chose to secede. They publicly said so, and did so often.

 

This is yet another case where you obviously did not even read your own source.

No, that does not in any way mean that "over 90% of Southern families did not own slaves."

Please follow: If I told you the percentage of individuals who owned a home, would that tell you the percentage of families who owned a home? No. Because an individual is one person, while a family is a collection of people. Most of the members of the householding family are not the owner themselves, as individuals. That means that the percentage of individuals who own a home is always going to be much lower than the number of families who own a home. Get it? Now try the same thing for slavery.

In fact, you wouldn't need to if you had read your own source, which clearly states that the percentage of slaveholding families was closer to 20% and the number of slaveholding households was closer to 25%. In some states that was higher and in some states that was lower, but the number given by those who have gone through the census typically lands between a quarter to a third of all households.

If you had read your own source, you would have seen that even this number is brought down by border states that didn't secede. Among the first two states to secede, for example, the number was nearly 50% of families.

This is just mindnumbingly false, for so, so many reasons. You immediately start with the assumption that, if someone didn't personally own a slave, then he wouldn't have fought for slavery. Here are some things to consider:

1) Many who fought did not own a slave . . . yet. Yet. They were young men, aside from the officers, who mostly weren't property owners at all yet.
2) Many did not own slaves themselves, but were part of slaveholding households.
3) Many supported slavery as a principle, as a religious tenet, and as a "rightful order" to the world and were committed to white supremacy in the form of slavery.
4) Whether or not they owned a slave, they feared the economic repercussions of ending slavery.
5) Whether or not they owned a slave, the political power of their state was tied up in slavery.
6) Whether or not they owned a slave, they feared "servile insurrection." In other words, whether or not they owned a slave, they didn't want black people to be free and feared what they would do if they did become free.
7) Many depended on slaveholding families, even if they owned no slaves themsleves.
Many feared that freed slaves would *gasp* vote . . . and since they were a sizable proportion of the Southern population . . . well, you do the math.

And it isn't just me saying this stuff. Here's a source from the time period:

"The fact being conceded, that there is a very large class of persons in the slaveholding States who have no direct ownership in slaves . . . I think it but easy to show that the interest of the poorest non-slaveholder among us is to make common cause with, and die in the last trenches, in defence of the slave property of his more favored neighbor…

I will proceed to present several general considerations, which must be found powerful enough to influence the non-slaveholder . . .

1. The non-slaveholder of the South is assured that the remuneration afforded by his labor, over and above the expense of living, is larger than that which is afforded by the same labor in the free States. . . .

2. The non-slaveholders, as a class, are not reduced by the necessity of our condition, as is the case in the free States, to find employment in crowded cities, and come into competition in close and sickly workshops and factories, with remorseless and untiring machinery. . . .

3. The non-slaveholder is not subjected to that competition with foreign pauper labor which has degraded the free labor of the North, and demoralized it to an extent which perhaps can never be estimated. . . .

4. The non-slaveholder of the South preserves the status of the white man, and is not regarded as an inferior or a dependant. He is not told that the Declaration of Independence, when it says that all men are born free and equal, refers to the negro equally with himself. It is not proposed to him that the free negro’s vote shall weigh equally with his own at the ballot-box, and that the little children of both colors shall be mixed in the classes and benches of the schoolhouse, and embrace each other filially in its outside sports. It never occurs to him that a white man could be degraded enough to boast in a public assembly, as was recently done in New-York, of having actually slept with a negro. And his patriotic ire would crush with a blow the free negro who would dare, in his presence, as is done in the free States, to characterize the father of the country as a “scoundrel.” No white man at the South serves another as a body-servant, to clean his boots, wait on his table, and perform the menial services of his household! His blood revolts against this, and his necessities never drive him to it. He is a companion and an equal. When in the employ of the slaveholder, or in intercourse with him, he enters his hall, and has a seat at his table. If a distinction exists, it is only that which education and refinement may give, and this is so courteously exhibited as scarcely to strike attention. The poor white laborer at the North is at the bottom of the social ladder, while his brother here has ascended several steps, and can look down upon those who are beneath him at an infinite remove!

5. The non-slaveholder knows that as soon as his savings will admit, he can become a slaveholder, and thus relieve his wife from the necessities of the kitchen and the laundry, and his children from the labors of the field. . . .

6. The large slaveholders and proprietors of the South begin life in great part as non-slaveholders. . . .

7. But, should such fortune not be in reserve for the non-slaveholder, he will understand that by honesty and industry it may be realized to his children. . . .

8. The sons of the non-slaveholder are and have always been among the leading and ruling spirits of the South, in industry as well as in politics. . . .

9. Without the institution of slavery the great staple products of the South would cease to be grown, and the immense annual results which are distributed among every class of the community, and which give life to every branch of industry, would cease.

10. If emancipation be brought about, as will, undoubtedly be the case, unless the encroachments of the fanatical majorities of the North are resisted now, the slaveholders, in the main, will escape the degrading equality which must result, by emigration, for which they have the means, by disposing of their personal chattels, while the non-slaveholders, without these resources, would be compelled to remain and endure the degradation. . . ." - JDB DeBow

But I have another quandary for you: you are talking about all people, including people who weren't even able to serve. What happens when you look at he percentage of volunteer CSA soldiers who owned slaves? Hint: they are disproportionality slave owners (especially the officers) and members of slaveholding families when compared to the rest of their state population. Wonder why that is?

 

If you are talking about conscripts, sure. For volunteers, they were disproportionately slave owners or members of slaveholding families. They likely had more of a "realistic hope of ever owning slaves" than those who didn't volunteer. Plus, in places like South Carolina and Mississippi, nearly half of all families owned slaves. That's a pretty "realistic hope." As far as slavery becoming obsolete, the seceding states vehemently disagreed with that sentiment and enshrined slavery in their Constitution.

 

Follow up question on this one, though I've asked it many times throughout my life and no one has ever really responded:

If this was about states' rights more so than slavery, then why didn't the Confederacy grant "states's rights" to their own states with regard to slavery? All CSA states and territories had to be slave states and territories. You realize that, right?

 

what I mean is Trump is creating a anger against the statues via his actions, that is why we are seeing more removed now than we have in years

 

If I understand you correctly, you're asking why the South didn't allow for the further dissolving of the Confederacy into individual Southern states or groups of Southern states.

It's simply my opinion that the Southern states had more in common with each other than they did with any of the Northern states and felt that if they stayed together as one unit it would allow for a more coherent foreign policy in dealing with other, foreign countries who were watching the conflict with great interest.

I also suspect another reason for a united Confederacy is that it would have been simpler, more stable and more secure on the world market to have one, single Southern currency than many different weaker currencies.

Additionally, the Southern states were unified more closely because they faced a common threat from the North and potential threats from European countries who may have found it easier to conquer individual states one by one than one, united Confederacy.

For example, Spain would have found it much easier to get Florida back if Florida didn't have the support of a united Confederacy.
As the saying goes: "There's strength in numbers."

I hope I've at least come close to a satisfactory response even though additional reasons for a united Confederacy may come to me later.

 

That was the implication when you said that the CSA succeeded because of slavery. You made simplicity from a complexity to attack it. So you were the one who was in fact creating the straw man, ironically.

 

This is dumb. It doesn't matter that it has different meanings to some folks. Before Hitler (yes, Godwined), the swastika was a symbol of good fortune. So why don't we put that on some state flags? Because we're not ****ing stupid. That's why.

 

If they were more about states' rights than slavery, then why would allowing states' rights with regard to slavery "further dissolve the Confederacy"?

 

No, saying that the CSA primarily seceded over slavery (which, again, is what they claimed themselves) does not in any why imply that every paragraph every Confederate ever wrote was about slavery. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

You've qualified your argument, distancing yourself from your original premise by using the adverb "primarily"; before you just said that they seceded over slavery. You're not quite there, but you're making progress, which validates your progressive bona fides.

 

I am talking about Confederate soldiers, overall. This would include both groups, and average them together.

Perhaps in the early 1860s, slavery appeared to be a permanent institution. But by the so-called "Gilded Age" (roughly 1865-1890), all vestiges of an agrarian society were transformed into an urban society, instead.

No slaves were then needed.

 

So . . . after the Confederacy (which, by its own accounts, enshrined slavery as a primary concern, and not just as an economic concern either) ended, we had a "Gilded Age" where we no longer "needed" slavery?

Also, why say that slaves were "needed" for an "agrarian society." You are, of course, aware that 1) slaves have been used for both agrarian and industrial or "urban" purposes and that 2) there were agrarian societies without slaves . . . including the North during the Civil War.

 

You make a fair point as regarding the swastika: It is an ancient symbol, which was not always looked upon with disgust, prior to Adolf Hitler's co-opting it, in service to Nazism.

But to claim, by analogy, that the 1860s South co-opted the Stars and Bars (from whom, anyway?), and used them in some egregious way, is just simply jaw-dropping, it seems to me.

 

For starters, your quotes around needed appear to suggest that I am attempting to justify the institution of slavery--which I have elsewhere described as "horrid"--on the basis of need. But nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

Moreover, the very fact that the North did not have a great many slaves (it did have some) is a testament to the fact that they were not needed so much in an industrial society as in an agrarian society. (This suggests that Northerners, at the time, were not morally superior to Southerners; they simply had no overwhelming need of slaves.)

 

I put needed into quotations because that is the word you used in your post, though the clarification makes sense to me.

And now I'm confused again. Were they "needed" or not? If you aren't justifying slavery, then "needed" is the wrong word, so why go back to using it? They obviously weren't actually "needed." And, again, the North was ALSO agrarian, so the "agrarian society" argument really doesn't hold any water.

As far as the North having some slaves, you are likely referred to the border states (Southern slave states that didn't secede) or the District of Columbia. Otherwise, free states limited slavery to only cases such as prisoners (something which remained true even after the 13th Amendment), not race-based chattel slavery.

 

@pjohns

After excluding the Southern slave states and territories that didn't secede, then as of 1860, there were roughly 64 slaves in the remaining "Northern" states and territories.

Almost half of those were in Utah, which was a territory that had not yet been granted statehood. 18 were in New Jersey, which had already passed a law enforcing gradual abolition.

As for the slavery that remained: One year into the war, and one year before the Emancipation Proclamation, Congress abolished slavery in all US territories.

 

I keep hearing the argument that most Confederate soldiers didn’t personally own slaves so they weren’t fighting to maintain slavery.

That’s pure horse crap. They may not have owned them but they certainly didn’t want them freed. I’m fact when they encountered surrendering black Union troops... these “non slave owning Confederates” butchered them

 

Yep, even people living in the time period thought this argument was bull **** (see post #256)

 

The fact that they were needed does not morally justify the institution of slavery. The plantation owners could have made the position voluntary--and paid those who applied for and then took the position. (Corporate America today has many needed positions. But even if slavery were still legal in America--and, of course, it is not--it could not be morally justified on the basis of need.)

Are you quite serious? The North was much more industrialized than the South was.

One of those "border" states was Maryland. And it would have almost surely seceded, if President Lincoln had not imprisoned its governor, Thomas H. Hicks. (Lincoln did not want the District of Columbia to be surrounded by Confederate states: Maryland to the north, and Virginia to the south.)

Of course, Maryland was a slave state.

 

They weren't actually needed. The South didn't just suddenly stop growing crops the moment the slaves were free. If they truly "needed" slaves for their farms, then all of their farms would have failed once the slaves were free. That didn't happen.

If the position could be paid and voluntary (as they were in the North), then slaves weren't needed.

More industrialized, yes. But still agrarian. Why did the agrarian South "need" slaves while the agrarian North did not? Both had lots of farm land, yet you are only arguing that one "needed" slaves for that farmland.

Yes. As I said. Border states. Southern slaveholding states that didn't secede but who eventually had to abolish slavery in order to stay in the Union. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. And then later West Virginia.