Is there a difference?

Because it was a vital part of their economy. Slavery was of course in decline. Had the war not been fought or had the south won the southern slaves would have still been freed, but without the economic upheaval of the war and reconstruction. Lincoln had promised in 1861 not to end slavery and favored a plan that would have compensated slave owners (like the British plan when they freed slaves in the colonies in 1838). Every other nation in the western hemisphere was able to free their slaves without a war.

One of the most interesting plans that I believe could have won the war for the south if they had adopted it sooner was the plan to arm the slaves and offer them their freedom in exchange for military service. 40% of southern men were slaves. This idea was raised by General Patrick Claiborne in January of 1864 but was only passed by the confederate congress after Robert E Lee wrote in support of it a year later. The bill was passed in March of 1865 and companies of African American Confederate soldiers were raised and begun to drill, but it was too little too late and only a couple of the companies ever saw combat. Had the confederacy adopted this plan in 1862 or 3 instead of 1865, well, I believe we would be living in a very different world.


I believe no soldier in confederate army is a better example of what the South really was fighting for than General Bedford Forrest. Forrest you will recall was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan and was accused of a racist massacre at Fort Pillow. (another event that did not occur exactly like the history textbooks claim). But the truth is far from the racist demon the Yankee historians would like us to believe. While the union and later confederate governments authorized African American units Forrest’s command was integrated and multi-racial. From Wikipedia:

 

Don’t forget that slavery and the importation of slaves were protected by the Union constitution. The US congress passed what would have been the 13th amendment in 1861, but it was never ratified by the states. It said:

Now if this amendment had already passed when the southern states revolted, then how could they have revolted over slavery? The civil war (like every other war) was fought over economics. Would the southern states be able to control their own economic futures, or would they continue to be dominated by the fast industrialization occurring in the North. Well of course now we know the answer, which states have the highest poverty levels? Oh yea.

 

It was a different world in 1860 than it was in the late 18th century.

Of course it was an economic issue. Slavery was the backbone of the Southern agricultural economy. Were other economic factors invovled? Certainly. However, the fear of the abolition of slavery was legitimate. Northern politicians were very influential, and the Southern politicians didn't necessarily feel that they would be able to keep their slave economies intact.

As far as the Corwin amendment is concerned, there is no certaintly that the amendment would have been ratified. It would have required 26 states to ratify the amendment. Even if all of the slave states (16) had ratified the amendment, 10 more free states would have had to jump on board. That would have been a difficult task, indeed.

At any rate, the confederacy had already been formed when the Corwin amendment passed Congress, so the point is moot.

 

The Corwin amendment passed the house on February 28, the Senate on March 2. 7 states had already seceded at that point but Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Arkansas had not. The seven seceded states had formed a confederacy, but shots would not be fired until April 12. Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois all ratified the amendment. It may not have passed, you can't say for sure, it might not have. It was IMHO a last attempt at compromise by our politicians and I think they should be applauded for trying so hard to avert war. The point I feel proved by the proposed amendment is that slavery, while an issue, was not the only issue behind secession.

 

I don't think that a proposed amendment proves your point. It was proposed by a northern congressman, and the states didn't seem to take it seriously.

My view is that the issue of slavery was the catalyst for secession and the eventual war. Alone, it would not have likely caused the war, but it was the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back." IMO, the war would not have been fought if slavery had not been an issue, nor would it have been fought if it were the only issue.

I reject both the two major "rose-colored" views of the war. Along with every credible historian, I reject the notion that the war was fought to abolish slavery. Northerners in general, as I'm sure you know, had little to no interest in shedding blood for the sake of slaves (cf. the NYC draft riots). There were as many racists in the North as there were in the South.

Also, I reject the idea that the Southern cause was a simple reaction to Northern aggression with slavery only being a minor point. Slavery was a major factor in the decisions to secede. IMO, it was THE major factor, not because of racism or ideology, but because of economics. The Southern economy simply could not sustain itself in its 1860 condition without slavery. Though inaccurate in their fears, Southerners feared that Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist.

 

Sopranette,

You proved my point, that flags and images carry power. If you were being terrorized by the KKK, or enslaved by a government, I imagine the Confederate flag was not a welcome sight; anymore than the Nazi flag was welcome if you were a Jew in Amsterdam in 1943. Your recoil to the image of the symbol of the Third Reich is the type of feeling the CSA flag evokes in others.

I respect the history. Like others have said, I refuse to use it as it might offend some. Especially when even today, white supremacist groups and neonazis proudly display the Confederate Battle Flag and the Nazi Flag (or variants of it) in their hate literature and websites.

 

My only gripe about the whole Confederate flag issue is that there were probably just as many racists AFTER removing it from the capitol in Columbia, SC than there was BEFORE removing it. IOW, it did little to change racism in the minds and hearts of the idiots who were racists. Instead of doing things that actually help race relations, we're too busy bandaging tumors and tilting at windmills.

 

The Confederate flag should never be mistaken for a symbol of white power. That a few choose to do so is a shame. The Confedarate flag has become a symbol of hatred by association with certain groups today.

Sopranette

 

I agree with you, but the very fact that it is so associated (and widely so) means that I feel morally obligated not to be associated with it.