Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

The Confederacy 'We will keep slavery and states rights!....

4 (15.4%)

The Union '....over John Browns dead body'

19 (73.1%)

The State of Texas 'Texan's always move 'em'

3 (11.5%)

Total Members Voted: 26

[Deadmeat1471]

Well, if the civil war happened this year as opposed to the 1800s, I think I would...

TAKE A THIRD OPTION! Join the United Dictatorship of Araph today and receive a free iPhone!

But seriously, I don't think this debate could really have a good back-and-forth; even without slavery, we still view the USA as one cohesive whole. Given that we know what the course it was put on ended up as (that is, a pretty darn good place to live), I doubt people would support the Confederates due to either uncertainty or because we expect the USA to be a single functioning unit. Personally, the idea of independent states seems absurd, though that may just be me.

Many people want more states rights, and to protect states rights. Slavery is dead and no one would support it, but slavery as a moral issue was dying then aswell.

I personally, would have Joined the Confederacy. Not because of Slavery but because of the right of states(countrys) to determine their own way in the world. But the second the war was over, i'd work to argue for and eliminate slavery in the South. Many Confederates also disliked slavery, though some of this is post war attempts to conciliate themselves. Conversly many northeners promoted and liked slavery. The war was never 'about slavery' in the north until Lincoln gave the emancipation proclaimation years into the war.
Whether anyone else here think's states rights were the issue, the Confederates certainly thought so, I think so and that would be my reason for picking up the musket and heading for the front 

I feel this is a legitimate and reasonable argument for why someone, I would join the Confederate side in 1861. Others may have similar reasons, others may live in virginia and defend their state over the federal government, others may wish for states rights and such. There are inumerable reasons someone could support a southern cause for.

[Flying Dice]

So basically we should ignore some historical issues in a discussion of a given time period because they are morally repugnant to more than a minority of the population now?

No, we have to look back to 1861 and not see SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY, because thats not what the Confederates or the Federals saw. Thats the essence of all historical study.

Yeah, it wasn't the issue of the day, but it was hardly irrelevant. Slavery was the basis of the plantation system, which was by and large the most powerful section of the Southern economy. That was threatened to a degree by both the abolitionist movement, and by the pressure to make new states in the West free states. A lot of the skirmishes leading up to the war were directly related to conflict between slaveowners and abolitionists in the territories. Heck, you yourself mentioned John Brown, who was a fairly (in)famous militant abolitionist, and the Harpers Ferry raid is one of the things which is often quoted as being a tipping point which pushed the South into secession. To say that the conflict was about states' rights ignores the fact that a large part of the concerns over states' rights was related to slavery, and the legality thereof.



That said, it could be argued that from a purely objective standpoint, the push for "states' rights" was actually worse than slavery, as the first was largely an emotional and moral issue, whereas the latter directly threatened the cohesion of the nation. Note that I am not taking this stance, because I place my ethical and moral concerns above my logical and political ones whenever possible.

[Deadmeat1471]

I never said Slavery wasnt an issue, infact i explicitly said it was a major issue. I just said there is a great need for objectivity with regard to the modern preconceptions regarding the Confederacy and the war in general.

*We are not talking about what you would do now, we are talking about what you would have done then without 150 years of liberalism and the defeat of slavery world wide. Thats the question.
**I guess I kind of misjudged the level of historic objectivity required here. Which is difficult especially if you have a cultural tie to any part of the issue. I take it as a given as I do it all the time. Plus I'm british so I'm divorced from the culture somewhat, makes it easier to be objective.

[Vector]

Nothing.  I would've been popping out babies and left political matters to my husband and master.

There we go, very easy to answer.

[Deadmeat1471]

Nothing.  I would've been popping out babies and left political matters to my husband and master.

There we go, very easy to answer.

Dubbed "La Belle Rebelle" by a French war correspondent, Boyd continued to spy for the Confederacy and also served as a courier and scout for the Confederacy and also served as a courier and scout for Col. John S. Mosby's guerillas. Betrayed by a lover, Boyd was arrested on order of U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. She spent a month in Old Capitol Prison in Washington before she was released in an exchange of prisoners. Boyd was arrested again in June 1863 and was not released until December. Having contracted typhoid in jail, she sailed to Europe to recover and to deliver letters for Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Harriet Ross; 1820 – March 10, 1913) was an African-American abolitionist, humanitarian, and Union spy during the American Civil War. After escaping from slavery, into which she was born, she made thirteen missions to rescue more than 70 slaves[1] using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad. She later helped John Brown recruit men for his raid on Harpers Ferry, and in the post-war era struggled for women's suffrage.

Na, I see Vector as one of these!

[Vector]

I'm not saying all women were in that position.  I'm saying that, given the basis of my personality, I probably wouldn't have ended up doing anything like that.

You're not asking "what if you were a totally rebellious person and back at that point in time," you're asking "what if you were you."

[chaoticag]

Since this is historical america and not deadlands America, I'll just have to go with the north, what with their trying to keep the US together, abolishing slavery, more industrial rather than plantation based with a better railway system and Abraham Lincoln's hat.

[kaijyuu]

I might take some flak for this, but I think there should be lawful secession. Then Lincoln comes along and says "nope! no such thing!"

Yeah the confederacy sucked, what with the slavery dealie, but in terms of pure law I'd say they were right. It's only in morals where they were wrong (you know, SLAVERY).

[MaximumZero]

I'm a dirt-poor Michigan dood with social color blindness. Furthermore, I think that the gubmint could be much more efficient if it were one whole piece, instead of chunks of essentially random property.

Federalism, hoooo!

[Deadmeat1471]

I guess I should give some food for thought, to get you guys in the right mind.

The Emancipation Proclaimation(To free the slaves)
A) It freed no slaves(It freed slaves in places currently occupied by the Confederacy)
B) It was Lincolns most unpopular act in his presidency. Both North and South.

[mainiac]

I never said Slavery wasnt an issue, infact i explicitly said it was a major issue. I just said there is a great need for objectivity with regard to the modern preconceptions regarding the Confederacy and the war in general.

People in 1861-1865 saw it as being much more about slavery then people do today.  It would be a struggle to find a single prominent American who wasn't quoted at some point or other as saying that it wasn't a war about slavery.  And the vast majority of the statements that it wasn't about slavery are dated to the post-bellum period.  That's when you get things like Vice-president Stephens changing his tune from "slavery is the cornerstone" to "what slavery?  I never said slavery was important."  Even politicians like Jefferson Davis that were smart enough to deny that slavery were at fault throughout the war for spin reasons generally slipped up sooner rather then later.

There was another thread about the causes of the civil war not to long ago.  It went for like 8 pages.  During those pages people denied categorically that slavery was the sole cause of the civil war, yet never advanced a single significant other point of contention between the two nations.  Yes they said "states rights" but they never elaborated on what rights the states wanted to fight to preserve.

But back to the question of the poll: given that I was raised as a catholic in Maryland, feel positively about the US and would have identified with republican policies besides slavery (trains were the greatest thing to ever happen to this country), I think the odds are very good I would have been a federalist.

I guess I should give some food for thought, to get you guys in the right mind.

The Emancipation Proclaimation(To free the slaves)
A) It freed no slaves(It freed slaves in places currently occupied by the Confederacy)
B) It was Lincolns most unpopular act in his presidency. Both North and South.

A) It didn't free them immediately but it did eventually.  And Lincoln had already seen results from initives to free slaves in the border states so he had freed slaves prior to this point
B) Whaaaa?  Got any sources on that from a pre-Gallup world?

[Vector]

You seem really upset that you can't sway people to think the Confederacy was a good idea.  Sorry.  Abolitionists existed, and I imagine a lot of the people here would have fallen in with their number.  It's like saying, from a future when gay rights are far more equal and respected, that our future selves would not be allowed to be for gay rights in 2012, because a lot of people were against them or took them as leverage more than a serious thing in and of theirselves.

Given that I still advocate civil rights and was raised by a bleeding-heart liberal man whose first degree was in labor history and who routinely starts crying when talking about capitalist excesses or fascism (whose historical equivalent would have certainly been an abolitionist at the very least), yes, I've got to say that I'd be falling in with the North.

[nenjin]

The thing about emancipation is that while Northerners supported it in principle, very few of them, even abolitionists, thought much beyond the fact. So while I very much disagree that the emancipation proclamation was his most unpopular act....the opposite isn't true either. Northerners didn't run out as a mass to embrace free blacks, and subtle (in comparison to the South) racism continued to exist even in the North.

I do get pretty tired of historical revisionism and the attitude that the Civil War could have been about anything, except slavery. It's pretty silly to me. It's like saying WWII was about anything except the Jews. While there was a lot to WWII, it had a lot to do with the Jews too. I really don't understand why some Civil War buffs will try to argue their way around the slavery issue. It's almost as bad as holocaust revisionism, in my mind.

Anyways, to answer the poll, I'd be a Southern boy who felt compelled to defend the Union.

[Nadaka]

Well, if the civil war happened this year as opposed to the 1800s, I think I would...

TAKE A THIRD OPTION! Join the United Dictatorship of Araph today and receive a free iPhone!

But seriously, I don't think this debate could really have a good back-and-forth; even without slavery, we still view the USA as one cohesive whole. Given that we know what the course it was put on ended up as (that is, a pretty darn good place to live), I doubt people would support the Confederates due to either uncertainty or because we expect the USA to be a single functioning unit. Personally, the idea of independent states seems absurd, though that may just be me.

Many people want more states rights, and to protect states rights. Slavery is dead and no one would support it, ...

Um... There are a not inconsiderable number of people who do right now support slavery either explicitly or under another name. Prison Privatization. Debtors Prisons. Abolishing workers rights. Unconscionable Employment Contracts. Outsourcing. Etc.

[kaijyuu]

It's like saying WWII was about anything except the Jews. While there was a lot to WWII, it had a lot to do with the Jews too.

Err... The Jews weren't only one racial minority persecuted, and you'll have a hell of a time proving that it was the main motivation of anybody. Especially when talking about the axis powers other than Germany.



As for what the American Civil War was "about," there's a very good case for slavery. There's also a very good case for the Confederates flipping the bird to the northern states and saying "we can govern ourselves, thank you very much." It's "about" states rights, and slavery was the cornerstone issue as to what rights the states had.