In many states in the Southern United States, April is Confederate Heritage Month, which leads Matthew Yglesias to ask this question:
“It seems that April is Confederate Heritage month. Why one would want to celebrate a heritage of violent rebellion against a democratically elected government in order to perpetuate a system of chattel slavery is a bit hard for me to say.”
As I noted more than a year ago, there is nothing honorable about a nation built upon the idea of perpetuating in perpetuity the institution of chattel slavery.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Is It Really A Heritage Worth Celebrating ?
Yes it is.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.”
Except you know, if it’s those dirty southerners who celebrate Confederacy. Animals.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Doug: Why would anyone want to be so manifestly ignorant of history?
If you want a longer answer - read my blog.
Best wishes and encouraging a bit more reading.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I will point out that the north didn’t really do much about the south’s slavery habit until the south decided to secede (kind of the attitude that many people today take towards abortion: I’ll never have one but I won’t do anything to stop others). If anything, the north deserves just as much blame because they turned a blind eye to it for so long. When I hear northerners act smug and superior concerning the fact that they are not from the south, all I wonder is if they would acted the same way if they were around then.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
CR UVA: Slavery was legal in every newly sovereign state in the new United “States” of America in 1776. There were slaves in every state during the Revolution. One by one the state legislatures, did the 1787 Constitutionally correct thing to end slavery - by a vote of the state legislature. Of course, some of those Northern states that ended slavery prohibited Blacks from voting as citizens. Five victorious Northern states did so AFTER April 1865 which is one of the reasons for the 14th Amendment.
Former U VA student John Mosby found one of his best soldiers was a Yankee from the NY 5th Cav who deserted and joined the Gray Ghost after the Emancipation Proclamation and fought bravely until his death.
Two downstate Illinois regiments disbanded after the Emancipation Proclamation.
History isn’t a one dimensional cartoon as understood and taught by Liberals.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It is NOT Confederate History Month!
There is no reason to LIMIT the time we honor our Confederate Veterans to a mere month, nor should we designate other months as specifically dedicated to honoring other groups: Negroes, Latinos, Asians, and all of the other hyphenated or confused.
We Americans must honor the heritage and traditions of ALL of our fellow Americans, every single day. A society that honors its own traditions is the most likely to honor the traditions of others.
Consequently, in America, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans can enjoy learning about traditions of Asians, or Latinos, etc. While the members of various minority factions can learn useful lessons when told of the personal honor of Confederate soldiers (whose ranks included Whites, Blacks, Asians and Latinos) who took up arms to defend their respective states against what they viewed as an invading army.
This sort of exchange of information about the myriad cultural and historical backgrounds of our citizens should never be isolated to one month, but should be celebrated throughout the year, with no one group given precedence for recognition over another.
So let us not limit the celebration of, and the honors we bestow upon, our Confederate forefathers, but instead ensure that all of our traditions are shared and honored with a sense of mutual respect and with a dedication to learning from the good examples of those who came before us.
Learn more about the Sons of Confederate Veterans at SCV.ORG
April 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Tyler,
Private citizens can honor whomever and whatever they want. I don’t think, however, that the states should be involved in honoring treason.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:50 am
CR and James,
Nobody said the United States was perfect when it came to chattel slavery. Thomas Jefferson, who himself was imperfect when it came to this issue, said at the beginning that it was a stain upon the nation and something that would have to be dealt with at some point.
In the North in the 1850s, abolitionism was gaining ground and there was a general consensus against allowing the extension of slavery into the territories. In fact, that was the only position on slavery that the Republican Party took in the Election of 1860.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Kilo,
Everything I need to know about the Confederacy is contained in Section 3 of Article 4 of the Confederate Constitution:
Contrary to the contentions of Confederate partisans, this was a nation formed on the idea of perpetuating and extending the most vile institution ever to exist on the North American continent. And, as I argued in one of the posts I linked to above, the secession itself was without legal or moral justification.
Individuals can celebrate whatever heritage they want, the government of a free people should not recognize it however.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Doug: Let’s get this straight… the fact that the current U.S. Constitution provided for slavery (3/5ths person for census) in 1787 that is an imperfection, but the inclusion of explicit slavery in an 1861 Constitution is the worst evil ever? The 74 years difference makes all the difference in the world, huh? I didn’t think morality had a time stamp on it like that.
The CSA Constitution says the States have the right to slavery, not the necessity of it. Which is why in the waning, losing days of the War emancipation for slaves as soldiers was supported in the CSA.
One key point missed is this: The American Revolution wasn’t about taxes but who had the right to tax. The Civil War wasn’t about slavery but who had the right to end slavery.
So we shouldn’t honor the U.S. Constitution every October either, right - because it institutionalized slavery across all 13 states? (Until the state legislatures, one by one, ended slavery appropriately.)
April 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
James,
Name one act that the Confederate States of America took between 1860 and 1866 designed to bring an end to slavery.
Don’t bother, I’ll answer.
There were none.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
James,
The difference between the flaws that existed in the U.S. Constitution and that flaw that was the Confederate States of America is that, even at the time of it’s founding, it was recognized by most people that slavery was a stain on the nation. And, while the Constitution does provide for it, the word slavery never appears in the text, unlike the CSA’s document.
The South seceded because it lost an election and because they knew that their power in the national government would not grow if slavery were not expanded to the western territories. That’s the only reason they did it.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Doug: Virginia voted not to secede based on the election. That changed. The Upper South voted to secede in April 61 after Lincoln ordered the invasion of SC and for Virginia to provide 7500 troops to do it.
The Deep South voted to secede, one might argue a bit hastily, because of concerns that the Federal government would abolish slavery - which was a right reserved to the states to end or keep.
The differences you make in the Constitution hardly consist of moral matter. The both Constitutions provided for slavery as a state right. The U.S. Constitution provided - by not prohibiting - the actual slave trade. If you really have such outrage about slavery then you should share it with both Constitutions and both Countries. Slavery existed in the U.S.A. from 1776 until 1865 (excluding the Confederate State under the Emancipation Proclamation) - didn’t end until the 13th Amendment was passed. Slavery existed in the CSA from 1861 to 1865.
You can hold on to your moral outrage all you like.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Invasion of South Carolina ?
I call bullshit.
Fort Sumter was federal property.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
James,
The Constitution may have assisted the institution of slavery, but it was by far not unanimous. The inclusion of those portions were to appease the southern states, who were needed badly for ratification, and would not have ratified had these things not been provided, or had it been the case that the Constitution would have completely outlawed slavery.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Doug: Fort Sumter was U.S. property. SC was a sovereign state. It seceded from the U.S. The U.S. property was within SC territorial waters.
Virginia was invaded by Federal forces.
Read the Federalist Papers - the justification for the 1787 Constitution. To which government, if there was a conflict, would the citizen hold a higher loyalty - state or federal? This is from the guys who were selling our current Constitution. You may not understand it with 21st Century ‘presentism’, but they got it. It’s why Lee resigned his U.S. commission when Virginia finally seceded after Lincoln’s hasty response to SC’s pushy attack.
DW: The point on Constitutions is Doug’s sense of moral outrage, not on the votes in the Constitutional Convention. If slavery is your favorite moral high horse, as opposed to genocide or some other horror since Cain killed Abel, then fixing the glare of your offended eyes on the CSA as opposed to the USA is bit myopic. Especially since Lincoln didn’t abolish slavery in border states and conquered Southern counties in 1862. What moral failing was that?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
James,
Thank you for conceding that Fort Sumter was, indeed, federal property. Since I think that an argument can be made that South Carolina’s so-called secession was not legitimate, it remained Federal property in 1861.
I have no blinders regarding the role of slavery in early America but by 1860 it was clear that within a generation or less the slavocracy in the South would be on it’s own and unable to defend their vile society.
The preservation of slavery (and the perceived though non-existent threat to it’s continuation in the South allegedly posed by Lincoln’s election) is the only reason they seceded. Since slavery itself is morally indefenisble, an act of secession meant to perpetuate deserve no respect and the leaders of the Confederacy deserve no honor.
And, we can debate this as long as time itself but it obviously won’t accomplish anything. Thankfully, though, the Confederates were defeated because I doubt American history would have been quite as peaceful if they had not been.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Doug: SC had the legitimate, meaning legal, right to secede. The Constitution was voluntarily ratified by the sovereign states. Virginia included in its ratification the reasons why it might leave in the future. Jefferson Davis was sorely disappointed to never be put on trial. Because even in the heady days after the war, he knew he would win in any court.
Again, the only reason Virginia and the Upper South seceded was because of Lincoln’s actions. Virginia voted “NO” to secession earlier in the year.
If the Federal government could do away with a state right - like slavery, then all rights were threatened. Just as if the British Government could tax without representation then all rights of Englishmen were threatened. Same principles at stake among the people and according to the people who actually fought for them.
Ordering Virginia to provide troops to attack SC was morally indefensible. Again, read the Federalist Papers.
If slavery is so morally indefensible and those leaders (or everyone?) who served a state that perpetuated it deserve no honor, then you are describing the USA until the 13th Amendment - and after the defeat of the CSA.
April 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
James,
The Constitution notwithstanding there is and was no such thing as a “state right” to allow the existence of human slavery within it’s borders.
As for the rest of your argument, I address it in the post linked below and have nothing further to add:
http://belowthebeltway.com/2007/01/14/did-the-south-have-the-right-to-secede/
April 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
James,
And one final point.
In December 1860, there was no threat to the institution of slavery within the borders of South Carolina or any other state.
Like petulant children, they acted the way they did because the election didn’t turn out the way they wanted.
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address sets forth the illegitimacy of that position rather plainly.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Doug: You could have been an ace Communist propagandist, the way you recite your party line version of the secession and slavery issue. That time has long past, so I won’t address those issues.
The topic is, if Confederate Heritage is worth celebrating, and on that point, it is the policy of the U.S. government that Confederate Veterans be accorded the traditional honors shared with our other war veterans.
The position so often expressed by the SCV is that we support a truthful telling of the Confederate soldier’s story, and to that end, the SCV provides programs that feature all facets of the Confederate era.
There was plenty of blame to go around as to why we had that terrible war. Who knows how many brilliant citizens were swept from American society in those battles, all due to arguments relating to states’ rights and what was fast becoming an obsolete farming practice that included bondage of Blacks and indentured servitude of Whites.
Like all wars, there was much that was terrible, yet among those who served their respective States in the Confederacy, many acts of bravery were recorded.
When we honor our Confederate soldiers, we acknowledge the tragedy of the war, in addition to those acts of bravery, sacrifice and glory exhibited by those soldiers who, regardless of their station in life, did their duty on the fields of battle.
Celebrating the lives of those brave soldiers, provides many constructive lessons for the men of our era. Honoring the Confederate Veteran, is based on their courage and sacrifice in battle and not about any underlying political questions.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I think a more appropriate way to mourn their memory would to be saddened by the fact that they were duped into fighting for a dubious cause by political opportunists and aristocratic slaveowners.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Nat Turner Lives!
April 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Doug:
I think you have a hard time believing in any of this:
“I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe”
Confederate History month allows anyone with Confederate Heritage to espouse it. You Shout it down and spit on it.
Slave labor is essentially a fact of life in China, but I don’t see you advocating War to free those people. Communism is just a different form of slavery. Being addicted to drugs is a different form of slavery. Then again, everyone misses the point that the people actually doing the fighting weren’t slave holders.
Personal Freedom to even talk about Confederate Heritage is being challenged by you right now. You come off as really pretty self righteous in your arguments.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
STD,
The Civil War was fought to unseat an illegal insurrection.
If the South had returned to the Union in 1861, President Lincoln would have left slavery in those states alone.
End of story.
And I would suggest that you look at what I’ve had to say about China in the past three weeks before drawing that particular analogy again.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
The War of Northern Agression was fought over money.
The industrial north forcing tariffs on the agrarian south, period. The Southern States wanted free trade, and the northern were protectionists over their industries.
The hand of God ended slavery, as it has been pointed out by JAB that Lincoln didn’t free any slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation in the North. Economics always trumps philosophy.
I give you for example, Cheap Labor… Have you noticed illegal immigration is quite tolerated by GWB? Did not Lincoln tolerate, and said he would tolerate slavery, rather than fight a war?
The answer is yes, and the root of all war is $$$$. The USA is going to attack China to free people from the yoke of Communisim… HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
April 4th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
When the state legislatures vote to leave the union they voluntarily entered, it isn’t an insurrection. Why was no one tried for treason. Zero. Nobody even tried for treason after the war. It wasn’t because of Yankee lovingkindness.
The legal and moral distinction between the Whiskey Rebellion and the Recent Unpleasantness (1861-1865) is clear.
The only guy tried and hung was the warden at Andersonville for war crimes in the care of prisoners. If the same standard worked for everyone, a bunch of Yankee wardens would have swung with him.
The state ‘right’ to slavery began in 1776 when the 13 former colonies all wrote or ratified (their colonial codes into) their newly sovereign state legal codes. All 13 made up their rules on how they would do racial slavery. Then, the current US Constitution said all rights not specified in this document revert to the states and The People.
By the way, please let me know if you want me to send you pictures of Black Confederate veterans. Funny, odd isn’t it, how at the absolute height of Jim Crow these Black guys wanted to hang out with the people who wanted to push the most vile thing ever forward, etc.? Give me an email if you want me to send some Black Confederate veteran photos.
Why aren’t you outraged at the Yankee war crimes? Burning of The Valley. Ethnic cleansing of counties in Missouri. Burning and sacking of cities and countryside. Why doesn’t this hit your moral compass?
April 5th, 2008 at 6:14 am
STD,
The Civil War was fought over slavery and its expansion into the terrorities. Plain and simple.
The Confederacy existed to protect an infernal institution.
And, as I noted in previous posts, secession for the mere reason that one has lost an election to a candidate who posed no threat to you is not legitimate. Especially when the people who voted for secession constituted a mere elite of the population.
I will thank the Hand of God, as you put it, for one thing. That he gave us William T. Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant to defeat the CSA.
April 5th, 2008 at 7:32 am
[...] brief post about Confederate Heritage Month has certainly stirred up quite a hornet’s nest if the comment thread is any [...]
April 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Sorry I’m late boys. Anyhoo, let’s get to it. Doug, you said:
# Doug Mataconis Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
James,
Name one act that the Confederate States of America took between 1860 and 1866 designed to bring an end to slavery.
Don’t bother, I’ll answer.
There were none.
________________________________
Actually, that is incorrect. The first document to fully make slavery illegal was outlined in the Confederate Constitution. Slavery was not a cause of the war, it was only an excuse for it. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, and many others despised slavery to its core. In fact, it was Longstreet in his memoirs that noted that, “We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter.” Slavery only became a war aim in the darkest days of the Union’s fight. I’m talking late ‘62 - mid ‘63. Prussia, Spain, France, and especially Britain were all gearing to throw support behind the Confederacy. Why? Because it was recognized as a legitimate and lawful secession and struggle. Remember, it was not the South that turned its back on the Constitution, but Lincoln. When Lincoln saw the South was gaining immense ground and allies in other countries, it was only then, after a draw at Sharpsburg that Lincoln drafted the Emancipation Proclamation, an edict, which did absolutely nothing. He made the war into some moral crusade, draping himself in those regal robes, because he knew they could not win, fighting against the real reason of the war–the economy.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Doug, you also said that,
“STD,
The Civil War was fought to unseat an illegal insurrection. If the South had returned to the Union in 1861, President Lincoln would have left slavery in those states alone. End of story.”
———————–
Why, Mr. Mataconis, I’m surprised at you. You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person – such as ‘our’ rebellion. It is only in the third person – ‘their’ rebellion – that it is illegal.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Jonathan,
Please provide a citation to the precise provision of the Confederate Constitution that makes it illegal to hold human beings in bondage.
The problem is, you’ll have some trouble find it because it doesn’t exist.
Now, if you are referring to the fact that the CSA outlawed the international slave trade, then you would be correct. But that did nothing for the millions of human beings being held as slaves throughout the South.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Jonathan,
Antietam was not a draw, it was a rout and if McClellan had had the guts of Grant, he could’ve crushed Lee’s Army before they got across the Potomac.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sharpsburg was anything but a route. Lee was able, with an army half that of his opponent, to fight McClellan to a bloody stalemate and a tactical stand still. The battle was a tactical stalemate. This view is backed up in that Lee held his position throughout September 18, 1862, the day following the battle.
The Confederate Constitution was the document that first outlawed slavery. It wasn’t the Emancipation Proclamation (which, as an aside, did absolutely NOTHING), not the United States Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence (though Jefferson, one of Virginia’s founding fathers tried to get it in there, but was rejected by Congress), nor the Articles of Confederation. Take a look at Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. I wouldn’t lie to you.
April 5th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Jonmaxfield,
Again, please cite the portion of the Confederate Constitution that outlawed slavery.
The provision you cited states as follows:
Again, this bans the slave trade, it does not ban the ownership of slaves.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:19 am
They are one in the the same. And at least it worked to ban the slave trade. That was more than could be said of the Northeners they were fighting against. They did nothing at all to stem this until the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation, which did nothing. The Confederate Constitution would have done something–and it is obvious that once the slave trade was outlawed (which it was under the CC and NOT the EP), Slavery would have eventually died of natural causes soon after the conflict had come to an end. Remember, most Confederate generals and up and coming legislators and lawmakers were against this evil institution from the get go.
April 6th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Banning the international slave trade and banning slavery are not the same thing. If it were, then there would have been no slavery in the CSA after 1861.
And we both know that didn’t happen.
Also, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t need to ban the international slave trade. That had already been outlawed in the United States by an act of Congress that began effective on January 1, 1808:
http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/library/govt.papers/legis/1807.act.barsslavetrade.html
In other words, Article I, Section 9 of the Confederate Constitution was meaningless. It did nothing to free a single slave already under bondage and merely repeated a law that had been in effect for 53 years.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
And the EP WAS effective?
April 6th, 2008 at 10:25 am
As a war measure, which is precisely what Lincoln intended it to be, it was quite effective I would argue.
It blunted any chance that England or France would intervene to help the Confederacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#International_impact
And, it helped create trouble for the Confederate Armies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation#Immediate_impact
It changed the very character of the war, and led directly to the passage of the 13th Amendment.
April 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Where do these people keep coming from? Short and sweet: The War was both caused and started by the South. It WAS about slavery (every single state that actually produced a formal document said the same things: treason is legal, and we are doing it because of some aspect of slavery.)
It was disgraceful, and is NOT worth celebrating. Unless, of course, you are celebrating it’s destruction.