Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Why Liberals Are Right to Refuse to Honor the Confederacy

Well, on this 149th anniversary of the surrender of Fort Sumter, it's good to see the war rages unabated on the internet front.

I'm an SCV member, by virtue of an uncle in the 14th Tenn. Infantry, shot in the stomach at the Wilderness and died a month later in the Yankee [bleep] prison camp on Chesapeake Bay called Point Lookout. And he was an east Tennessee hardscrabble farmer who owned no slaves, but did leave a widow and three children behind.

This whole "the war was about slavery, no it was about states' rights, no, slavery, neener neener neener" thing has been done about once every four months for as long as I've been hanging around the fire, with no minds changed. It is really kind of pointless.

But, to all those morally superior Yankees....keep in mind that only a miniscule portion of the north supported abolition, and almost none supported the free movement of freed slaves into the North, much less allowing them to vote.

The western world was awakening to the moral unacceptability of slavery in the mid-19th Century. France had abolished slavery in its colonies less that two decades before....after reinstating it after it was briefly banned during the Revolution. Some of the other relevant dates:


1839 The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society is formed to campaign for the global abolition of slavery.
1851 Slave trading is abolished by Brazil.
1858 Slavery is abolished in Portuguese colonies although all slaves are subject to a 20 year apprenticeship.
1861 Slavery is abolished in the Dutch colonies of the Caribbean.
1865 Slavery is abolished in the United States following the Civil War.
1886 Slavery is abolished in Cuba.
1888 Slavery is abolished in Brazil.

So the southern confederacy was not so benighted nor so different from the sophisticated Europeans, in their acceptance of the peculiar institution, which having been around for thousands of years had at least a patina of normalcy about it, which we cannot begin to imagine.

It was also a time when servants, children, wives and petty criminals were routinely beaten, without any penalty at law, or in public opinion.

So for modern people to get all high and mighty, and utterly fail to put themselves in the place where our ancestors were in 1861, is silly and arrogant, in my view.

Particularly irritating is the liberal conceit that they, had they been around then, would have been among the tiny minority who saw the light before the rest of the society did so.


not bloody likely

Why, they were so appalled by slavery that they immediately banned slavery at the beginning of the war in such Union states as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri & the District of Columbia and one can't forget those "Apprentices for life" New Jersians didn't keep down in the ol servants quarters.....

Just thought I would also mention that West Virginia was (illegally) admitted to the Union in 1863 as a SLAVE state.

Glad to meet you Henry, but I take issue with this part of your post. That is a gross mischaracterization of how WV came into being.

West Virginia did join as a slave state, but only after the state constitution put mechanisms into place that systematically dismantled slave ownership over a very short time period. Furthermore it was made illegal to bring any slaves into the state. In less than a decade after ratification the state constitution eliminated slavery. Many were freed immediately upon ratification. So to make it sound like WV in any way sympathized with or went along with the slave mentality is completely incorrect.

Not that West Virginians were shining examples of racial equality. That was not true when the state was founded, it was not true when I grew up there, and it is not true now. We have a unique culture that grew out of the early Scottish wave of immigrants to first settle up that part of the country. It was very distinct from, and at odds with, the plantation based economy of the less rugged portions of Virginia.

Rebel sympathizers held sway politically and tried to stop the state from seceding from Virginia. They were considered outside meddlers and were ran out of office only to return to power a few years after the war ended. Over the years locals were able to assume the reigns of power and start governing the state as the populace saw fit but a lot of damage was done and a lot of energy was wasted ridding our state of these guys. It is a fascinating history, but one that cannot be explained in one post on a forum... even if folks were interested in it and I'd guess they are not that gungho to learn. :p

The bottom line is that there were very, very few slaves in the state before secession. The economy was just not built for that kind of labor to succeed. And the almost entirely white population had a distinct culture that didn't mix well with that of most slave states. In no way shape or form can the circumstances surrounding WV's entry in the union be argued to support slavery.

Will

Excellent post and bears repeating before I add my comments. The slavery issue was a red herring and had little to do with the real cause(s) of the war. It was a class war, a war of envy against the supposedly "landed gentry" of the south and the proletarian, urban north, but the common Southener who owned no slaves for the most part, paid the price. By any measure, it was a sad and tragic time in our history. IT should have never happened, but one thing I am glad for is the country stayed in one piece. At least through the last election anyway. We're headed for some rough times ahead. jorge

+1

+1 here too.

Cole, you have a talented knack for poking at hornets that's fun to watch! Most of the time I agree with your POV's too.