I agree. I don't doubt the research but there seems to be a logical fallacy behind argument #1. A war of secession means just that and it seems problematic to say that the Southern states fought to reassert federal power, in favor of the slave states, by fighting to secede from that Federal government. While the South did go on the offense from everything that I have read of the Civil War was that it never was their intention to actually occupy the North. The thrust into the North was meant to weaken the Northern resolve to fight and also signal to Britain that the South had the upper hand so Britain would intervene.
There is a lot of first hand information from letters of soldiers and battlefield correspondence that this was the case.
One more thing about myth #5. Its an interesting argument but hardly one I would call a myth as there is no way to prove it. The author is right that slavery was very entrenched and profitable in the South but he fails to consider a few things. While slaves might seem cheaper than paid labor mechanization is even cheaper than slaves. Also the cost of slaves aren't free as they still have to be fed and sheltered. Finally slaves while contributing in terms of labor don't contribute in consumer spending and a plantation based system wouldn't develop a broad based consumer economy as all the wealth is concentrated only in the top. That is part of the reason why that the South remained in poverty for decades after the Civil War even under a share cropper system, that was pretty much slavery. Given the trends of industrialization and the growth of a consumer economy I have a hard time seeing how the South could've continued to maintain a slavery / plantation economy indefinitely when they would've continued to be out competed by the North.
Jab at this: The Civil War was fought because rich and powerful Southerners saw that the course of events was leading where they may not be as rich or powerful anymore. So, they convinced the common man to go fight and die for their economic interest with propaganda disguised as patriotic fervor. Like just about every other war. Or tax cut for the rich.
I think you misunderstood #5. It was not an argument about what would have happened "had they won" the war, it was about whether slavery would have ended in the South had there been no way. This is meant to address the common argument made by Confederate apologists who like to say slavery was dieing in the South already and had we just left it well enough alone we could have avoided war, not traumatized the South and STILL seen the slaves freed.
The writter was not saying that the South embrace federal power, he was saying that, up until the Civil War, The South controlled the federal Gv't. What D.C. politician have you ever heard of wants to give power back to the states. The South was losing power in D.C., fast, and reacted. I heard that also. But fear that the North would regroup and continue to attack led to the south move into the north. Agreed. I thing the article went out of its way to show that Lincoln WOULD NOT have freed the slaves if it would have stopped the war from happening. The Emancipation Proclamation was in effect, a military move to win the war.
On States' Rights, reflecting comments from MadMax and others, I agree that this is probably too hifalutin a concept. Not Wanting the North Telling Us What to Do is probably more accurate. The institution of slavery was under attack by the North for quite some time already, by people who didn't have slaves anyway, and the South didn't appreciate it. It's like a family running an intervention on a drunk who can't yet admit he has a drinking problem. That's how I understand it. I suppose I wasn't making a distinction between winning and never fighting. Both cases are hypothetical, so calling any conclusions a 'myth' is dumb. Especially since I disagree. See rocketsjudoka for an argument I'd support there. I don't think that makes me a Confederate apologist -- I don't think the slave-system's eventual demise can justify all the injustice it causes in the meantime. And thinking of the historiography for a moment, and the propaganda both ways in our present day on the causes of the Civil War, I think this is something that non-Southerners are pretty insensitive about. I'm happy about abolition, but as I Southerner, I can be sensitive about how non-Southerners try to handle the issue. Slavery is wrong and racism is wrong; most people can admit that without reservation. But, then many want to go on to say secession is wrong because we seceded for slavery. And, I need to slow down on that one. In itself, I see nothing wrong with national self-determination. Losing the war and coming out a united nation has worked out great for us. Abolishing slavery sooner rather than later has worked out great for us. Seceding for the wrong reasons, to continue to indulge in evil, was a bad idea. I'm not complaining. But seceding because of a big culture rift between north and south -- because Yanks and Southerners couldn't bond and couldn't agree -- is not wrong in itself. It's much like the drunk who hasn't yet admitted he has a problem: quitting won't be easy until you accept the need to quit. Southerners after the fact resented not having the time to accept the need before the remedy was applied (though given the injustice, time couldn't really be afforded). So, when people want to take the extra step beyond Slavery Is Wrong and deny the importance of States Rights in the conflict, it tramples on this idea of self-determination, which offends me both as a Southerner and an American. I don't think it's the right tactic to take in arguing with a Southerner; Slavery is Bad is a pretty strong argument all by itself.
I am a Southerner myself Juan. Are you really arguing that secession is not wrong? And are you trying to say that slavery is not the reason the union temporarily fell apart?
@JuanValdez as a another southerner, I think we can agree to disagree on the part last paragraph. Mainly because I have always view rebels as traitors to the constitution. States rights is no different than prohibition or any other controversial political argument. Bring in a different administration.
I was long-winded and maybe not clear on all points, so here's the cliffnotes answers to these 2 questions: 1. Southern Secession was wrong because it was done for slavery. Secession in general is the exercise of national self-determination and therefore can be good as the expression of the will of the people. I'm happy to see Southern Sudan secede, for example. The will of the people in the Confederacy, though, was to do evil in preserving slavery. 2. As implied in answer 1, the dispute over the institution of slavery is easily the primary driver for Southern Secession. And, I don't mean to speak for Southerners generally, who obviously wouldn't be of one mind on this (or any) subject anyway.
From what I read of his post, he is making a distinction between the issues: 1) Secession by itself as a separate issue isn't wrong, but 2) The issues/reasons behind secession can certainly make it wrong. The colonies seceded from England. Pretty much all Americans would agree that this was a good thing. The South seceding to preserve slavery, however, was NOT a good thing. That's how I read his post, anyway.
when I see people argue about states rights over slavery, I find some tend to just think they are smarter than the rest of us.
<Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.> The CSA's only real change to the U.S. constitution involved the state of enslaved Africans. They didn't want to let these men and women have their basic rights b/c this would have been a disaster for their economy. Slavery was certainly one of the main issue, if not the main issue, in the Civil War.
I misread the initial post........I withdraw the post I'm replying to from the discussion. Carry on folks, nothing to see here :grin:
