Southern Identity on Decline
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2003 14:08
VIEWED: 11855
PAGE 4 of 6
Okay, I think we are getting somewhere. You admit that the secession was not legal. That renders South Carolina's actions illegal, both the secession, and the firing on Ft. Sumter. Whether it was odd, or a conspiracy, or "bait" or what have you, is irrelevant. The actions taken were illegal.
Now to the moral question, this gets murkier. By your own admission, for the South the issue was primarily export tariffs. Which as I understand was the power granted to the federal government, to levy such tariffs, and to regulate interstate and international trade. We can both agree that the South thought they were morally right to seceed and rebel from the Union.
It is not an issue as to whether the South "believed" they were right. Obviously they did, and fought and died in large numbers because of that belief.
The question is whether that position is true. And in the area of morality, this gets complicated. Because it depends on a particular moral code.
Ideally, everyone lives by the same code of behaviour, or morality. Yet we do not live in an ideal world. People differ about even whether it is okay to explode bombs on busses full of civilians.
Your cause centers on whether the tariffs were "tyrannical" and whether a failure to get your way via legal means justifies going to war. Simplified, what we have is the South fighting for lower export tariff, under the rubric of "states rights" (which it must be conceeded also included slavery) versus the Union's fight to preserve the democratic government.
No matter how you slice it, or try to excuse it, you are esentially asking for a "do over" concerning the powers of the federal government. Powers granted some 70 years prior to the war. By South Carolina and all the states in the Union after the Constitution was established. And again, the South lost the vote.
I understand the frustration, but one has to question the rightness of the cause when it is a minority opinion. Contrary to some modern thinking, the minority is not always right.
As to treason and success. As someone once said before, if it is successful, none call treason. That is simply a fact of life. When a new nation fights for its liberty and wins, that changes things, and one can either recognize the changed situation, realize that the previous authority or link no longer exists, or try to live in a fantasy world.
And when the war is lost, one has to question the rightness of the cause. Was it hubris, pride, a false sense of moral superiority to blunder into such a waist of effort? Was the majority right after all? We seldom want to recognize our own failings, our own false beliefs. But sometimes refusing to prevents us from fixing them.
Quote:
If Lincoln did not recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation, and believed them part of the Union in open rebellion, then any order or proclomation given, regardless of time would have been seen as valid.
This is wrong. Ideally you are right, but again we do not live in an ideal world. The fact was that the South was in open rebellion, and the Union did not have political control over most of the South to enforce such laws. It would have looked foolish, to enact a law one cannot enforce. To enact a meaningless law.
As to the South paying for 87% of the tariffs, even today, you find the richest 5% of Americans paying something like 2/3rds of all federal taxes. So the fact that the tax burden is uneven is not quite a valid argument, since I don't see too many modern day southerns arguing to equalize this same problem.
As to the question of slavery yet again. Wanting to, intending to, none of that matters. It is what is actually done, not all the lip service and feelings that preceed. If the South had freed the slaves, things might have turned out different. But they didn't, and made have had at the time good reason not to. But in the end, none of that matters. Lincoln was able to use that politically to isolate the South from France and England. Again, whether it was a trap or not, the South still walked boldly into it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are a couple points that have bugged me,been burrowin in the back of my brain. And its been difficult to figure out exactly what for a bit.
So here is a bit more.
1) You keep harping on Northern representatives representing Northern interests, to the detriment of Southern ones. Yet exactly who were these elected officals supposed to represent? The folks that elected them? or the folks that didn't.
2) 87% is a lot. And as you know, the seller is not the one that pays this (exactly). Its covered in the price he sells it at. Any time there is a tax on a product, that gets passed on to the buyer. While the seller may make more money, and reduce his prices if the tax was not present, still, if he don't sell, the government don't see a dime.
If the South was paying 87% of the tax in 1860 alone, that means they were doing a booming trade REGARDLESS of the export tariff.
3) You talk about Northern tyranny, but yet again, you seem to ignore a credibility problem when you do so. The South was still running under the slave/plantation system, and supporting that. So arguing that the North was being tyrannical to the South, when the South was subjecting a segment of their own population to far worse, is not an effective argument.
The last thing that has always bugged me was Picket's Charge. Gettysburg in effect broke the back of the South, and it was Picket's charge up the middle, that really broke the South in that battle. Looking at it, granted hindsight is always 20/20, it looks like an incredibly stupid move on Lee's part. Why did he do that?
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
1) You keep harping on Northern representatives representing Northern interests, to the detriment of Southern ones. Yet exactly who were these elected officals supposed to represent? The folks that elected them? or the folks that didn't.
Of course Northern reps should look after Northern interests, but that was not my point. My point was (and perhaps I did not clearly define it) was that the Federal gov't placed Northern interests above those of the South. Last time I looked, the gov't was supposed to look out for the whole country, not just the special interests of the North.
Quote:
2) 87% is a lot. And as you know, the seller is not the one that pays this (exactly). Its covered in the price he sells it at. Any time there is a tax on a product, that gets passed on to the buyer. While the seller may make more money, and reduce his prices if the tax was not present, still, if he don't sell, the government don't see a dime.
If the South was paying 87% of the tax in 1860 alone, that means they were doing a booming trade REGARDLESS of the export tariff.
Were they doing a booming business? I realize that a seller generally builds the cost of export taxes into the final cost of his product, but let's look at it this way. Generally the South would be able to sell let's say, a bail of cotton for a set price. That price is a bit lower than the cost Egypt charges, so the buyer is apt to buy the Southern cotton. Now add the cost of the ridiculously high tax set by the Federal gov't to keep the cotton in the U.S., to twist the arm of the South to sell to Northern industry, and the cost is now higher than the Egyptian cotton. No brainer, the English merchant buys from Egypt, forcing the Southern merchant to go home empty handed. Rather than let it rot in a warehouse in Charleston, he takes it North to sell at a cost far less than Europe was willing to pay just so he has something to show for his effort.
A large portion (in this case 87%) of tax does not necessarily equate to a large profit. Many companies look extremely busy one week, then go out of business the next because they are operating at a loss. You can only control costs so much.
Quote:
3) You talk about Northern tyranny, but yet again, you seem to ignore a credibility problem when you do so. The South was still running under the slave/plantation system, and supporting that. So arguing that the North was being tyrannical to the South, when the South was subjecting a segment of their own population to far worse, is not an effective argument.
Yes, the South had slaves. I believe that point is a matter of fact and not in dispute, at least not from me. Less than 1 in 10 Southern homes had a slave. What you seem to forget is that the North had slaves too! I am not sure what the percentage of Northern homes were that owned slaves, but rest assured I will try to find that number.
Slavery was a legal institution in this country for over 200 years. Africans were brought here by northern slave traders to be used in northern industry, long before the antebellum South or the Confederacy ever existed. The first American colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts, a northern state, in 1641, only 17 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. The slave trade was very profitable to the shipping colonies and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire had many ships in the slave trade. The moral argument against slavery arose early in the New England shipping colonies but it could not withstand the profits of the trade and soon died out.
Thomas Jefferson (who owned slaves himself) condemned the slave trade in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but the New England slave traders lobbied to have the clause stricken. In a short eleven year period form 1755 to 1766, no fewer than 23,000 slaves landed in Massachusetts. By 1787, Rhode Island had taken first place in the slave trade to be unseated later by New York. Before long, millions of slaves would be broug
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't think we will ever know for sure why Lee ordered Pickett's Charge, only that this is point where the war was lost for the Confederacy
Quite a few historians have said that Lee was convinced of his army's invincibility. Frankly, they had earned this trust. They had done what he asked of them so often that he didn't believe they could fail.
Besides the charge was only part of his tactics. Lee did not throw everything into the charge up the center. He sent JEB Stuart around the Union Army with instructions to hit it from the rear. He was hoping for a hammer and anvil effect. Stuart didn't make it though; he was stopped by a Union calvary brigade.
Quote:
What he did not realize was that the rolling hills of the battlefield hid a Union battery from his view beyond Cemetary Ridge. He also did not know of the split rail fence at the Emmitsburg Road his men would have to cross to reach the Union lines, as it was hidden by a dip in the land.
Lee knew about the Union artillery on the Cemetery Ridge, but he thought they were nearly out of ammunition. In fact the Union guns answered the Confederate guns for a short time and then went silent, as if to confirm that the were out of ammunition, only to open up again when the Confederates drew closer.
He must have known about the fence at Emmitsburg Road because Longstreet had crossed the road the previous day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Of course Northern reps should look after Northern interests, but that was not my point. My point was (and perhaps I did not clearly define it) was that the Federal gov't placed Northern interests above those of the South. Last time I looked, the gov't was supposed to look out for the whole country, not just the special interests of the North.
Then you get into the problem of knowing just which interest those are, and what to do when they conflict. We use a democratic, winner take all system. The South was in the minority, and lost the vote. That is how things works.
Quote:
Were they doing a booming business? I realize that a seller generally builds the cost of export taxes into the final cost of his product, but let's look at it this way. Generally the South would be able to sell let's say, a bail of cotton for a set price. That price is a bit lower than the cost Egypt charges, so the buyer is apt to buy the Southern cotton. Now add the cost of the ridiculously high tax set by the Federal gov't to keep the cotton in the U.S., to twist the arm of the South to sell to Northern industry, and the cost is now higher than the Egyptian cotton. No brainer, the English merchant buys from Egypt, forcing the Southern merchant to go home empty handed. Rather than let it rot in a warehouse in Charleston, he takes it North to sell at a cost far less than Europe was willing to pay just so he has something to show for his effort.
And in doing so, the Federal government loses the export taxes on those goods which are not exported. And the South ends up NOT paying 87% of the Federal tax.
Quote:
A large portion (in this case 87%) of tax does not necessarily equate to a large profit. Many companies look extremely busy one week, then go out of business the next because they are operating at a loss. You can only control costs so much.
I don't know, am merely speculating at this point. But maybe that was the plan all along.
The cotton was grown using slave labor, and the slave system would only survived as long as was economically viable. By making it no longer viable to export, at least the US kept the "sin" inside itself, instead of infecting the rest of the world with the idea that slavery was economically good.
Quote:
Yes, the South had slaves. I believe that point is a matter of fact and not in dispute, at least not from me. Less than 1 in 10 Southern homes had a slave. What you seem to forget is that the North had slaves too! I am not sure what the percentage of Northern homes were that owned slaves, but rest assured I will try to find that number.
I have no doubt you will. But you have to admit that smuggling slaves is far different from open importation. Smuggling is illegal, a violation of the law, and contrary to the governments position on the issue.
It is my understanding that all the northern states, with the exception of Maryland had outlawed slavery by the time of the Civil war. No doubt you will correct that perception.
Quote:
It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag.
Now why do you think that is? Because during the civil war, it became the flag of those liberating the slaves, rather than the flag of the status quo ante. You get a mixed bag there, and if none of your later actions make up for your previous sins, well, we all got a problem.
Quote:
I don't think we will ever know for sure why Lee ordered Pickett's Charge, only that this is point where the war was lost for the Confederacy.
Bad intel, requirements for a strategic victory, repeating a manuver that had worked so often before, all that is probably right. But a mile long charge across open field, parts of which were not visible beforehand? Part of me has always wondered if this fatal blunder on Lee's part was not subconscious
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Browncoat1 wrote: It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag.
Quote:
Drakon Wrote: Now why do you think that is? Because during the civil war, it became the flag of those liberating the slaves, rather than the flag of the status quo ante. You get a mixed bag there, and if none of your later actions make up for your previous sins, well, we all got a problem.
Good show Drakon, that is an excellent response.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Veteran wrote:
Quote:
Good show Drakon, that is an excellent response.
Perhaps, but it avoids the fact that slaves in the U.S. suffered for more than 200 years under Old Glory and only 4 years under the Stars & Bars.
I think the foremost reason that the Confederate flag is viewed by many as it is, is due to the fact that some ignorant hate group like the KKK "adopted" it as a symbol. I detest everything these people stand for and for them to sully the battle flag of the Confederacy is a disgrace.
Quote:
Quite a few historians have said that Lee was convinced of his army's invincibility. Frankly, they had earned this trust. They had done what he asked of them so often that he didn't believe they could fail.
Besides the charge was only part of his tactics. Lee did not throw everything into the charge up the center. He sent JEB Stuart around the Union Army with instructions to hit it from the rear. He was hoping for a hammer and anvil effect. Stuart didn't make it though; he was stopped by a Union calvary brigade.
Yes, the Confederate army, more specifically the Army of Northern Virginia, had time and again proven themselves worthy of Lee's trust, but I do not think Lee thought of his army as "invulnerable". Lee knew full well the capabilities of his army, and their limitations. To say that Lee's judgement was faulty by some misconception of "invulerability" is pure speculation w/ no basis in fact.
Lee sent Stuart around to strike into the rear of the Union lines, but that was more a diversion than any serious attempt to break the Union lines. By the time of the Civil War cavalry was most effective as a scouting force since firearms of the period and unit tactics made cavalry against infantry deadly unless the infantry are routed.
Yes, Stuart ran into a Union cavalry unit, but it is doubtful if his force had hit the Union's rear area if it would have made any true difference.
Quote:
Lee knew about the Union artillery on the Cemetery Ridge, but he thought they were nearly out of ammunition. In fact the Union guns answered the Confederate guns for a short time and then went silent, as if to confirm that the were out of ammunition, only to open up again when the Confederates drew closer.
He must have known about the fence at Emmitsburg Road because Longstreet had crossed the road the previous day.
It is speculated that Lee may have known about the guns on Cemetary Ridge, but it is not certain. Lee could not see the guns, nor could he have known their number. It is believed that Longstreet or some part of his force must have seen the gun carriage tracks crossing the fields where the Union moved the guns to the Ridge, but there is no record of any report made from Longstree to Lee about finding such tracks.
It is possible since the guns were out of sight that Lee thought the cannon fire came from Little Round top or another Union battery.
Did Longstreet see the fence? It is possible, but if he did, there is no record of it. You must also remember that when the line marched across the field, smoke from the cannons was so thick it obscured the field and by the time they neared the road, the line was stretched out longer than was planned and much of the brigade hit the fence. If you look at a map of the area, the fence did not extend the entire length of the road.
Drakon wrote:
Quote:
I have no doubt you will. But you have to admit that smuggling slaves is far different from open importation. Smuggling is illegal, a violation of the law, and contrary to the governments position on the issue.
It is my understanding that all the northern states, with the exception of Maryland had outlawed slavery by the time of the Civil war. No doubt you will correct that perception.
In February 1861, Congress first passed a Thirteenth Amendment to guarantee the legality of slavery in slave states, rather than to end it. Although it narrowly passed both houses, the Civil War started before it could be sent to the states for ratification.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think the foremost reason that the Confederate flag is viewed by many as it is, is due to the fact that some ignorant hate group like the KKK "adopted" it as a symbol.
Absolutely true.
Quote:
but I do not think Lee thought of his army as "invulnerable". Lee knew full well the capabilities of his army, and their limitations. To say that Lee's judgement was faulty by some misconception of "invulerability" is pure speculation w/ no basis in fact.
Most of this thread is speculation. The fact is Pickett's Charge was a longshot. Lee took a lot of chances, dividing his forces in the face of a numerically superior foe, etc. I think he had to (less manpower, etc). But they worked out many times. When things break right for you so often it's got to affect your judgement.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Veteran wrote:
Quote:
Most of this thread is speculation. The fact is Pickett's Charge was a longshot. Lee took a lot of chances, dividing his forces in the face of a numerically superior foe, etc. I think he had to (less manpower, etc). But they worked out many times. When things break right for you so often it's got to affect your judgement.
I agree. The sad part of history is that if it is not properly recorded, a great deal of truth and knowledge are lost, leaving future generations to speculate and ponder. If only Lee had left some writings on the war and why he made the decisions he did, especially at Gettysburg, so much would be laid to rest.
Lee's dividing his forces, as you said, had worked for him every time he used it in the past. I am certain he thought it might work at Gettysburg as well. Even though dividing his forces went against every military maxim at the time, Lee did it, and made it work throughout the war. What we need to remember is that Lee never used a frontal assault against the center. He favored flanking his opponent, and why he did not use it in this instance is a matter of speculation.
I agree that there is a possibility that Lee's tactics had worked so often, that there is a chance it may have colored his judgement on that fateful 3rd day in Gettysburg, but alas we will never know.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Perhaps, but it avoids the fact that slaves in the U.S. suffered for more than 200 years under Old Glory and only 4 years under the Stars & Bars.
This is probably the most disingenous argument I have ever heard.
First off, the US had only come into existence in 1789. It was not 200 years old when the Civil war broke out, let alone had the Stars and Stripes as its flag.
Second, slavery was an important institution in the South. As had been noted earlier, almost all of the Northern states had outlawed it at the time. So the part of the US that was still slave holding, was exactly the part that ceded and flew the Stars and Bars for 4 years.
As noted earlier, slavery was part of America before America was a nation. It was part of our inherentence from England. Yet, it was English ships, under the Union Jack that first put pressure on the Atlantic slave trade to stop it.
Even though slavery in America began under the English, the English corrected that mistake, and took steps to end it, both at home and overseas. Even though slavery started before the Union was formed, it was the Union that put an end to it. To correct that sin, Northern boys fought and died. Southerners fought and died too, but no matter how many great leaders of the South wanted to end slavery, they did not. And ended up fighting to preserve the system.
Slavery poisoned the Confederacy's ideals, and its moral standing. It kept the British and French from supporting her, and rendered her arguments about tyranny and tariffs on the federal level unpersuasive. And even, on the verge of getting the slave system, which at the time was their economic livelyhood, protected by both Supreme Court ruling, and a constitutional amendment, the South still shot at federal troops and ceded from the Union that had bent over backwards to protect their unique way of life, despite the fundamental hypocricy it posed to the foundational principles of this nation.
Slavery made the Confederacy the "wrong side" and ruined any good that might have come from her. It was a fundamental contradiction to the very ideals the revolution of 1776 proclaimed and needed to be removed, if the US was ever to be the kind of nation the founding fathers dreamed it should be. The North saw that, and many southerns did too. But the Confederacy still fought on the losing and wrong side of that issue.
So the flag gets adopted by hate groups, and sullies it name. Sorry to hear that. But it was the South that had brought it upon itself. Whether Sumter was a trap or not, is beside the point. South Carolina blundered into it boldly. It was the Confederacy that lost the votes, and fired on the fort, lost the debate, and the war. Almost 150 years ago.
Whether you like it or not, the single most defining characterisic difference between the North and the South was the slave system. And it was that system that the Stars and Bars represented. You can talk about States rights, and export tariffs till you are blue in the face, but the nagging question of slavery still haunts, and damages, the reputation of the Confederacy. The Union ended it. The Confederacy did not. You can argue they "did not get a chance," all you like. But it just doesn't fly.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME