As it often seems i stand alone in this forum regarding many topics, I'd love to know who supports, or would have supported the cause for southern independance. The Brits helped by trading with us, and there were some northern confederates. If you believe in less government and more state control, or if you think "if the south would have won we'd have had it made", please give a holler, and specify why.

I think the South was justified in secceeding. I think what Lincoln did went against the intentions of the founders.

The only reason that there are states in the first place is so that each State may have its own individual culture, laws, and traditions. The federal government should not be involved in regulating culture.

The slavery issue, while a very emotional one, comes down to the fact that the practice of slavery was LEGAL. The era of slavery was ending and the South stubbornly held onto that abomination of an institution. However, since it was legal, that was within their right.

With the defeat of the South came the defeat of State's rights. Now, no state can pass a law unless it can pass ambiguous and ever-evolving PC court muster. No state can decide any issue independent of the other states. Everything is now under the Federal jurisdiction.

I wonder what would happen if a state decided that it had enough federal intervention and elected to leave the Union. Would another Civil War start? Would we ever let a state leave the Union? I think not.

Great topic!!!
I hope people aren't strayed because they think the civil war was about
slavery! I am definitley on the side of the South! I think Lincoln was a
horrible dictator that sided with the North in all debates as the South was
bound and tied into almost every decision with all real power to effectivley
legislate being taken out of their hands by the North. Let us not mention
when Lincoln Suspended Habius Corpus. Slavery was merely the straw that
broke a tough camel's back. Shame on the North for trying to usurp the
freedoms of the states and give it right to the central government. Look
where we are today and look how much the Federal Government leans
so far into our lives as though 270 million people can be represented
by some 500 legislators! And I have a firm confidence slavery would
have been ended in the South anyway with the advent of technology
for doing the slaves work.

With all of the huzzah-ing for the lost cause and all......can anyone tell me why the confedarate constitution and EVERY southern department of government ws a mirror image of that in the north?

Thanks for those supporters. I, too, feel that Lincoln was a dictator. The forefathers more wanted states to be allied rather than bound together by one government, which is essentially the case. Slavery was simply more profitable in the south, and less in the north due to climate, soil, and other constituents. This is also why slavery was prohibited in the north. "The problems middle class America face today", say robert and JFK," prove that in 1860, the south was right!"

The south also did not help in exspansion, Lincoln had to work very hard to help make it possible for the west to be created via various acts of government, such as the homesteaders act. Why the south was against this is still beyoud me. Lincoln was a great president, one of the few that make a real impact and or difference on America.

States rights issues to have merit IMO, however, I think the reality is that we would not be the greatest nation on earth today if we would have a balkanized EU style goverment today. I think our strength as a nation is the moderating influence of a federal system/state system we have today. The extremes of Cali, New York and Texas are somewhat moderated by the rest of the nation. I think the courts would be tied up for centuries in this states interests vs that states interest and commerce would certainly would have slowed IMO not to mention the defense of the nation issues.

As much as i think that there should be a severe limitation upon the federal government, i do not think that the individual rights of the southern states should supercede the greater need of the nations integrity. just having another country sharing such a massive border with us would be an extreme limitation on our ability to defend and moderate our borders. the split of the agricultural and industrial sections of the country would cause large issues in trade (even more than we currently have in between states), and i believe it would have weakened us much more in the long run than the war did at the time.
yes, we might still have bitterness on the north/south front, but we also still have unity.
i agree with cruisingram that a splitting of the union would have resulted in a european style bickerfest, instead of allowing us to be a unified front to the rest of the world.

Lincoln and many northerners (including Thoreau whose essay of long impact on civil disobedience was about resisting the below mentioned war) were against the Mexican-American War. It was young congressman abe lincoln who pushed for the spot resolutions in congress ("show me the spot where Mexico invaded American territory") Because of this war pushed in large part in order to extend the cotton territory to the west, the United States acquired the Southwest and California.

But let's not let history get in the way of a fairy tale about how the Civil War wasn't about slavery and how the south was forced to secede because of aggressive policies of a party that hadn't even taken power yet.

Some of the founding fathers definitely favored a strong federal government. they were the federalists and they included George Washington, John Adams. and Alexander Hamilton.

What an amusing bit of revisionism we have here!

Trying to defend the South from seceeding from the United States without trying to defend the practice of selling human beings into slavery is a complicated two-step. You can try to make it look as warm and fuzzy as you like, but at the end of the day the issue of slavery is joined at the hip to the rebellion of an illegitimate government against the United States.

Jefferson Davis and the rest of that motley crew were traitors to America. Period.

Trying to scrub away the stain of the inhuman practice of slavery is an ongoing process that lasts to this day and this wistful nostalgia and blather about "states rights" sounds like a conversation Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond might have about the "good ol' days" (if you disregard the fact that Strom is dead and gone now). You can romanticize the South and slavery all you want, but just know you're arguing an issue that history has already decided and it decided against both the South and slavery.

Deal with it.

Abraham Lincoln had his issues, but there's a reason it's his face on Mt. Rushmore and not Jefferson Davis. Here are two of those reasons:

Although voulume upon volume is written to prove slavery a very good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it by being a slave himself.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would BE no slave must consent to HAVE no slave. Those who deny freedom to other, deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, cannot long retain it.

Nighttimer,

I am curious why you feel that the rebellion was illegimate. I understand that Lincoln reacted that way, but the manner in which it was done seemed legal to me.

Oh, and the South had the superior leadership, but inferior industry. Lee and Jackson were much better generals than any of the "motley crew" that lead the Northern armies.

Robert E. Lee was actually anti-slavery (if I remember correctly) but felt loyalty to his State over the Union and so was persuaded to lead the Confederate forces.

Both sides were wrong, both sides were right.

The South was wrong to perpetuate slavery, period.
The North was wrong to lord it over the Southern economy in the same fashion as the English had done to the colonies 4 score years earlier.

The South was not against expansion to the West, they simply opposed expansion that would have placed them in a POLITICALLY subservient position similar to the economic position they were already sliding into. Once the North got an upper hand in Congress, they WERE going to abolish slavery. There's little doubt of that.

Slavery was not the only issue, it was one of the two fundamental issues. Unfortunately for us, the solution (the War Between the States and its aftermath) has bitten us big time with the Law of Unintended Consequences. From the impoverishment of the South, the aborted Reconstruction, carpetbaggers, and Jim Crow, to the virtual obliteration of State's rights and kick starting the growth of a imperial central gov't, it's been a doozy of a ride for everybody.

Its done. Move on.

"Oh you can't go backwards to get out, gotta go forwards to get back."
-Willy Wonka

The issue was decided a long time ago, and I can't see a point in trying to place blame or credit over events and issues that should be long settled.
And it was inevitable. Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers knew that the phrase "all men were created equal" would eventually have to apply to slaves. The philosophers that the founding fathers looked to for guidance in forming this country's government had already addressed the issue of slavery, and found it repugnant. (On the other hand, these same philosophers found it quite acceptable to keep their wives uneducated and under their thumbs, if not slapped silly for standing up for women's rights)

Part of the quote by Willy Wonka is correct, we can't go backward. But even going forward won't get us back to a place where only a very small majority want to go.

For this issue, at this time, the south has no allies.

The slavery issue, while a very emotional one, comes down to the fact that the practice of slavery was LEGAL. The era of slavery was ending and the South stubbornly held onto that abomination of an institution. However, since it was legal, that was within their right.

I am curious why you feel that the rebellion was illegimate. I understand that Lincoln reacted that way, but the manner in which it was done seemed legal to me. (Amlord)

The slavery issue is a little bit more than "a very emotional one" to me as a black man and just because something was LEGAL doesn't make it WISE.

In this enlightened age there are few, I believe, but what will acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country...I think it, however, a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, and while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former.

Gen. Robert E. Lee (1807-1870) Letter to his wife Mary Anne, 6 December 1856

When did this page revert back to an issue of slavery? I think everyone in here knows that war wasn't about slavery. And this is our primary contention. What if Bush had suspended Habius Corpus? What if Bush tried to form a huge wave against several states so they couldn't be properly represented? Slavery was an issue long time coming to an end
and Lincoln perpetrated acts of aggression with several Northern states representatives, for that he was a conspirator and a coward!!! You don't have to like slavery, in fact I don't no anyone that doesn't hold ownership of people as an intense evil, but you don't have to lie to yourself and act as though Lincoln even felt Blacks were equals. I used to have ten great quotes by Lincoln from his old speeches where he says things like, paraphrase: "I have never said Negroes were equal to whites" etc. I'll try and find some actual quotes now.

I'm all about states rights. I think that a confederacy might have been too loose in the long run (look at the failure of the Articles of Confed.) but what we have now (a large and powerful central government) is too much. I think that the south, having differing interests from the north was justified. The south felt that the government no longer represented it's interests in spite of their votes in congress as per the expansion into the west. When the government neglects to represent the interests an entire sector of the country I think it is understandable as to why they might feel it necessary to succeed.

On a slightly different note, I think that it is unfortunate that the confederate flag has become a symbol of racism when it should be a symbol of southern pride and states rights. I suppose I can understand how it became so, as it is often times (not always though) displayed by those with racist beliefs. It is a shame that here in the present the other civil war issues get tossed out the window for the one of slavery and racism. Many people do not even realize that slavery was not the central issue (abet it became a rather large issue later) and that blacks were in many cases treated poorly Northern areas as well. Racism was not restricted to the South it simply was less acceptable in the North.

It appears you are trying to make it a debate about slavery. And the war was about slavery. Look at the declarations of secession. What other issues made southerners so upset as to leave the union before even one Republican policy was enacted while buchanan the democratic president was still in office.

Lincoln's belief in the inequality of whites and blacks did not make him a hypocrite for disliking slavery. The secessionists were too aggressive. What legislative methods did they try to use to solve the dilemma of being governed by a regional party?

Um, maybe it wasn't against the Constitution to secede from the Union, but firing on Fort Sumter was definitely illegal and an act of war. Sorry, the South fired the first shot, and so the South has no leg to stand upon.

Marching toward Washington was another act of aggression toward the North. Although Manassas is in Northern Virginia, the intent to take over the entire United States was obviously the South's aim. The Confederacy had built quite an army before Sumter, much larger than it needed for self-defense. I interpret that as intent to conquer.

Had the South won, slavery would have been present in every state and territory. This would have led to continual civil war, and we would be leading very different lives today. I don't think things like running water and indoor toilets would be parts of those lives. We'd have degenerated into a country led by religious fanatics who would have pounded the revised Bible hard, justifying trade in human flesh.

We'd have never industrialized since cheap human labor would have been plentiful. We'd still be a backwater, agricultural country with bad soil and no market for our cotton.

But then, what if the South had seceded but not fired on Sumter?

I guess it would have made a good buffer with Mexico, especially Texas. And we wouldn't have any Texans running Colorado or the US.

Hmmmm. That's rather attractive

The northern states would never have let the south leave without a fight...Lincoln did everything in his power to hold the two together. I think you are misguided in thinking war would not have broken out if the south hadn't fired first.

The south was not interested in conquering the North. HAHA they were less big government than the North and wanted each state to have more individual rights to govern itself. You say they amassed a larger army than to just defend well obviously they didn't amass enough if they lost. Most of the fighting occured in the south (if I recall correctly)...the south was definitely not expansionist at least not in that regard. When it came to new states they simply did not want a lot of free states (whose economies run differently) coming into the union and voting against them on policy.

Now I'm not from Dixie, but I am a student(and teacher) of history. From all of my research, I don't believe the south ever had the intention of invading or subjugating the north. There was simply not the manpower nor the capability to do so.
Even when Lee crossed into the north twice, it was for the purpose of winning a battle on northern ground to sap the will to fight on from the northern people, and to try and woo recognition from England and France.
The rebel army in 1861 was barely adequate to defend Virginia, due to size, equipment and inexperience.

I have a hard time believing that IF the south had invaded and conquered the north, we would not today have modern plumbing.

I have no defense for slavery, as it was abhorrent and despicable, but as the import of new slaves had been illegal for quite some time by 1861, I firmly believe the institution would have been abandoned out of necessity without the upheaval of civil war.

I'd admit this, I'm a northerner and I'm very patriotic. I believe the civil war was about slavery and nothing else. Anyone who rebels against the tide of time and justice, tears my country apart, and kills thousands of Americans isn't a true American. The Southerners were traitorous, despicable for leaving the Union. The confederate flag is a divisive symbol of hatred. I am not an ally of the confederacy or it's morally reprehensible ideals.

An attempt to talk about The Confederacy without talking about its support of slavery is like trying to talk about Hitler rebuilding Germany without talking about the resultant horrors of World War II.

It can't be done and it's intellectually dishonest to even try.

To your other point about Abraham Lincoln and his belief in white supremacy, this may be what you were referring to:

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/getobje.../sources/IMAGE/

This is excerpted from the fourth Lincoln/Douglas debate of 1858. I don't know if Lincoln's thinking evolved or he succumbed to pressure from abolitionists, but he still has to be credited for the Emancipation Proclamation, regardless of his motivations.