Anyone notice how many people support the Confederacy and act like they were fighting for freedom?

It's a bit sickening to me, and a lot ofthe people who support the confederacy and what they tried to do are not even American

Technically my friend, they were fighting for freedom, state freedom, were they flawed? extremely. However they were fighting more for a principle of government more so than the issue of slavery. The South was largely agrarian, it relied on exports for money and imports for goods. the US tariff had been raised constantly on imports and exports, which greatly hurt the South. The South put to the test its claim that is was no represented in the 1860 election. It did NOT put Lincoln on the ballot in most states of the south, and he still won in a landslide. The South decided it was no longer represented in Washington and it would be better off on its own. The CSA wanted no part in a war, they merely were ready to beon the defensive, Lee's only mistakes were his two incursions into Union territory, had he not done this the South very may well be alive as the confederate States of America today. Lee himself was against slavery, as was a large portion of the southern population, it would have eventually been voted out as England, France and like pressured the nation with economic penalties. African Americans would wind up free citizens. Most historians would place the time of them receiving full equality and rights at about the same time Apartheid ended, maybe slightly later. The South would have been a much different place ha it wont eh war, fighting took an entire generation away and crippled the southern economy, had they won, things would have been different. I do not support the CSA but I understand those who support the principle of government they fought for.

This ^^

Bullshit.

Their entire agrarian economy was built on slave labor. Take that away and it crumbles. They fought to maintain their way of life which was heavily dependent upon slavery.

Julius helped put it into perspective, but Shakur you clearly need to address both sides of the subject before you make a thread on the subject.

The Union (the US) likes to paint the Civil War as a war on slavery, which isn't true. It was a war on state right's and this is something Lincoln stepped on time and time again (much like Obama is doing now). It's strange, but over the course of history the federal government has become increasingly powerful and is able to strong-arm most states into doing whatever the federal government deems best.

The Civil War was a war for state rights, and if wars were fought and based on principles alone, the Confederate States would have a moral high ground to the Union. It's also true that due to the differences in demographics, the South would (and did) feel under-represented.

Slavery was a way of keeping the Southern economy from collapsing amid high tariffs, set by the federal government. It was however, losing popularity and the Confederate States were evening recruiting African-Americans into the regular force with the promise of freedom after serving a term, towards the end of the Civil War. Interesting that I never read about that in school and had to do the research myself.

Freedom of Information isn't that useful, if the information is buried under piles of propaganda and twisted history.

Today, waving the Confederate flag around has little to do with the Civil War and more to do with support of State Rights, much like the KKK has gone from black-hating to white-pride. In that sense, of course many outsiders would support the Confederates, because many educated individuals are in support of increased regional powers over federal powers (see: UK).

Taisho, it was a war over a state's right to what?

(Lincoln shifted the view of the war from preserving the union to ending slavery, in a very hypocritical way)

Richard Sharpe hit the nail on the head. They were fighting for states' rights but one of those rights was the right to keep slavery Legal

No, it broke out solely because of slavery.

If it was about state's rights, it'd break out during the Tariff of Abominations.

And the south is hypocritical, in that during the war the CSA became highly federalized,granted they needed national unity to have any hope in the war.

(Get it? *grant*ed?)

nearly every book i've read (and i've read lots and lots of them) has said that slavery was the impetus for the civil war. if slavery never existed the south would have not seceded from the union. you can talk all day long about tariffs and states' rights, but those were secondary issues. and the states' rights issue was only brought about because of slavery. yes, there were plenty of poor whites in the south that were against slavery, but the people in power, making the decisions for the confederacy, were slave holders.

from wikipedia (dont like the source? check the citations) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War:

"The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories."

"he first six to secede had the highest proportions of slaves in their populations, a total of 48.8% for the six."

"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, a key fort held by Union troops in South Carolina."

"Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s."

"After Lincoln had won without carrying a single Southern state, many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option, because they felt as if they were losing representation, which hampered their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies."

"Lincoln's assessment of the political issue for the 1860 elections was that, "This question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present.""

"Meanwhile, Southern Vice President, Alexander Stephens, in the Cornerstone Speech, declared the new confederate "Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.""

"Considering the relative weight given to causes of the Civil War by contemporary actors, historians such as Chandra Manning argue that both Union and Confederate fighting soldiers believed that slavery caused the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to emancipate the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it."

"Addressing the causes, Eric Foner would relate a historical context with multidimensional political, social and economic variables. The several causes united in the moment by a consolidating nationalism. A social movement that was individualist, egalitarian and perfectionist grew to a political democratic majority attacking slavery, and slavery's defense in the Southern pre-industrial traditional society brought the two sides to war."

and here's the states' rights bullshit:
"At the time, most Americans agreed that states had certain rights, however, they did not agree as to whether or not those rights carried over when a citizen left the boundaries of the state. The Southern position was that citizens of every state had the right to take their property anywhere in the U.S. and not have it taken away; specifically they could bring their slaves anywhere and they would remain slaves. Northerners rejected this "right" because it would violate the right of a free state to outlaw slavery within its borders."

"While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states'-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states' rights for what purpose? States' rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle."

and here's a little tidbit on tariffs, which suggest that slavery was intimately connected:

"Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade."

go to your library and look up james mcpherson. he has written numerous books about the civil war. i've read a few and they are very informative and compelling. but any US history book of the last few decades will probably say the same thing.

Edited 4/10/2015 13:29:36

I should clarify my statement: slavery was the reason, but the south would TELL you they were fighting for states' rights. It's just also true that one of the rights they wanted was the right to own slaves

No doubt slavery was a big part of why the North and South came to blows.

But history is written by the winners and Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery - he actively refused to confront the issue. Until the Emancipation Proclamation anyway, - and that wasn't until September 1863 half way through the war. He needed to ensure the European powers did not intervene on the Souths side. - They wanted to protect their cotton supplies - crucial especially in Great Britain which was going through an industrial revolution largely on the back of its industrialised mills in Lancashire making goods from cotton. And civil war in America and a Northern blockade of the South was most definitely not good for business. Changing the war aim to one of abolishing slavery effectively (and rightly) stopped the European powers from intervening. They couldn't. It would of caused an outcry - the Europeans had abolished slavery by then.

Edit: grammar

Edited 4/10/2015 14:12:12

It's really easy to paint the south as evil, slave holding, proto-nazis and leave it at that. However, while slavery was a huge issue during the Civil War the truth is a lot more complicated than that. There was a whole range of problems that angered Southerners. For a long time the North had been both politically and economically abusive towards the South, and as the North gained more power within the federal government the South could fight back less and less.

Although I disagree with the South due to their support of slavery, I don't quite see them as fully evil. It had reached the point where their votes and views pretty much did not matter. All the southern states combined could not override a choice made by the northern states. When it's proven what you think no longer matters to the central government it's hard to blame people for wanting to secede.

It's also fair to note that Lincoln did not even free the slaves until half-way through the war, and stated on more than one occasion that abolishing slavery wasn't his top priority. In fact Lincoln would of allowed slavery to continue if it would of prevented the war.

It was a bloody war, and neither side were quite the angels their respective supporters want them to look like.

@Ska, you're answering the wrong question by saying that Lincoln initially had no plans to abolish slavery. The question is "Why did the southern states secede?", not "Why didn't the northern states let them?"

Obviously the North fought the war first and foremost to preserve the Union. However, that does not imply that the South must therefore have been fighting for states' rights. The rhetoric of the CSA leaders and Southern politicians leading up to the war all suggest that those states seceded following Lincoln's election out of a fear that the Republican party would seek to outlaw slavery.

Regarding the British cotton mills, there was initial support for the southern side for that reason, but after the blockade went into effect, they quickly learned that they could get higher quality cotton from Egypt without having to deal with picking sides in our war.

Beren, good points, and you are right. The reason I pointed out about Lincoln having no plans to abolish slavery was more responding to the OP:

"Anyone notice how many people support the Confederacy and act like they were fighting for freedom?"

I wanted to point out that the North weren't exactly fighting for freedom until it became politically expedient for Lincoln.

Edited 4/10/2015 14:21:13

Alright so I think that this topic needs is the perspective of a southerner.

So one common theme that all of these points forget is that the secession of the CSA and the actual civil war were two different points in history, four months in fact. Now while the secession was absolutely based on slavery, the CSA saw that with Lincoln elected he would either abolish or sow the seeds of the abolishment of slavery and therefore destroy their economy, the war was not. If the USA had left the CSA alone after that, and had not prepared for war and let the south nationalize the federal military bases, then the civil war would not have happened, and the stars and bars would be my profile flag. But because the USA demonstrated their disbelief that the CSA had the right to secede, the CSA felt the need to declare war to protect their state rights, which they felt were being violated.

Another misconception about slavery in general is that it can be abolished overnight. When a country 's economy is not diversified, it's foundational resource can't be snapped from under them all at once without catastrophic consequences. The same can be said for the south. When all you have known, all your father and grandfather have known is that slaves are the best way to make money, it is hard to Change that mindset. On top of that, not even the north was able to immediately abolished slavery, it was slowly fazed out when it transferred from an agrarian economy to an industrial one, people seem pretty quick to forget that fact. It would be just like abolishing Internet and wifi today," how can you do this, this is an integral part of society and the economy, without it we will have to rely on Stone Age methods to make money and interact with others, you can't just pop in and take away every router/slave out of every home and expect everyone to assume everyone will be fine with that".

Alright and finally I'll broach the ever so touchy subject of hate. So now everyone knows that people in the south are racist. But is that all there is to it? No. So when everyone's lives as they knew it were wrenched from them and they were forced under Marshall law, naturally there would be resentment. So who could these people hate out in the open? Not the north, whose guns were still aimed at their heads, but instead the former slaves who the north tried to make the war all about. So while this hate festered, the north, through the series of corrupt deals during the gilded age, let the south be, and turned a blind eye to the increasing racism. No sane white person would dare falsely accuse and/or kill an African American before the war, because these people were recognized for their importance on the economy. After the war, it was a different story, a Jim Crow story. As this anger increased by being left out of almost all technological advances, we didn't get electricity until '39 where I live, and indoor plumbing in the 50's, as well as being left out to die by the north like a sick puppy, our poverty levels have been traditionally high (41% today much worse 100 years ago) it escalated into the civil rights movement of the 60's And left the rest of the world with a bad taste of the south in their mouths, leading to this widespread misconception of us as a whole.

In conclusion, while I absolutely do NOT condone slavery and the beliefs of the antebellum south, the federal government royally screwed up in the handling of slavery and the south suffered because of it, and due to misinformation and historically low opinions of the south, the world has developed a warped sense of how the civil war went down.

Feel free to paraphrase parts of my speech that conveniently support your own argument I only posted this to bring the truth to the table.

No, it broke out solely because of slavery.

If it was about state's rights, it'd break out during the Tariff of Abominations.

It nearly did.

mcmuller, it sounds like you do indeed know a lot on the subject, but i do have some objections.

to say the south couldn't just free the slaves overnight is to ignore the fact that the country had been torn by slavery at least since the 1820s and in the whole wide world the southern states had the largest and one of the few still existing slave systems. they were backwards economically and socially and were getting poorer and poorer even while they still had slaves. there was no shortage of labor in the south, free or unfree, and slavery really only benefited the tiny class of slaveholders (also incidentally the people running southern governments).

it also ignores the fact that if the south had not seceded lincoln would have either left slavery alone in the states where it already existed, or if pressured enough by radical republicans, would have started a much slower process of emancipation. it wasn't in the north's interests to create a super poor restive south.

@Julius don't forget about the Hartford convention