WP: Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers

[Larry]

Only the Germans in WWII invaded Poland, Czech, France, Austria, and Belgium and a bunch of other countries. The Southerners in the Civil war were fighting for their homes and didn't invade anybody first.... There first offensive move was fort sumpter where they ejected the union army from a base inside their territory... without killing any union soldiers I might add.. Dec 26 1860, and then proceeded to do nothing offensive for the next seven months... The first casualty of the civil war due to enemy action was Captain John Quincy Marr who was killed defending Fairfax Courthouse in Fairfax Virginia June 1 1861 from a union incursion.

You mean, their first action after declaring their secession from the US.

Again, it takes serious stones to try to paint the Union as the people who started the war.

We gonna say that the British started the Revolutionary War, too? After all, if George had simply taken the Declaration, and done nothing, then there wouldn't have been a war. So the Declaration didn't start the war, George did.

[Larry]

It's entirely unfair to compare German soldiers in WWII who took the offensive and invaded so many countries in the beginning of that war; and southern soldiers who were mearly defending their own states.

It is, however, perfectly fair to point out that neither is relevant to a discussion of "what was the war about".

[HailGreen28]

Study teh true history of the civil war it was about states rights versus federal rights The northern states started imposing tariffs on the southern states the southern states could get stuff cheaper from europe than it could buy things from the northern states. Read a copy of the CSA cosntitution it doesnt eliminate the slaves outright but gradually grants them freedoms something the federal constition never did.

Totally completely wrong.

Here is the Confederate Constitution. LINK

Show where the South would gradually grant slaves freedoms. Here's a hint: The Confederate Constitution basically grants citizens as absolute a right to own slaves, as the Bill of Rights gives US citizens the right to free speech and to bear arms. Forever.

(From Article I, Section 9 of the document)

(4) No bill of attainder or ex post facto law [, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves] shall be passed.

(From Article IV of the document)

"Section 2. (1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States [; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired]. "

Jefferson Davis' first message to Confederate Congress. LINK

Read it and then try telling me the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery.

Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Declarations of seceding states (links embedded):

Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Mississippi

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.[/b]

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Texas

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

So what was the Civil War about, again? Anybody care to guess? Bueller? Anybody?

[JMS]

Again, it takes serious stones to try to paint the Union as the people who started the war.

I didn't say the Union started the civil war. I just stated historical fact. I don't deny the South suceded nor that they started the civil war or fired on fort sumpter.

[JMS]

It is, however, perfectly fair to point out that neither is relevant to a discussion of "what was the war about".

Somebody else made the comparison between southern soldiers and german soldiers.... which I was objecting too....

The central cause and reason the south suceded was slavery. Slavery was not however the reason why most southerners fought...

The inverse of this was the north. Slavery was the reason why most Northerners fought especially after the Emancipation Procliamation; but it was not the reason the northern leaders took the union into war.

[JMS]

So this is what I'm saying.... If you look at the five most important Southern Generals...

Robert E. Lee------------------------------- against

Longstreet------------------------------------ against

Stonewall Jackson------------------------- neutral

Jeb Stewart ---------------------------------- pro slavery

The brain trust of the largest and most important southern army was split on the issue of slavery.....

Gen Joe Johnston--------------------------------- pro slavery (toolbox Joe... lost the war for the south at the battle of first Manassas.).

Col. John Mosby --------------------------------- against..

My position is one which anybody who lived through 911 can likely appreciate. The southerners who suceded did so on the basis of slavery... But they sold the war to their populations on the grounds of states rights. They sold the war on the grounds of defending the south from northern agression..

[HailGreen28]

So this is what I'm saying.... If you look at the five most important Southern Generals...

Robert E. Lee------------------------------- against

Longstreet------------------------------------ against

Stonewall Jackson------------------------- neutral

Jeb Stewart ---------------------------------- pro slavery

Joe Johnston--------------------------------- pro slavery (toolbox Joe... lost the war for the south at the battle of first Manassas.).

John Mosby --------------------------------- against..

My position is one which anybody who lived through 911 can likely appreciate. The southerners who suceded did so on the basis of slavery... But they sold the war to their populations on the grounds of states rights. They sold the war on the grounds of defending the south from northern agression..

Check out the links I provided. These were documents written to garner support from their own people. The South. And they make it pretty clear the Civil War was primarily about slavery. The South was fighting to keep their valuable "property".

This is what the Vice President of the Confederacy had to say on the matter (link embedded):

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

This was the kind of message used to rally people to fight for the South.

[brandymac27]

Thought this was pretty interesting and wanted to share:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassett96/bassett96.html

The whole website is pretty cool if your a History buff. There's a lot of info/documents/personal accounts of slavery and the Civil war especially from people/slaves who lived in VA, NC, SC, and MD.

[JMS]

Check out the links I provided. These were documents written to garner support from their own people. The South. And they make it pretty clear the Civil War was primarily about slavery. The South was fighting to keep their valuable "property"..

I used to agree with that position. But having just recently read a few autobiographies of southerners I got a different impression. Quite a few were against slavery, and still fought for the south on the basis of state nationalism. The call to defend your state was extremely powerful and pursasive and reached people regardless of their position on slavery...

That's why I say on an individual basis many southerners had other reasons to fight. Clearly Lee, Longstreeet and John Mosby were all vocal oponents to slavery. Yet they still fought for the south.. Having said this, I do believe slavery was the cause of sucession and why the south went to war. Mosby was an outright abolishonist who even publically declaired for the north in the event of war to his virginian neighbors, weeks before Fort Sumner. Yet when the war came fought for Virginia.

[SnyderShrugged]

JMS is spot on and absolutely correct in this.

[HailGreen28]

I used to agree with that position. But having just recently read a few autobiographies of southerners I got a different impression. Quite a few were against slavery, and still fought for the south on the basis of state nationalism. The call to defend your state was extremely powerful and pursasive and reached people regardless of their position on slavery...

That's why I say on an individual basis many southerners had other reasons to fight. Clearly Lee, Longstreeet and John Mosby were all vocal oponents to slavery. Yet they still fought for the south.. Having said this, I do believe slavery was the cause of sucession and why the south went to war. Mosby was an outright abolishonist who even publically declaired for the north in the event of war to his virginian neighbors, weeks before Fort Sumner. Yet when the war came fought for Virginia.

Sure, like you had to look much harder to find a guy admit to be Nazi after the Allies won. Or how if there was as many French in the Resistance as claimed, France never would have had to surrender.

You're trying to compare:

1. Rationalizations and justifications after the fact. In personal biographies, in most cases years after the war they lost and were wrong about.

2. Public statements made on the record, made at that current time, by politicians rallying the South to fight.

Guess which holds the truth as to why most Southerners chose to fight.

Your previous position was correct. The war was fought over slavery. Your current position, that it wasn't, is destroyed by public proclamations by states trying to rally their people to form new armies and a new government from scratch. For slavery.

Edit: Can't believe, that here in 2010, the arguments about this have gone on for 11 pages.

[Seabee1973]

The primary cause of the war was economics and states rights

[JMS]

Sure, like you had to look much harder to find a guy admit to be Nazi after the Allies won. Or how if there was as many French in the Resistance as claimed, France never would have had to surrender.

You're trying to compare:

1. Rationalizations and justifications after the fact. In personal biographies, in most cases years after the war they lost and were wrong about.

I think their is some truth to that. But here is why I disagree with you. Take Mosby for instance.

It's not true that Mosby's anti slavery position made his life easier in the south after the war or before the war. Mosby one of the south's greatest war hero's actually got death threats and had to leave the south because of his pro republican views after the war. He ended up settling in California and spent the rest of his life there.... Also it's not like he just arbitrarily decided to be against slavery. He and his sister were raised by a nanny from New England who became a famous abolishonist in her own right. After the war when the south was starving during reconstruction; Mosby's nany sent wagon loads of supplies to the Mosby's to keep them alive.

No I think the anti slavery pedegree of the southerners I mentioned is historically vetted. It doesn't represent a change of belief. What it represents is the the complexity of what drove southerners to fight.

Your previous position was correct. The war was fought over slavery. Your current position, that it wasn't, is destroyed by public proclamations by states trying to rally their people to form new armies and a new government from scratch. For slavery.

My position has been consistant. The issue which drove the country to war was slavery. I don't deny that. I'm just stating the fact that that was not the reason why many southerners fought, nor was it the reason the northern leaders engaged the south in the war.

[Larry]

Right.

The economics of slavery and the state's rights to slavery.

[GritzRgreat]

The primary cause of the war was economics

Most wars come down to money. The Union(winners) can sugar coat it and say it was ALL about

freedom but in fact it was to break southern wealth and prosperity. Give me a break. The north didn't

have this noble goal when New Egland shipping companies were make tons of money on the slave trade.

The south was simply fighting for independence period.

The colonies won their war so they get the glories.The south lost so they get the turnips.History is written

by the victors. Why is it we celebrate The Mayflower/plymouth rock as the founding of the nation and not

Jamestown??

[HailGreen28]

The primary cause of the war was economics and states rights

Economics and state's rights concerning slavery, you mean.

Economics (from Jefferson Davis): Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of thus rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.

States Rights (from South Carolina's Declaration of Secession): We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

The evidence for this, is shown HERE and from HERE.

If you want to dispute this, prove it.

[HailGreen28]

I think their is some truth to that. But here is why I disagree with you. Take Mosby for instance.

It's not true that Mosby's anti slavery position made his life easier in the south after the war or before the war. Mosby one of the south's greatest war hero's actually got death threats and had to leave the south because of his pro republican views after the war. He ended up settling in California and spent the rest of his life there.... Also it's not like he just arbitrarily decided to be against slavery. He and his sister were raised by a nanny from New England who became a famous abolishonist in her own right. After the war when the south was starving during reconstruction; Mosby's nany sent wagon loads of supplies to the Mosby's to keep them alive.

No I think the anti slavery pedegree of the southerners I mentioned is historically vetted. It doesn't represent a change of belief. What it represents is the the complexity of what drove southerners to fight.

My position has been consistant. The issue which drove the country to war was slavery. I don't deny that. I'm just stating the fact that that was not the reason why many southerners fought, nor was it the reason the northern leaders engaged the south in the war.

Saying that not 100% of the people were fighting just for slavery, doesn't address the argument. That the Confederate Army fought for slavery. At least most of the German soldiers had plausible deniability that they knew of the Holocaust, that their propaganda wasn't the same as everybody else's "We're the Best!"

Slavery was no such secret. The Southern soldiers knew what their cause was for, that is, THE ISSUE THAT THE SOUTH SECEDED OVER.

Even your example proves this. An anti-slavery man and his family were run out of town for his beliefs. So what does that say about the town?

[JMS]

Economics and state's rights concerning slavery, you mean..

I think you are totally correct there. Slavery was the grit in the Union since revolutionary times. That grit had been a constant irritant which colored nearly every decision the union made for 80 years prior to the civil war. (*) The equalibrium between pro and anti slave states was finally settled. The anti slave states had won. They had the population, the economic resources, and they used these tools to block slavery from new territories entering the union. Shortly they would have broken the pro slavery firewall in the senate. The Union electing a pro abolishionist president from a party made up of the south's greatest antagonists was the straw which broke the camels back. It's the reason for the south's sucession.

Claiming the Union placed economic sanctions on the south are wrong. Claiming the Union forced the issue with the south are wrong. The Democrat in office prior to Lincoln Buchannonn was a great friend to the south. He owed his office to southern support. His nickname was dogface because his refusal to do anything to antagonize either side of the slave issue alienated both sides. The facts are the South read Lincoln's acceptance speach, and didn't even wait for him to take office. They forced the issue suceding a month before Lincoln took office.

(*) If you look at the early Presidents from the south. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor they all had two things in common. They all were Southerners who owned slaves, which made them acceptable to the south; but they all were against slavery which made them acceptable to the north.

[HailGreen28]

I think you are totally correct there. Slavery was the grit in the Union since revolutionary times. That grit had been a constant irritant which colored nearly every decision the union made for 80 years prior to the civil war. The equalibrium between pro and anti slave states was finally settled. The anti slave states had won. They had the population, the economic resources, and they used these tools to block slavery from new territories entering the union. Shortly they would have broken the pro slavery firewall in the senate. The Union electing a pro abolishionist president from a party made up of the south's greatest antagonists was the straw which broke the camels back. It's the reason for the south's sucession.

Claiming the Union placed economic sanctions on the south are wrong. Claiming the Union forced the issue with the south are wrong. The Democrat in office prior to Lincoln Buchannonn was a great friend to the south. He owed his office to southern support. His nickname was dogface because his refusal to do anything to antagonize either side of the slave issue alienated both sides. The facts are the South read Lincoln's acceptance speach, and didn't even wait for him to take office. They forced the issue suceding a month before Lincoln took office.

Yeah, a lot of the founding fathers knew so, even though most states still had slaves back then.

It chagrins me, that we go nearly a hundred years with relatively little warfare (though Indians would disagree I think), unlike the Europeans slaughtering themselves on a regular basis. Then we inflict on ourselves the most costly war in lives lost in this nation's history, over an issue people saw coming generations beforehand.

[JMS]

Saying that not 100% of the people were fighting just for slavery, doesn't address the argument. That the Confederate Army fought for slavery. At least most of the German soldiers had plausible deniability that they knew of the Holocaust, that their propaganda wasn't the same as everybody else's "We're the Best!"

Entirely wrong in my viewpoint. It is entirely plausible for a southerner to have fought that war solely to defend his states irregardless of his position on slavery. History is full of such important southern supporters. It is not plausible that a german soldier in WWII fought to defend germany. In WWII Germany took the offensive invadeing Poland, Czech, Austria, France, Belgium, and Norway long before Germany herself ever was threatenned.. There was nothing defensive about WWII for Germany.

The Civil war was different. Although the south started the war by firing on sumpter and suceding. These events occured in southern territory. With regards to Sumpter, the south fired first, but no union soldier died at Sumpter due to the Southern fire. The south did not threaten the northern territory. Rather it was the North which attacked into the south first. The first casuatlty due to enemy action in the civil war occured when the Union marched on Fairfax Courthouse June 1861, seven months after Sumner fell.

Faced with such an invasion or even threat of invasion it's entirely plausable that sons of the south like Lee, Longstreet, and Mosby came to her defense, even though they were personally against slavery. History tells us that is what occured. As to the percentages of why southerners fought. I haven't a clue. I don't believe a majority of southerners owned slaves. I think it's personally teling that the war was not sold to the south as a war for slavery, even though that's clearly what it was. I just note, that many southerners fought that war on the basis of states nationalism rather than to defend slavery.

THE ISSUE THAT THE SOUTH SECEDED OVER. (slavery)

Yes, Yes it was... And your quotes really demonstate that well. It's a fact that I have never denied. Here is another quote for you...

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Lincoln wasn't fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln was fighting to perserve the union... That's a fact. Lincoln was against slavery, but was perfectly willing to see it die a long slow legislative death which might have taken decades longer to play out...... Yet Lincoln sold the war to the north as a war of abolition, especially after the Emancipation Proclaimation.

Clearly if the reason why northern soldiers fought and the reason why northern leadership fought were different... It demonstrates that it's not unrealistic to draw the same dichotomy between southern soldiers and their leaderhsip.

[Larry]

Most wars come down to money. The Union(winners) can sugar coat it and say it was ALL about

freedom but in fact it was to break southern wealth and prosperity.

Yep, that's what the war was about.

The South didn't start it by seceding, and they didn't do it because they thought they were going to lose their slaves. The North did it because they were jealous of all them slaves the Southerners had.

[JMS]

Yeah, a lot of the founding fathers knew so, even though most states still had slaves back then.

It chagrins me, that we go nearly a hundred years with relatively little warfare (though Indians would disagree I think), unlike the Europeans slaughtering themselves on a regular basis. Then we inflict on ourselves the most costly war in lives lost in this nation's history, over an issue people saw coming generations beforehand.

One of the major topics of the Federalist Papers (#10) was on the topic of Union and why it must never be desolved. Conservatives from the North in Hamilton and liberals from the South in Madison both agreed that if the union desolved it would condemn the United States to continous warfare as Europe was in continous warfare for 1000 years... That is why Lincoln did not believe he had any choice but to pursue war to maintain the union. To do otherwise was to choice the greater evil.

I would have one slight objection to your post. It's not true the anti slavery folks had done nothing from revolutionary times to the time of the civil war. It was their slow and steady progress towards abolition which eventually forced the south's hand. The abolitionists had won in their slow steady political battle against slavery. They had used the tools of the republic and the growing populous and economic disparity between North and South; and prevailed. That's what made the South try to pick up their ball and go home. When the abolitionists were able to block slavery from spreading into the western states; the writting was on the wall. When the North elected an abolitionist presidident from a party who's sole purpose was to end slavery; they knew they had lost their centuries long political struggle and revolted.

[JMS]

Yep, that's what the war was about.

The South didn't start it by seceding, and they didn't do it because they thought they were going to lose their slaves. The North did it because they were jealous of all them slaves the Southerners had.

And the prosperity the southern economic model of plantations gave them, over the backwards industrial model the North had developed. :doh:

In reality the North had every advantage over the south. The north was in 1860 more economically prosperous, had a greater population, had greater ability to manufacture and deliver goods. The south which was in equalibrium or even a slight advantage in Revolutionary times, had become a backwater falling further and further behind the north. The south's agrarian model just could not compete.

These changes were a big asset the abolitionists leveraged when mustering the republics political forces to isolate and politically weaken slave states.

[HailGreen28]

Lincoln wasn't fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln was fighting to perserve the union... That's a fact. Lincoln was against slavery, but was perfectly willing to see it die a long slow legislative death which might have taken decades longer to play out...... Yet Lincoln sold the war to the north as a war of abolition, especially after the Emancipation Proclaimation.

Clearly if the reason why northern soldiers fought and the reason why northern leadership fought were different... It demonstrates that it's not unrealistic to draw the same dichotomy between southern soldiers and their leaderhsip.

Lincoln had to make those statements early on, or Maryland would have seceded and the White House and Capitol might have ended up in enemy territory. LOL.

This explains the Northern dichotomy well. From the same link about Southern motivations: First, some Union soldiers began to see that, so long as slavery survived the nation would be divided and that, even more so, the end of slavery was crippling the South’s ability to fight. But, even more interesting was the change in attitude brought about by what Union soldiers saw of slavery and its effects as they moved deeper into the South. They not only experienced first-hand the pitiful flood of former slaves pouring into their lines seeking freedom and safety, they also saw the kind of society a slave-based economy produced. Their letters noted the bad roads, poor towns, absence of schools, and the rundown condition of southern farms, all further punctuated by the opposing magnificence of the plantations of the aristocracy. These factors combined with the rise of the anti-emancipation, anti-war Copperhead movement caused many Federal soldiers to change their views and gave Lincoln 80 percent of their votes in the 1864 election, even after the president proposed a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.

(The quotes are Copyright: Thoughts, Essays, and Musings on the Civil War! Bob Thompson)

You don't have to have the same primary motivations on both sides of a war. We fought the War of 1812 for shipping rights and sovereignty. The Canadians fought against us to keep their status under the British Crown. Different primary motivations, same war.

[HailGreen28]

If this is so, what about the majority of Southerners who were too poor to own slaves? You can't tell me that these poor farmers died to protect an institution that hurt them economically and whose only benefit for them was herenvolk democracy. That was enough for them to support slavery, but I don't see how they would die for it. Actually, from my study of the war, the most diaries don't mention slavery at all. They center more around hatred for the north and protecting their homes.

One possible reason (link embedded): So, why would a poor farmer who does not own a single slave, see the maintenance of the right to own slaves as a motivation to fight? The answer is simple: So long as black slaves and the slave economy were the bedrock of Southern society, that poor white farmer would not be on the bottom of the economic and social ladder.