Topic: History
In Defense of the Confederacy "[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established." - Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of Americaby Alexander Massa
(libertarian)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Confederacy is looked down upon by many today because of widespread ignorance about the Civil War and history in general. As any educated person could tell you, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It was a conflict over states' rights and whether or not the South had a legal right to seceede from the United States and form a separate independent nation.
The fact is that the Confederacy was truer to the original Constitution of the United States than the Union itself was. The Confederate States of America was a country in which the states had actual rights, and a country in which the federal government did not have hegemony over them. This was in stark contrast to the United States, which was turned into a virtual dictatorship under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, who today is treated as a hero but never actually was one.
The reason many associate slavery with the Civil War is because the secession of the Southern states largely resulted from the heated slavery debate in the United States. However, the war wasn't over the legality of slavery; it was over the legality of secession and the states' rights to leave a Union they joined a hundred or so years earlier.
If you look at how our nation was founded and came to be, it can be argued that the states voluntarily agreed to enter into a coalition of independent states (which eventually became the United States). If this is true, then what prevents said states from voluntarily pulling out of the Union. If they voluntarily joined, who is to say that they cannot also voluntarily seceede?
The Civil War was started by Federal forces, there is no doubt about it. There is a reason the Civil War is known in the South as the "War of Northern Aggression". It was started by the United States to retake what it saw as lost provinces. The problem there is, that lost land was an independent nation, and the North was invading it. A large problem during the Civil War was that the Lincoln Administration refused to recognize the CSA as an independent nation. They considered the Civil War a war against a rebel insurrection, not a war against an independent nation. Perhaps if they had treated the CSA as a nation instead of a group of rebels, the war could've been averted.
We must remember that the CSA was fighting a defensive war. They weren't fighting to take over the United States. Rather, the United States was fighting an agressive war to conquer the South. The Confederates just wanted to be left alone. They weren't fighting a war for empire, like the North was. They were fighting a war for independence.
So if the war was the fault of the North, then why is the South constantly demonized and it's flag disgraced? The reason is, quite simply, because the victor always writes the history of any war. Because the North won, we look at the Civil War from a decidedly (biased) Northern position. If the South won, we would look at the war much differently. Children would be learning that Abraham Lincoln was a traitor, instead of Jefferson Davis.
So let us look at the sides of the Civil War without bias. The North was fighting to prevent the dissolution of the Union. The South was fighting for independence and the right to seceede from what they saw (rightly so, I might add) as a federal government which was quickly becoming tyrannical. There is no Constitutional provision that bars secession. So if we look at this conflict from a Constitutional perspective, the South would be the side that is in line with the Constitution. They were fighting for states' rights, which is an important part of the Constitution that has been neglected for a long time now.
I know many will brand me a racist because I support the Confederacy. However, both sides were equally racist, and slavery was actually permitted in the North. The border states, such as Kentucky, were slave states which remained in the Union. So if the war was over slavery, the North would've had to fight itself as well as the South. Simply put, the Civil War was a struggle over states' rights. And with that in mind, I side with the South.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 27 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Alexander Massa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alexander Massa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Alexander, Thank you for correctly depicting one of the most misrepresented periods of our history. As I grew up in the North, I like most, heard the "northern version." Moving to the South and marrying the great-great-great granddaugher of a CSA general spurred my interest in more serious study of the history, confirming your analysis.
A similar case can be made for Southern secession based on federal tax policy that punished the agrarian economy of the South versus the industrial economy of the North. Unfair taxation led to the American Revolution and the rebelious insurection against England that we laud, while vilifying the South for the exact same actions.
Interestingly things that never get mentioned in Northern version of history is that many areas of the South were already voluntarily eliminating slavery prior to the war. Union County Georgia was named that to reflect their views. Prior to the war, fewer than 5% of Southerners owned slaves. Most whites in the South were simple farmers or shopkeepers who either didn't want slaves or couldn't afford them. The average house slave in today's dollars cost over $120,000. How many of us in today's economy could afford one, let alone enough to run a farm. While horror stories exist (and were magnified by Northern historians to justify the war), many slaves were treated as members of the family, working alongside their owners to make a subsistance living.
Likewise, many of us have visions of white English or Americans raiding African villages, capturing and hauling off prisoners to become slaves. The truth is that many American slaves were sold to Portugese slave traders by the victors of African tribal wars.
I don't write this to justify or validate slavery--it was and is certainly abhorant, and a disgrace on our country, but l also believe that we should tell the truth in our history books rather than what is politically correct.
Alexander, One minor correction to your history: It can be argued that the CSA General Beauregard actually started the war by firing on Fort Sumter; however, what historians often forget to report is that the South offered to buy the fort, but Lincoln refused; offered to allow the troops at the fort to leave peacefully and even to transport them to the North, but the Major commanding the garrison refused; and that the North was invading Charleston by trying to resupply the fort by force.
What is more important is to draw the parallel between what caused the Civil War and our current political situation. As in 1860/61, a president was elected that insisted on imposing federal authority on the states, ignored the mandates of the Constitution, and imposed onerous taxes on some while favoring others. Hopefully our country is smart enough and mature enough to avoid another armed conflict—somehow, I fear that we are not.
I had this same argument with my wife and a couple of friends over cocktails recently. You are absolutely correct in your report and any search for the facts will confirm that with minimal effort. It is amazing how ignorant and well programmed we have become over the years.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
