Grun & Mark AT...... Confederates :D

[Toad]

Don't want to hijack that airplane thread, so I'll start this one.

I'll take the opposing view.

Let me state right up front that I abhor slavery and believe the "South" was incredibly wrong and blind to the injustice created by the "peculiar institution". I'm glad it ended and wish they'd have voluntarily given it up much earlier.

OTOH, I think the Confederate Generals, many of them West Point grads, were overall a very intelligent group, schooled in the Constitution and the relationship of the Army to the government and the Constitution.

I've never been able to find anything in the Contstitution or Bill of Rights or other such documents up to the point of the Civil War that prohibited any State from removing itself from the Union. I've found nothing to that effect in the writings of the Founding Fathers, either.

Therefore, I am somewhat comfortable with the idea that the position of the Confederate Generals and indeed of the political leaders of the South were more astute scholars of the Constitution than Lincoln was. They, in my opinion, were Constitutionally correct in saying they could remove their States from the Union.

Remember too, that "ending slavery" was not a Northern War aim when it all started. The causus belli was "to preserve the Union", a Constitutionally unsupported aim, IMO.

Additionally, there's that pesky 2nd Amendment which meant to allow the people or states to remove themselves from a government that violates the Constitution or behaves in a tyrannical manner. The writings of the Founders support this view, I believe, quite clearly.

Of the two sides, it seems clear to me that Lincoln either had the least understanding of the Constitution or chose to ignore it.

He violated the civil rights of US citizens through conscription, suspended the writ of habeus corpus, and instituted an income tax which clearly was not allowed at that time and is in dispute even now. In the case of Ex Parte Merryman (1861),  Lincoln not only ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling, he then wrote out a standing order for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. Not exactly a Constitutional Champion, eh?

So, can I admire the Confederate Generals? Actually, yes, given that ending slavery was not a Northern War Aim until things were going so badly for the North that Lincoln tried it to put pressure on the South. The Confederates were more clearly Constitutionally correct. IMO.

There's another issue to be considered as cause of the war from which the Southern "states rights" grows. Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs on foreign imports, using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects.

The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed "pork projects" were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare.

Not suprising they wanted to pull out of that sort of deal, is it?

[Mark Luper]

I knew the Civil War was primarily about the right of states succeeding from the Union however was not aware of most of the other items mentioned in your post.

Very interesting and a good read Toad, I will have to do some more reading on the era and events leading up to, during, and immediately after the Civil War. Something other that battles fought is what I mean.

My sympathies lie with the "South" because I am a Southern native. At one time I was even in favor of the attempt at succesion, however looking at things in present day circumstances I have to beleive the right choices were made by all involved even though the "law" apparantly was "broken" in the process.

[GRUNHERZ]

LOL Perfect!

What states rights did they wanna keep?  Taxes? Trafic rules? Drinking ages? Slavery?

Anyway I always knew many of you true American patriot guys who supposedly view German WW2 soldiers in a lower light because of ideology of their nation would excuse the idelogical problems of an american who fought for the states right to maintain slavery..

And please dont insult me with distraction that the warwas not, at its core, about the fact that the souther states were afraid that slavery would not be allowed to expand in the united states and that ultimately that it wouls be outlawed in the country as a whole.

BTW I think they are all great Robert E. Lee was prolly the greatest general during the war, just like Erich Harmann was certainly the grestet fighter pilot of the war.

[midnight Target]

I realize you are playing devils advocate TOAD, but lets look at your points:

Therefore, I am somewhat comfortable with the idea that the position of the Confederate Generals and indeed of the political leaders of the South were more astute scholars of the Constitution than Lincoln was. They, in my opinion, were Constitutionally correct in saying they could remove their States from the Union.

Constitutionally correct? So what? I can make the same argument for Hitlers treatment of the Jews being "constitutionally correct". Legal does not equal moral or even right.



 

Remember too, that "ending slavery" was not a Northern War aim when it all started. The causus belli was "to preserve the Union", a Constitutionally unsupported aim, IMO.

Again a circular argument. "Presereve the Union" was the cause, but why was it being sundered? You and I both know that Slavery was the prime cause no matter how you spin the wording.

[Mark Luper]

Grun, please point to the section in my reply to Toad's post where I mention, even in passing, that I support the states rights to maintain slavery. Also, point out to me where I view the Southern States ideology as being one I condone.

I said no such thing, did not even allude to it. The "sympathy" I held at one time was solely with the South's right to succeed, not to foster or maintain slavery.

To compare the "greatness" of Union and Confederate generals during a very dark time in our history to those of a Nazi's regime is a far stretch in my viewpoint.

Erich Hartman will never acheive the status of greatness in my opinion. But then again, that is MY opinion, not yours. You may keep your's and do with it as you will.

[GRUNHERZ]

Secede for what reason - you cannot seperate secession from slavery.


I think you are being two faced and moralizing away the defenders of slavery as just great americans during a dark time.

The same could be said of german soldiers "during a very dark time" in their history....

You lose all right to moralize about the germans if you dont do the same for another failed idelogy - american slavery.

[Mark Luper]

I can separate succession from slavery, you may not be able to.  I won't be one to "moralize away" anyone for defending slavery.

If you think I am being two faced about anything then there is not much reason to carry this discussion any further. You and I have our minds made up.

[GRUNHERZ]

Im curious how the southers secession was seperate from slavery?  

Can you tell me with a straight face and with self respect that the confederate states would have seceded just the same if there was no issue of slavery between north and south?

[Mark Luper]

It has become obvious to me that you think I am a liar. That is certainly your perogative. I won't answer that question. Ask those who either know me or have met me and let them tell you what they think.

I cant answer your question without a lot more investigating of the facts as they were at that time. Or at least recorded facts. If I get the time, I may answer you someday, but as of now with 7 day work weeks I don't have much of it.

My thoughts as a youngster were always the right of independence of each of the states. I took issue with "yankees" saying we couldn't do so. I was naive about a lot of things. If my investigation shows me that the only reason the states wanted succession was to support slavery then I guess you would be right about that.

Does that change my views on whether I think the "South" was wrong to try to succeed? No it doesn't. I do not condone the enslavement of humans by other humans any more than I can condone an ideology that likes to bake them in ovens.

The Nazis were sick. Anyone that chose to belong to the party has to take at least partial blame for what that ideology did. In my opinion of course.

If I had to choose though I would much rather make excuses for the "South" and "Confederacy" in general than to be continuously fawning over the Nazi war machine.

[GRUNHERZ]

Who says Erich Hartmann was in the Nazi party? Or even Gunther Rall. What about Rommel and the 5,000 or so officers and soldiers who were implicated in the July 20 hitler assasination attempt - were they die hard nazis or even party members? ?Did you know german military officers were actually forbidden to join political parties?  

How is enslaving people against their will and fully having their lives in your hands significantly different than enslaving them and then killing them?  In fact many have said, not that I neccesarily agree to the fullest extent, that slavery was in fact a form of genocide in itself on account of lives lost and cultures destroyed.


And you use the word "fawn" - well arent secession apologists like you fawning over the late heroes of the south who fought for many years so that southern states could keep their right to enslave,  including lynch runaways,  seperate families, or steal babies from mothers to over 4 million human beings circa 1861?

I dont think I ever accused you of being a liar - in fact I think you are being exceedingly honest and therein lies the problem for you- your hyporcicy is exposed and challenged.

[Toad]

What they wanted to keep was the sovereignity of the individual state. I think if you'll do some serious reading, you'll find that slavery was NOT the issue with the men you are discussing.

I guess you'll take this as an insult   but the war was not intially at it's core about slavery.

Like I said, the deeper you read, the more you will come to this conclusion. Read the actual writings of the individuals involved.

[Toad]

MT, what is immoral about an individual state's right to secede? As I said, there is nothing in the writings of the Founder's or in the Constitution itself that indicates this would not be a state's choice.

To compare it to genocide is a bit of a reach, don't you think?

Sucession isn't a moral issue at all. Don't see how u can cast it as such.

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by Toad
What they wanted to keep was the sovereignity of the individual state. I think if you'll do some serious reading, you'll find that slavery was NOT the issue with the men you are discussing.

I guess you'll take this as an insult   but the war was not intially at it's core about slavery.

Like I said, the deeper you read, the more you will come to this conclusion. Read the actual writings of the individuals involved.

I REALLY don't want to get involved in this, BUT, you are dead on the money. The truth is that Lincoln was a wise man. He needed a war to obtain his goals.  He wanted a true Union under one governing authority, the US government.  The States at this time were not exactly sovereign, but were independant in the way they conducted interstate/intrastate commerce.  Lincoln and his supporters wanted more control over the states.

Slavery, was another dividing issue, but was not foremost on the table.  But Lincoln wisely saw its volatility and used it to gain support and further push the southern states to conflict.

People like to rewrite history in regards to slavery.  Today it is still a touchy subject.

[Toad]

As for slavery itself, we see it in a much different light now with our 20/20 hindsight.

The Constitution allowed slavery. These men were part of that system, that Constitutionally allowed system, since birth. And in that era, slavery was not uniformly seen as abominable in the US or indeed across much of the globe. I believe it's a mistake to apply our values to them; it's about a 150 year difference. (Before you start, Grun, I believe our current morality is essentially the same as it was in the '30's and '40's. If anything we've become more permissive since then. But in the 30's conquest of your neighbors wasn't considered moral. Heck, WWI was just ~20 years past, well within the memory of those involved. In fact, many/most were prior participants.)


Here's a short clip on the Constitution & Slavery.

Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document.

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.

[Mark Luper]

Grun, what have I said that makes me a hypocrite? I have maintained the same stance since we began this discussion in the other thread.

I do not support the ideoligy of slavery.  I have said so repeatedly. If the South's reason for succession was in fact slavery then I dont support that ideoligy at all. I do not support the ideoligy of genocide either. Nazis did. If you flew an airplane or drove a tank with a swastika on it you supported the Nazis whether you beleived in their beleifs or belonged to the party or not. No difference.

Those Nazi pilots were part of Hitler's propaganda and his war machine. If they didn't want any part of it then they could have capitulated to the allies easy enough.

Now, I did say that if I "had to choose" to make excuses for one of the two mentioned ideoligies it would have been the Confederate one primarily since I havn't established to my satisfaction that the Civil War was just about slavery, but since I don't HAVE to choose, I prefer to not make excuses for either.