Skip to main content

This highly regionalized holiday exists only in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. As described in today's Times Daily (Page 2B), The Alabama Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, says that it is "...proper to recognize the sacrifices of people he believes 'legally seceded from the United States to defend their homes, families and economic system."

And just what was that "economic system?" Well, it is clearly defined later in the article by a quotation from Mississippi's declaration of secession, adopted in 1861, which says:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

Looking to an even higher authority within the United States of the Confederacy, we find these utterances by its Vice President, Alexander Stephens, who, in his so-called "Cornerstone Speech," said:


"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted."

Stephens went on to say

"(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 corner–stone 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."

Now--over and against all this clear explication for the basis of secession, we still hear the relentless cant of those who wish to ignore history and argue that secession was not about slavery, but about "states' rights." I seem to remember that during the civil rights strife of the 1960s and 1970s, there were many voices in the South who tried to make the same argument about racial segregation. "States' rights" is, obviously, a more noble motivation for one's cause than slavery or racism, so it is not surprising that defenders of slavery and racism would seize upon "states' rights' as justification for enslavement of their fellow men and women and for denial of constitutional rights on the basis of skin color.

Celebrants of Confederate Memorial Day--go ahead and do whatever it is you do on this day, but please do not trot out the old and stale and just-plain-wrong notion that it was "states' rights" that drove the secessionist cause!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Celebrants of Confederate Memorial Day--go ahead and do whatever it is you do on this day, but please do not trot out the old and stale and just-plain-wrong notion that it was "states' rights" that drove the secessionist cause![/QUOTE]

Well if I choose any reason, what business is it of yours anyways to tell me what I should or should not think.
Confederate Memorial Day or Decoration Day is celebrated in 14 states in one manner or another. In several states, its celebrated on 3 June. The Southern tradition pre-dates US Memorial Day and inspired that holiday.
Link

In a number of US National cemetaries, Confederate flags are placed on the graves of confederate soldiers, as well, by US troops.

To quote one man's statement is to simplify a complex and terrible subject.

Over 95 percent of the Southern soldiers never owned a slave. To expect they would suffer and die in the hundreds of thousands for or against slavery, is not reasonable. Most fought for the simple reason that Northern soldiers came south. To quote one Johnnie Reb to Billie Yank, "Because, y'all are here!"

Robert E. Lee never bought a slave in his lifetime. Those, he inherited from his father-in-law, he freed, as soon as he could pay of the estate's debts.

OTOH, General Grant owned slaves and refused to free them until the 13th amendment was passed. His wife wrote an article in favor of slavery as late as 1868 for Harper's.

Its not a subject that can be simplified.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
This highly regionalized holiday exists only in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. As described in today's Times Daily (Page 2B), The Alabama Commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, says that it is "...proper to recognize the sacrifices of people he believes 'legally seceded from the United States to defend their homes, families and economic system."

And just what was that "economic system?" Well, it is clearly defined later in the article by a quotation from Mississippi's declaration of secession, adopted in 1861, which says:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

Looking to an even higher authority within the United States of the Confederacy, we find these utterances by its Vice President, Alexander Stephens, who, in his so-called "Cornerstone Speech," said:


"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted."

Stephens went on to say

"(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 corner–stone 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."

Now--over and against all this clear explication for the basis of secession, we still hear the relentless cant of those who wish to ignore history and argue that secession was not about slavery, but about "states' rights." I seem to remember that during the civil rights strife of the 1960s and 1970s, there were many voices in the South who tried to make the same argument about racial segregation. "States' rights" is, obviously, a more noble motivation for one's cause than slavery or racism, so it is not surprising that defenders of slavery and racism would seize upon "states' rights' as justification for enslavement of their fellow men and women and for denial of constitutional rights on the basis of skin color.

Celebrants of Confederate Memorial Day--go ahead and do whatever it is you do on this day, but please do not trot out the old and stale and just-plain-wrong notion that it was "states' rights" that drove the secessionist cause!


The majority of people who favored seccession favored it because of the Federal government over stepping its authority much the same as it is with your Chosen One.
quote:
Originally posted by pineywoodscat:
Celebrants of Confederate Memorial Day--go ahead and do whatever it is you do on this day, but please do not trot out the old and stale and just-plain-wrong notion that it was "states' rights" that drove the secessionist cause!


Well if I choose any reason, what business is it of yours anyways to tell me what I should or should not think.[/QUOTE]

I did not "tell" you what to think; I merely asked ("please do not") that you refrain from doing something that is obviously ridiculous in light of what history tells us about the reason for secession. If you should wish to continue with those old, wrong, misplaced notions about "states rights," then that is your right. Have at it!
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Confederate Memorial Day or Decoration Day is celebrated in 14 states in one manner or another. In several states, its celebrated on 3 June. The Southern tradition pre-dates US Memorial Day and inspired that holiday.
Link

In a number of US National cemetaries, Confederate flags are placed on the graves of confederate soldiers, as well, by US troops.

To quote one man's statement is to simplify a complex and terrible subject.

Over 95 percent of the Southern soldiers never owned a slave. To expect they would suffer and die in the hundreds of thousands for or against slavery, is not reasonable. Most fought for the simple reason that Northern soldiers came south. To quote one Johnnie Reb to Billie Yank, "Because, y'all are here!"

Robert E. Lee never bought a slave in his lifetime. Those, he inherited from his father-in-law, he freed, as soon as he could pay of the estate's debts.

OTOH, General Grant owned slaves and refused to free them until the 13th amendment was passed. His wife wrote an article in favor of slavery as late as 1868 for Harper's.

Its not a subject that can be simplified.


It was simple enough to the State of Mississippi and to Alexander Stephens when they explained the matter. "States rights," to them, was the right of any state in the Union to allow continued enslavement of human beings who had been uprooted (i.e. kidnapped) from their homeland and cruelly transported to this nation against their will. The voices of the past tell the story and the story is not all that complicated!

As to those Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves, but who fought valiantly: just one more case of the wealthy landed interests cleverly duping the masses to carry their cause into war.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by pineywoodscat:
Celebrants of Confederate Memorial Day--go ahead and do whatever it is you do on this day, but please do not trot out the old and stale and just-plain-wrong notion that it was "states' rights" that drove the secessionist cause!


Well if I choose any reason, what business is it of yours anyways to tell me what I should or should not think.


I did not "tell" you what to think; I merely asked ("please do not") that you refrain from doing something that is obviously ridiculous in light of what history tells us about the reason for secession. If you should wish to continue with those old, wrong, misplaced notions about "states rights," then that is your right. Have at it![/QUOTE]

If you should wish to continue with those old,wrong,misplaced notions that the Yankees really gave a crap about freeing the slaves and not about exercising control over the South,then that is your right. Have at it!
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Confederate Memorial Day or Decoration Day is celebrated in 14 states in one manner or another. In several states, its celebrated on 3 June. The Southern tradition pre-dates US Memorial Day and inspired that holiday.
Link



In a number of US National cemetaries, Confederate flags are placed on the graves of confederate soldiers, as well, by US troops.

To quote one man's statement is to simplify a complex and terrible subject.

Over 95 percent of the Southern soldiers never owned a slave. To expect they would suffer and die in the hundreds of thousands for or against slavery, is not reasonable. Most fought for the simple reason that Northern soldiers came south. To quote one Johnnie Reb to Billie Yank, "Because, y'all are here!"

Robert E. Lee never bought a slave in his lifetime. Those, he inherited from his father-in-law, he freed, as soon as he could pay of the estate's debts.

OTOH, General Grant owned slaves and refused to free them until the 13th amendment was passed. His wife wrote an article in favor of slavery as late as 1868 for Harper's.

Its not a subject that can be simplified.


"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession...." A. Stephens

Alexander Stephens tried to "splain hisself later and he came up with this:

"As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guarnateeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers."

Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens edited by Myrta Lockett Avary
Originally published by Sunny South Publishing Company and Doubleday, Page & Company, 1910
Louisana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1998.


Truly a RACIST of the Olde School!
"As to those Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves, but who fought valiantly: just one more case of the wealthy landed interests cleverly duping the masses to carry their cause into war"

Listen to yourself, man! Do you sit up mights reading old 1930's Red tracts while nursing a hatred for the South and all of US history. It becomes a pathology, after a while! And, you're exhibiting signs nicely!
betern nuttin,

You're continually quoting Alexander Stephens, an old firebrand with a nasty reputation even in the South. I suggest a cooling drink and a nice rest in the shade. You've gotten yourself on a one-track rail line and its narrow guage, at that. To justify the cause of the War of Northern Agression from his writings alone is simplistic.

Like the Old South, with you, common sense is becoming a Lost Cause.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
betern nuttin,

You're continually quoting Alexander Stephens, an old firebrand with a nasty reputation even in the South. I suggest a cooling drink and a nice rest in the shade. You've gotten yourself on a one-track rail line and its narrow guage, at that. To justify the cause of the War of Northern Agression from his writings alone is simplistic.

Like the Old South, with you, common sense is becoming a Lost Cause.


"[F]rom his writings alone"? Seems you ignored the official statement I quoted from the former slave state of Mississippi? Who's being simplistic?

And--the South did embrace that "old firebrand with a nasty reputation" as its second highest executive official. That says something about the sentiment that prevailed at that time. Listen to history and read the facts!
Of course it was over slavery.

The states believed they had the right to legalize or abolish slavery as they saw fit.

The Dred Scott decision had already upheld that argument.

But Southerners feared that the election of a President who was publicly committed to the destruction of the institution despite states' objections. They feared that Lincoln's promise to not pursue abolition was an empty one and so they acted hastily and gave Lincoln the most legitimate excuse possible for any federal power grab: national security.

For those interested in the idea of states' rights, which had been a growing concern well before 1860 and the Civil War, please do some reading on the following:

The Alien and Sedition Acts
The Tariff of 1828 or "Tariff of Abominations"
The Hartford Convention
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
The Report of 1800
The Alien and Sedition Acts were more of an intrusion into idividual rights. For the first time, the US had political prisoners, which would not be repeated until the administrations of Lincoln and Wilson.

At the West Point Military Academy, prior to 1861, cadets were taught that states might leave the union. Many officers did not consider their actions disloyal.

As to slavery, Brazil, with many more slaves than the US ever imported or bred, ended slavery peacefully. There were other options.
quote:
Originally posted by moelarrycheez:
Just putting this out there, since this is a thread that is of interesting content:

If slavery is not in the equation, would the Civil War still have occurred? Would the Southern states still have felt a need to secede from the Union?


Exactly,everytime I hear someone say slavery had little or nothing to do with the war I ask do you really think that if there was no slavery we still would have started shooting each other? That being said I honor my Confederate ancestors who for the most part did not own slaves.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×