Originally Posted by
English
It seems that in the end, the Southern revisionist historians actually *won* the Civil War. *sigh* Not only every mainstream scholar of the Civil War, but every 19th century Americanist, would disagree with this point of view. And yet, it persists.
Pam is absolutely right. Not only WAS secession and the Confederacy all about slavery, all of the other reasons given to explain away fighting to preserve a slave society are underpinned by slavery. Economics? The Southern economic system was as dependent upon the the commodification of humans as ours is on oil today. Politics and philosophy [[states' rights)? The only way one could argue that "states' rights" were not about slavery are people who don't really know much about American history between 1830 and 1860. Every single major event between those dates led up to 1860-1861. Do you mean to tell me that Southerners, whether slaveholders or not, merely shrugged when a little lady named Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her novel? That "Bleeding Kansas" bled because of some high, lofty ideal? That there was a Missouri Compromise because of...
We have the words of contemporaries themselves to put this notion to rest. On March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens made the following statement in his Cornerstone Speech:
Charleston Mercury, 1865, "We Want No Confederacy Without Slavery"
From the Confederate States Constitution, Article IV, Section 2:
From the Confederate States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3:
Sure, the Civil War was about "states' rights" and "economics." It was also about the kind of nation that we would be. I thank every man, woman, and child who served in or supported the Grand Army of the Republic. I do not take for granted the blood that was shed to liberate my ancestors, for most historians and scholars believe that American manumission would not have occurred for at least another generation. Instead, it would have ended in the 1880s or 1890s, as it did elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.
As for the men in gray and the women and children who loved them, it is too bad that part of their way of life involved treating my ancestors as semi-sentient horses and cattle. [[Actually, some of them treated their livestock better.) They have had generations of sympathy thanks to Margaret Mitchell and the romantic portrayals of plantation life, the priorities of the South now dominate our national discourse and geopolitics, and the abolitionist movement has been recast as a bunch of crazies with a lot of blood on their hands. It has been 150 years and we are still dealing with the effects of a series of decisions in the colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries to end terms of indenture for Africans. It has only been 50 years since a good faith effort was made to make those of African descent full citizens. That flag can never represent freedom and "rights" to me.
As for neo-Confederates who like to wave their flags today, they don't bother me much. I'm far more concerned about the forces here and now, in 2011, who are seeking to beggar us ALL, no matter what our racial or ethnic background. Let a defanged, almost toothless NAACP give anyone they want their awards. The rest of us need to be sober and vigilant, and most of all, united.