Jewel

I've split this thread from a CSS&SA discussion on the new GA state flag . I felt that this part of the discussion would thrive better in PD. Carry on

-Jewel
Moderator CSS&SA

Godless Dave

Rufus, I realize if you grew up in the south you were probably taught that in school. And I think it was true of many, if not most, residents of southern states. It was not so much true in the north. I am very fortunate to have some letters my great-great-(great?)-grandparents wrote to each other and to colleagues at that time. Before and after the war they lived in 5 or 6 different states, and always considered themselves Americans first. (They were also active abolitionists). The southern states didn't have any problems with the authority of the federal government when it came to the Fugitive Slave Law, for example.

Davis, Lee, et al were spared trials for treason as a gesture of reconciliation on Lincoln and Johnson's part.

Gurdur

Actually, they did; they thought it wasn't enforced strongly enough in the non-slavery states.
This was a very major bone of contention, and a major component of the casus belli --- the slave states wanted to be able to recapture slaves from any state in the Union without any hindrance allowed --- and demanded that Federal troops be used to back up their hunts for escaped slaves in non-slavery states.

BTW, several black freemen who fought on the Union side and were captured by the Confederates were sold into slavery --- rather illegally.

Should I also mention the massacre at Fort Pillow ? Condoned by Forrest ?
Yeah, but Lee had his plantation nicked by the Fed's, who used it as a military war cemetary.
Poetic justice.

Godless Dave

That was sort of my point. The southern states were all for their state rights, but on the fugitive slave issue suddenly they wanted the federal government to override the laws of northern states.

(Some things never change. To this day American politicians scream "states' rights!" one minute and demand federal regulation/oversight/funding the next, depending on the issue involved).

As for the question about Confederate politicians and officers later serving in the US Congress, initially they were forbidden from doing so. However thanks to the KKK's reign of terror against black politicians and carpetbaggers, and a change in attitude among northern politicians, those restrictions were done away with. After that all the black congressmen disappeared. There wouldn't be another one for 75 years.

(PBS ran Ken Burn's history of the Capitol the other night).

Gurdur

Yep, I know; I was backing it up and making it even stronger.
Sorry if I wasn't clear --- by no means was I criticisng you at all.

I have a rather elliptical style, Godless Dave; sorry for any confusion.
heh, heh, indeed.
And it would take Federal troops and police to enforce desegregation, justice for lynching crimes, and voter rights.

Black troops in the USA military were paid less than whites till 1954 --- which is rather late in the day, when you think about it.

Optional

Well, see, that was kinda the point of the whole deal. When the newly independant States first banded together under the Articles of Confederation, if anybody had mentioned then that once in, no State would be allowed back OUT, the whole idea would have been rejected en mass.

Right up until 1860, participation in The Union by its various member states was considered to be very much a voluntary thing. (that's not entirely true, as that attitude was starting to change, and there was a lot of Unionist thought floating around, but for purposes of this discussion, it's true enough... the majority of the change was occuring in northern states). Therefore, when the various southern states decided that they no longer wished to be affiliated with the USofA, war was NOT what they had in mind. They wanted only to leave what they THOUGHT was a voluntary Union for purposes of creating a new DIFFERENT Union amongst themselves.

If the North under Lincoln had not decided that this was most definitely NOT a voluntary Union, and that they were willing to fight a war to prove the point, then NO WAR WOULD HAVE OCCURRED.

Not, of course, that that would have been a GOOD thing, from the POV of the 21st century... Lincoln may or may not have been legally and/or morally right to pursue the war but he was certainly historically right, if you catch my meaning... But to blame the war solely on the South is simply bizzare.

-me

Godless Dave

Actually sometimes I wish we had let them leave. But then we would have been able to enjoy the benefits of slavery (cheap cotton and sugar, for example) without feeling morally responsible for it ("not our country!"). Kind of like we do now with imported goods made by slave labor in China.

GH

Would it not be true to say that anyone who clings to American heritage and regards Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founding Fathers with respect is "doing nothing less than glamourizing traitors and rebels?" Maybe you're only a traitor if you lose.

It just seems a little weird to me that a citizen of the United States would have a problem with rebels.

Colander of Truth

We're talking significance in base 10, right?

Colander of Truth

Your last comment seems odd. Please revise.