Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    I just wanted to find out why the Confederacy is so...popular.

    It just seems like more often than not the Confederacy is glorified over the Union in popular culture and fiction.

    What got me thinking about this is that I'm currently reading The Sharpe Series by Bernard Cornwell and was thinking about maybe reading his Starbuck Chronicles(I hear Richard Sharpes son is in this series-that almost makes me want to read it just to see what type of guy he is) until I realized that the main character would be fighting for the (bleep)ing Confederacy.

    I've noticed that in a lot of places the Confederacy is usually treated warmly and with reverance.

    They were the belligerents in a war to disolve the USA! Their flag represents disunion, disloyalty and slavery. So why are they not treated as the pariahs that they were/are?

  2. #2

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Because the South was the underdog fighting for their rights against an oppressive Northern bunch of bullies.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  3. #3

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh View Post
    Because the South was the underdog fighting for their rights against an oppressive Northern bunch of bullies.
    Oppressive!? Oppressive!? Bullies!?...The South being oppressed!? Are you sure that's what you meant? Are you sure you didn't mean that the South was oppressing...

    nevermind...

    Moderator please close this thread...I shouldn't have asked a question whose answer would actually upset me...my bad!

  4. #4
    Bwaho's Avatar Puppeteer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    From the kingdom of heaven by the powah of the holy spirit
    Posts
    5,790

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    They were the belligerents in a war to disolve the USA!
    based on what I have read I would say the south fought for the old idea of america with greater states rights while the north wanted to centralize power and turn USA into just another european-like kingdom.

    and slavery
    that's true, but did the north treat the blacks any better? they couldn't get jobs and they were shut out and discriminated against by society.

  5. #5

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Oppressive!? Oppressive!? Bullies!?...The South being oppressed!? Are you sure that's what you meant? Are you sure you didn't mean that the South was oppressing...
    No. I meant just what I said.

    Their flag represents disunion, disloyalty and slavery
    They and their flag represent none of these things. Is that what they teach in school these days?
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  6. #6

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bwaho View Post
    based on what I have read I would say the south fought for the old idea of america with greater states rights while the north wanted to centralize power and turn USA into just another european-like kingdom.
    The problem is the "Union" was already created. They disolved it. So in one aspect they did not honor their promises.

    meh, where you stand depends on where you sit...due to my inability to get rid of this...tan...lol...I don't trust "individual" rights...because "individuals" are petty, selfish and narrow minded...

    In actuality, IMO, the South was the ones trying to recreate European-like kigdoms their the ones who wanted to recreate feudalism. Their the ones that wanted their small fiefdoms/plantations places where the lord/master words were law. The North appears to be the defenders of the 'new' nation created. A nation where ALL men were created equal.

    that's true, but did the north treat the blacks any better? they couldn't get jobs and they were shut out and discriminated against by society.
    You're exactly right! But here is the difference at least it wasn't codified at the time(Jim Crow Laws came about later). The "ideal" of the North was higher than that of the South. The South didn't even bother with the illusion that equality was even a possibility. In other words at least there was a hope of a better future in the North. In the South...nothing but perpetual servitude

    But none of this explains why the South is revered now. In any case that is beside the point...

    MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS THREAD!

    They and their flag represent none of these things. Is that what they teach in school these days?
    DISUNION: the union, which included the southern states, was formed in 1789, 72 years later the South seceded and attacked the North. The literal definition of 'disunion'

    DISLOYALTY: How can they be considered 'loyal' to the Union/Constitution they agreed to when they broke the agreement?

    SLAVERY: ; this is why I want the thread closed. for you to even suggest that the South didn't stand for/support slavery is...upsetting.
    Last edited by morteduzionism; August 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM.

  7. #7

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    The "states rights" argument is a fiction of the post-war era designed to save face for the South after it lost the war. No one talked about states rights as a justification for secession before the war. I'm not an expert, but this is what I have read. Yes I know that the North didn't fight to free the slaves, but it cannot be denied that slavery was the central issue to the Civil War and that the South was on the wrong side of the issue.

    Anyways, I don't understand the glorification of the Confederacy either. The Confederacy fought for slavery and I don't think there's anything romantic about that. The Confederacy tried to break up the country and I think that's wrong. It worked to destroy the Union that so many had fought and died for before, during, and since the Civil War.
    Last edited by The Knight 2100; August 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    The problem is the "Union" was already created. They disolved it. So in one aspect they did not honor their promises.
    They didnt disolve the Union they only left it. There was still a union.

    In actuality, IMO, the South was the ones trying to recreate European-like kigdoms their the ones who wanted to recreate feudalism. Their the ones that wanted their small fiefdoms/plantations places where the lord/master words were law. The North appears to be the defenders of the 'new' nation created. A nation where ALL men were created equal.
    No they were going by the constitution.

    The "ideal" of the North was higher than that of the South.
    What a load of rubbish. Who are you to judge?

    DISUNION: the union, which included the southern states, was formed in 1789, 72 years later the South seceded and attacked the North. The literal definition of 'disunion'
    Maybe to you. But to me they were upholding states rights and the constitution.

    . No one talked about states rights as a justification for secession before the war. I'm not an expert, but this is what I have read
    Then I suggest you do some further research.
    Secession Crisis

    States' Rights "Powers Reserved To The States"

    The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments. The Magna Carta, the English bill of rights, Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, and the colonial struggle against tyranny provided inspiration and direction for the Bill of Rights.

    The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.

    The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles. Northern proposals to abolish or restrict slavery- an institution firmly protected by the Constitution- escalated the regional differences in the country and rallied the Southern states firmly behind the doctrine of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states. Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created.

    Fascinating Fact: Wartime need for a centralized government that could impose conscription, as well as other measures necessary to win its freedom, conflicted sharply with states'-rights doctrine.
    Protective Tariffs "Benefits For The North"

    From the time of the first Congress in 1789 to the outbreak of the Civil War there was dissension between the northern and the southern states over the matter of protective tariffs, or import duties on manufactured goods. Northern industries wanted high tariffs in order to protect their factories and laborers from cheaper European products. Demanding that "American laborers shall be protected against the pauper labor of Europe," tariff proponents argued that the taxes gave "employment to thousands of [American] mechanics, artisans, [and] laborers."

    The vast majority of American industry was located in the northern states, whereas the economies of the agricultural southern states were based on the export of raw materials and the importation of manufactured goods. The South held few manufacturing concerns, and southerners had to pay higher prices for goods in order to subsidize northern profits.

    The collected tariffs were used to fund public projects in the North such as improvements to roads, harbors and rivers. From 1789 to 1845, the North received five times the amount of money that was spent on southern projects. More than twice as many lighthouses were built in the North as in the South, and northern states received twice the southern appropriations for coastal defense.

    The sectional friction caused by the tariffs bills eventually led the country to the nullification controversy of 1832, during which South Carolina declared the tariff laws null and void. John C. Calhoun, the father of nullification, developed the theory of secession and detailed the steps by which a state could sever its relationship with the Union and remove itself from the unfair power of the central government. Federal authority prevailed in the nullification crisis of 1832, but the theories developed by Calhoun would be invoked again when the country split apart in 1861.

    Fascinating Fact: Ironically, the protective tariffs of the late 1850s were lower than they had been in the previous 50 years.
    Secession Crisis

    Again its all a big myth that the war was about freeing the slaves. Even the Gettysburg Address only freed slaves in those States fighting against the Union.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  9. #9
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh View Post



    No they were going by the constitution.






    Maybe to you. But to me they were upholding states rights and the constitution.




    The Constitution is not an infallible document. Sure the Confederates may be closer to what the Founding Fathers wanted, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
    WE GO PLAY SOME HOOP

  10. #10

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh View Post
    They didnt disolve the Union they only left it. There was still a union.
    Under most circumstances I favor semantics. The Union was an agreement between 13 states. The South disolved this Union. But it doesn't matter. Parsing words is irrelevant. I made a serious mistake in asking this question and am desperately trying to get the thread closed.

    No they were going by the constitution.
    First, I was responding to Bwahos' suggesting that the North was trying to recreate Euro-esqu kingdoms...but beyond that let's just agree to disagree...you have your opinion of the South/history/events and I have mine...

    What a load of rubbish. Who are you to judge?
    I was just offering my opinion. The South(yesterday and today) represents almost everything I find deplorable in humanity. Their flag, views, everything about the Confederacy I find totally disgusting...

    Maybe to you. But to me they were upholding states rights and the constitution.
    That's why I suggested to agree to disagree...you see it one way I see it the right way...let's just leave it at that.

    Again its all a big myth that the war was about freeing the slaves.
    Who suggested this? In this thread who implied the war was about "freeing slaves"? The majority of comments are holding the South responsible for seceding from their legal approved government.

  11. #11
    therussian's Avatar Use your imagination
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC USA
    Posts
    12,123

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Knight 2100 View Post
    The "states rights" argument is a fiction of the post-war era designed to save face for the South after it lost the war. No one talked about states rights as a justification for secession before the war. I'm not an expert, but this is what I have read. Yes I know that the North didn't fight to free the slaves, but it cannot be denied that slavery was the central issue to the Civil War and that the South was on the wrong side of the issue.

    I suggest that you read up on this man

    House of the Caesars | Under the Patronage of Comrade Trance Crusader. Proud Patron of Comrades Shadow_Imperator, Zenith Darksea, Final Frontier and Plutarch | Second Generation| ex-Eagle Standard Editor| Consilium de Civitate | Album Reviews

  12. #12

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    You'll also note there is a fascination with Nazi Germany.

    People like to read about the underdog. Furthermore, the South makes for more interesting literary characters. Pretty much every Southern protagonist in fiction has to reconcile the issues of fighting for a government that encourages slavery with defending their homeland. People like these kinds of characters. Look at Rommel's popularity. Rommel is built into some sort of moral superman that fights to protect the land he loves despite having to do it for a tyrant he hates. Whether it's accurate or not, it's a good read.

  13. #13

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    The South did not fight to promote slavery. It fought to protect States rights. Few southerners owned slaves. It was just one of the rights they believed belonged to the states to regulate. Slavery would have ended regardless. Its also a myth that the North fought to free the slaves.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  14. #14

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    The South did not fight to promote slavery. It fought to protect States rights. Few southerners owned slaves. It was just one of the rights they believed belonged to the states to regulate. Slavery would have ended regardless. Its also a myth that the North fought to free the slaves.
    The North didn't fight to free slaves, but the South fought to preserve them.
    I know if I were to dig up a number of documents announcing each Confederate state's secession from the Union, they would for the most part have a rant in defense of slavery as an institution.
    Anyway, what's more important in my opinion is that the southern states committed treason against the Union by seceding. And it is on a whim and because of some imaginary oppression that they caused the deaths of countless hundreds of thousands of men.





  15. #15

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Because no matter how you look it it...

    Robert E. Lee was a cool guy.

  16. #16

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    I suggest that you read up on this man
    Not Wiki again

    John C. Calhoun
    This is among John C. Calhoun's most famous speeches. He was too ill to deliver it himself, so it was read by another senator with Calhoun present in the Senate Chamber. Calhoun, so ill he had to be helped out of the Chamber after the speech by two of his friends, died on March 31, 1850.



    I have, senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divided the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?

    To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without similar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause which produce it. The first question, then, presented for consideration in the investigation I propose to make in order to obtain such knowledge is: What is it that has endangered the Union?

    To this question there can be but one answer,--that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question and has been increasing ever since. The next question, going one step further back, is: What has caused this widely diffused and almost universal discontent?

    It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogs who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section.

    Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the widespread discontent which now pervades the section.

    No; some cause far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed must exist, to account for discontent so wide and deep. The question then recurs: What is the cause of this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the Southern States, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they can not remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question to be considered is: What has caused this belief?

    One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its proper place.

    There is another lying back of it--with which this is intimately connected--that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections in the government as it stood when the Constitution was ratified and the government put in action has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression.

    The result of the whole is to give the Northern section a predominance in every department of the government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which constitute the federal government: a majority of States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire government.

    But we are just at the close of the sixth decade and the commencement of the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which must add greatly to the decided preponderance of the North in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College. The prospect is, also, that a great increase will be added to its present preponderance in the Senate, during the period of the decade, by the addition of new States. Two Territories, Oregon and Minnesota, are already in progress, and strenuous efforts are making to bring in three additional States from the Territory recently conquered from Mexico; which, if successful, will add three other States in a short time to the Northern section, making five States, and increasing the present number of its States from fifteen to twenty, and of its senators from thirty to forty.

    On the contrary, there is not a single Territory in progress in the Southern section, and no certainty that any additional State will be added to it during the decade. The prospect then is, that the two sections in the Senate, should the efforts now made to exclude the South from the newly acquired Territories succeed, will stand, before the end of the decade, twenty Northern States to fourteen Southern (considering Delaware as neutral), and forty Northern senators to twenty-eight Southern. This great increase of senators, added to the great increase of members of the House of Representatives and the Electoral College on the part of the North, which must take place under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when the government commenced.

    Had this destruction been the operation of time without the interference of government, the South would have had no reason to complain; but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this government, which was appointed as the common agent of all and charged with the protection of the interests and security of all.

    The legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three heads: The first is that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all the States as members of the federal Union--which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North. And the last is a system of political measures by which the original character of the government has been radically changed. I propose to bestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few remarks, with the view of showing that it is owing to the action of this government that the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed, and the whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority.

    I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with Mexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it. If she should succeed, it will add to that from which the South has already been excluded 526,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the North has appropriated to herself to 1,764,023, not including the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square miles of territory, from which the North will have excluded the South, if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly-acquired Territories, about three-fourths of the whole, leaving to the South but about one-fourth. Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections in the government.

    The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the government. It is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed in the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue but for protection--that is, intended to put money, not in the Treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers--some conception may be formed of the immense amount which in the long course of sixty years has been transferred from South to North. There are no data by which it can be estimated with any certainty; but it is safe to say that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most moderate estimate it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealthy of the North, and thus greatly increase her population by attracting immigration from all quarters to that section.

    This, combined with the great primary cause, amply explains why the North has acquired a preponderance in every department of the government by its disproportionate increase of population and States. The former, as has been shown, has increased, in fifty years, 2,400,000 over that of the South. This increase of population during so long a period is satisfactorily accounted for by the number of immigrants, and the increase of their descendants, which have been attracted to the Northern section from Europe and the South, in consequence of the advantages derived from the causes assigned. If they had not existed--if the South had retained all the capital which has been extracted from her by the fiscal action of the government; and if it had not been excluded by the Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise, from the region lying between the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers, and between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains north of 36ř 30'--it scarcely admits of a doubt that it would have divided the immigration with the North, and by retaining her own people would have at least equaled the North in population under the census of 1840, and probably under that about to be taken. She would also, if she had retained her equal rights in those territories, have maintained an equality in the number of States with the North, and have preserved the equilibrium between the two sections that existed at the commencement of the government. The loss, then, of the equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this government.

    There is a question of vital importance to the Southern section, in reference to which the views and feelings of the two sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be. I refer to the relation between the two races in the Southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to it. Those most opposed and hostile regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it.

    Indeed, to the extent that they conceive that they have power, they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile regard it as a crime--an offense against humanity, as they call it and, altho not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object; while those who are least opposed and hostile regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call the "nation," and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern section regards the relation as one which can not be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound by every consideration of interest and safety to defend it.

    Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, What is to stop this agitation before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede in order to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof--as I shall next proceed to show.

    It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others.

    If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. But surely that can with no propriety of language be called a Union when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation on the part of the weaker to the stronger than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union.

    Having now, senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs, How can the Union be saved? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is by adopting such measures as will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. There is, again, only one way by which this can be effected, and that is by removing the causes by which this belief has been produced. Do this, and discontent will cease, harmony and kind feelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension of danger to the Union removed. The question, then, is, How can this be done? There is but one way by which it can with any certainty; and that is by a full and final settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South that she could remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and for ever settle the question at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union.

    But can this be done? Yes, easily; not by the weaker party, for it can of itself do nothing--not even protect itself--but by the stronger. The North has only to will it to accomplish it--to do justice by conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled--to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South, in substance, the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this government. There will be no difficulty in devising such a provision--one that will protect the South, and which at the same time will improve and strengthen the government instead of impairing and weakening it.

    But will the North agree to this? It is for her to answer the question. But, I will say, she can not refuse if she has half the love of the Union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the Union. At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the North, and not on the South. The South can not save it by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice and to perform her duties under the Constitution should be regarded by her as a sacrifice.

    It is time, senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal on all sides as to what is intended to be done. If the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the representatives of the States of this Union regarded as governments, should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in order to ascertain whether the great questions at issue can be settled or not. If you who represent the stronger portion, can not agree to settle them on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so; and let the States we both represent agree to separate and part in peace.

    If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so; and we shall know what to do when you reduce the question to submission or resistance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by your acts what you intend. In that case California will become the test question. If you admit her under all the difficulties that oppose her admission, you compel us to infer that you intend to exclude us from the whole of the acquired Territories, with the intention of destroying irretrievably the equilibrium between the two sections. We should be blind not to perceive in that case that your real objects are power and aggrandizement, and infatuated, not to act accordingly.

    I have now, senators, done my duty in expressing my opinions fully, freely, and candidly on this solemn occasion. In doing so I have been governed by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of the agitation of the slavery question since its commencement. I have exerted myself during the whole period to arrest it, with the intention of saving the Union if it could be done; and if it could not, to save the section where it has pleased providence to cast my lot, and which I sincerely believe has justice and the Constitution on its side. Having faithfully done my duty to the best of my ability, both to the Union and my section, throughout this agitation, I shall have the consolation, let what will come, that I am free from all responsibility.
    I have nothing against the womens movement. Especially when Im walking behind it.


  17. #17
    Farnan's Avatar Saviors of the Japanese
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Right behind you starring over your shoulder.
    Posts
    31,638

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Slavery was the figurehead issue, the one that represented the division over whether State Power or Federal Power was paramount. Truly, the Civil War was no more over slavery than WWII was fought over freedom.
    “The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”

    —Sir William Francis Butler

  18. #18
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: What is the fascination with the Confederacy?

    Closed, as requested by user.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •