The Confederacy: America's worst idea

Most confederates fought for their state, not for slavery. At that time, allegiance to state was more important than allegiance to the United States.

 

The way the Confederacy was designed gave the central government no power, and little money to raise armies or control them except by voluntary temporary arrangement.

As such, military units were raised by the states and deployed at the state legislatures command. This caused a lot of problems for the Confederacy as military units would often go off on their own at critical junctures due to meddling by the states. The Confederate commanders could never be sure which units would actually arrive at a given place, it was voluntary and often contentious whether or not the state regiments and battalions would accept the commands of the Confederate generals. The Confederacy was never able to maintain a coherent chain of command.

 

I do not see how anyone can declare that as true or accurate when surely there never was any poll where the soldiers in the rebel armies were questioned as to their real reasons for fighting their rebellion.

And the declaration of secession was given long before any actual hostilities started, and later when the rebels attacked Fort Sumter then no one was attacking any State for the rebel soldiers to claim a State allegiance.

But still just to play along with this pretentious white claim, then surely in a four (4) year war then the rebel soldiers could have taken a moment to ask their Captain as to why were they fighting against the American flag and against American soldiers?

The war of rebellion was being fought to preserve the African slavery under a rebel flag, and not under State flags, so if some rebel soldiers did not know the correct reason as to why they were being traitors to their own Country, and they never asked their leaders as to what was going on, then they were either extremely stupid or else they really did know exactly what they were doing.

They were all racist and traitors, whether knowingly or even if ignorantly.

 

Robert E. Lee on resigning his US Army commission.....

Genl,
Since my interview with you on the 18th Inst[1]: I have felt that I ought not longer to retain any Commission in the Army. I therefore tender my resignation which I request you will recommend for acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle it has Cost me to separate myself from a Service to which I have divoted [sic] all the best years of my life, & all the ability I possessed. During the whole of that time, more than a quarter of a century, I have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors & the most Cordial friendships from any Comrades. To no one Genl have I been as much indebted as to yourself for kindness & Consideration & it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I shall carry with me, to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind Consideration, & your name & fame will always be dear to me. Save in the defense of my native state shall I ever again draw my sword. Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for “the Continuance of your happiness & prosperity & believe me

Most truly yours
R E Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert E. Lee on Reconstruction......

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people
designed to make of their victory,
there would have been no surrender at
Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me.
Had I foreseen these results of subjugation,
I would have preferred to die at Appomattox
with my brave men, my sword in my right hand."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interesting what you choose to ignore and what you choose to comment on. How about the treatment of whites in Northern factories, obviously much worse than that of the average slave, while Abolitionists were clamoring for an end to slavery? Where is your indignation on that? I suppose you don't have any as it would interfere with your demonizing of the South.

 

Lee made a huge mistake when he failed to accept the offer to lead the Union Army against the criminal traitors.

Abe Lincoln did not betray Virginia, it was the rebel leaders in Virginia who betrayed Virginia and the USA and betrayed Lee, and they betrayed the Virginia signers of the US Constitution through their war of rebellion.

Lee might have been fooled into thinking he was defending Virginia, but the sad reality is that Lee defended racist traitors of the lowest kind.

If Lee had the wisdom to stand with Lincoln and the USA then Lee would be remembered as a great Man instead of his infamous shame.

Lee could have been hung as a criminal traitor, but instead Lee was given mercy by the Country he betrayed.

I truly do not ignore other evils in this world, and I agree that the Capitalist system abuses the employees back then and it still does today.

Many of the northern whites were guilty of racism too, and surely they cheated and massacred many an innocent Indian, and whites brutalized other white people, and such things still happen today.

You get no such denials from me.

But here on this thread we are not discussing those things.

 

I brought up the Lee quotes as it was mentioned by someone that loyalties were to states first in that time and you contradicted that. That mindset prevailed as it was correctly seen that we are a union of SOVEREIGN states, so quite naturally loyalty to state came before loyalty to union.

I offered up the abuse of white people, especially children, in Northern factories to show the hypocrisy of the North. Since this was happening AT THE SAME TIME as African slavery, it is relevant to the topic. The slave narratives, held up against the experiences of children in the North, show the North allowed more inhumane conditions to exist than in the South. Though the term 'slavery' wasn't used, it was more sinister and evil than actual slavery. Yet you still persist in railing against the South as if it were the most wicked place on Earth....wishing death on every Southerner, including your own family.

Your beliefs, to me, aren't rooted in reality or in any real knowledge of the true history of our country. As I've said before, you're looking to the South as a scapegoat and are a white apologist. If that makes you sleep better at night, fine. However, if you've bothered to read the info posted here, and it seems you have, you'll have to admit that your indignation is misplaced and incomplete.

 

This is the main reason why the Confederacy was doomed from the very beginning. The problem with a Confederation has been seen from ancient Greece to post-revolutionary United States.

In short, they can't ever get anything done. The central government is weak, and can do almost nothing. The Government would be screaming for troops and money to try and defend itself, and the states would basically tell Richmond to take a hike.

Doomed from the beginning.

But the emphasis is on the wrong word. It is a UNION of soverign states. It was already a "Confederation and perpetual Union" since 1781. And they were only soverign in how they handled things within their own state.

This was put in place by the Articles of Confederation, and reverified under the Constitution. If the states wanted to be individual soverign nations, they should never have signed the AoC in the first place, let alone the Constitution.

 

The CSA had a Constitution VERY similar to the US Constitution. One of the notable differences was it called for a single 6 year term for its president. I would argue that it was more than a loose confederation based on its Constitution. The post-revolution US had gotten things done BTW, including defeating the British (War of 1812) and the Mexicans (Mexican-American War).

 

The quote I posted from R.E. Lee gives lie to your premise. I think he understood why this country was formed....his father was a hero of the Revolution. The States formed the union. It was their creation. It makes no sense to assign supremacy to the creation rather than the creator. No one said they wanted to be sovereign nations, only that their sovereignty remained. The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, limited the powers of the Federal Govt and affirmed the powers of the states and individual (10th amendment).

 

No, the CSA had a constitution very similar to the Articles of Confederation, which was abandoned as unworkable.

 

Not so read both Constitutions.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

True to an extent, I have never heard of a state unit refusing a generals command. The commands as I understand them remained intact except for battlefield losses. The only changes I am aware of are Hood, Johnston, and Pemberton. Please post some examples.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

James ,

If you had been reading what has been posted for quite sometime now you would know the reason the Confederates were fighting. They were fighting because they were being invaded!!!! My gosh man come up for air once in a while, these facts have been posted. Is historical fact completely lost on you?

Again prove "traitors"

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Well said. he doesn't comment on such issues because someone will hand him his head. Notice he rarely post anything resembling a fact?

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

No, the Constitution had a Constitution very similar to the Articles of Confederation. Not the Constitution.

And there were a great many differences, not just in the office of the President. For one, individual states could impeach federal officials who worked within their state. For example, if a Federal Judge made a decision a state did not like, they could remove him from office. The President also had the power to fire any Federal Official pretty much at will. All he had to do was notify the Senate of the reason why.

And once the Senate rejected an appointee, he could not reappoint him when congress is in recess.

The Confederate Congress also had the power to grant legislative seats to the heads of the cabinet. That would be like Congress deciding to make the Secretary of Defense a Senator.

The President also had a line-item veto. Something our President still does not have.

Then when you look at the powers of trade and taxes, you had other big differences. Congress had no power to provide incentives or subsidies to local businesses. In addition, they were prohibited from implementing duties or taxes to equalize trade.

However, interestingly enough, they could impose taxes upon trade between individual states. They could also regulate or prohibit trade between states (something the US Constitution expressly prohibited).

Congress was also prohibited from the expenditure of any money to be used to improve internal infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc), with the exception of canals, waterways, or ports.

They also basically laid the foundation for the elimination of the Postal Service. They put in the document a hard date (1 March 1863) to stop all payments to the Post Office Department. If it was not self-sufficient at that time, who knows what would have happened.

Interestingly enough, they left one clause intact, which allowed for them for "calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." So they felt they had the right to put down their own internal Civil War in the future, even though they denied the US could do the same.

One interesting clause deals with cost over-runs. When the Government signed a contract, it the amount to be paid could not be ammended. So if expenses go up, the contract could only be honored as originally written. Not good for contractors if a period of inflation happens (which did).

It also omitted the clause that prohibited states from entering into a "bill of credit" with other states or nations. Therefore, you could have seen a situation where South Carolina owed huge debts to North Carolina, or even France.

And this is all in the first 3 articles. There are 4 more to go, but I think you get the picture.

So yes, there were a great many differences between the two documents.

Yes, the states formed a Union. As I said, the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". Which was a total failure. And you bring up Light-Horse Harry Lee, who by the way was one of the strongest proponants of the Constitution. So if you claim he supported Confederations, then why was he in favor of abolishing a Confederation?

Light Horse Harry was a staunch Federalist. In other words, he favored curtailing the unchecked rights of individual states for the benefit of a strong National government. If he had opposed such a movement, then he would have been an Anti-Federalist, like fellow Virginian Patrick Henry.

http://leeboyhoodhome.com/lhhleebio2.html

 

I won't argue these points, but here are some links comparing the US Constitution with the Articles of Confederation, and also the Confederate and US Constitutions. The complete text of the Confederate Constitution is included, so people can read for themselves.

http://mrkash.com/activities/comparing.html

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

One note from the second link....

The CSA Constitution and the US Constitution are remarkably (or perhaps not so remarkably) similar.

A couple of small, interesting points. First, most of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution was incorporated into the CSA Constitution (see Article 1, Section 9 and Article 6, Section 5). Next, each clause was specifically numbered (in the U.S. Constitution, there are Section numbers only, and clause numbers are inferred). This being mostly just a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution, the framers were able to adjust and tweak this new constitution to fix those things that they felt were structurally wrong with the U.S. Constitution.

 

Here, try this one.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

 

The link you posted IS the CSA constitution as compared to the US Constitution. Perhaps you are thinking of a Provincial Constitution for the CSA. It appears to you have the two confused.

Just being honest, I find it had to determine what point you are trying to make. The issue is not if they were worded the same but if they were similar in content.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

http://southernheritageadvancementp...lugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?2008392.post

 

The rebels started their war and that is why they were invaded.

It does not matter if some fool claims otherwise.

What I see this as is the rebels were happy to start their war and ever after they and their decedents cry and cry because the Yankees fought back.

It puts me into the mind of the racist whites that saw themselves as big brave and strong when they beat raped tortured African slaves when the slaves could not fight back, so then the racist rebels started to fight against the United States of America and then found out that the Yankees not only fought back but whooped them down.

You going to deny that the rebels started their own rebellion, and yet you want respected for that, so keep dreaming.

The fact remains that if the white racist want to rise again then we will whoop them down again - and rightly so.

 

I don't know what do the white racists mean in your terms. It looks like every person who loves his/her Confederate home history is a racist.

However you don't even understand how wrong you are.
This time if you decide to whoop people down The South will have strong Allies in the faces of the Middle East wars your over democratic Northern multicultural society has unleashed.

You don't understand that today is 2011 but not 1861 and this time you'll have no allies and no help, not even the slightest morale support if only move a finger against the South.

You don't understand that as soon as someone in the South will say- enough to the wars the North has unleashed, we're peaceful people and need no war nowhere in the world, so don't get us involved in your dirty foreign policy, as soon as someone will say your home policy is smothering us, your tax policy is a never ending fake so let us alone to live according to our rules and way of life all your Lincoln sysem will go bust!


Not only tastes differ.

Times differ

 

Black Confederates Why haven't we heard more about them? National Park Service historian Ed Bearrs, stated, "I don't want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910."

Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a "cover-up" which started back in 1865. He writes, "During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where 'soldier' is crossed out and 'body servant' inserted, or 'teamster' on pension applications."

James Eaton, a professor at Florida A&M University who studied black Confederates, explained why those men might have joined the cause. "Some of them were promised their freedom if they fought. Others went out of loyalty for their masters, and stayed with them in times of trouble."

James Eaton further stated; "Black men did fight on both sides," he continued. "There's been a whole lot of credible work done about the side of the Union, but they have not given any scholarly research to the Confederate side."

According to the Appomattox Courthouse National Historic Site, 36 black Confederates were among those who surrendered to the Union army at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia on April 9, 1865. Most were teamsters, guards, cooks or musicians.

Historians have estimated the total number of black men who served in the Confederate Army either as laborers or soldiers range anywhere from 60,000 to 90,000. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that "some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country" and that by doing so they were "demonstrating it's possible to hate the system of slavery and love one's country." This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."

The Jackson Battalion included two companies of black soldiers. They saw combat at Petersburg under Col. Shipp. "My men acted with utmost promptness and goodwill...Allow me to state sir that they behaved in an extraordinary acceptable manner."

The "Richmond Howitzers" were partially manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas where they operated battery no. 2. In addition two black "regiments", one free and one slave, participated in the battle on behalf of the South. "Many colored people were killed in the action", recorded John Parker, a former slave.

Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862: "Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc.....and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."

“I had two uncles. Jipp and Charlie Clark in Stonewall's company. They would never talk much about him after his death. It hurts them too much, for Stonewall's men loved him so much. Jeff Davis was a great man, too." Charles Harvey was a slave and his father and uncles fought on the
Confederate side. From the Slave Narratives, Charlie Jeff Harvey, South Carolina.

There is documentation regarding the participation of Black Confederates according to Col. Parkhurst’s report (Ninth Michigan Infantry) included in the Federal Official Records. He wrote: “There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day.”

In the May 10, 1862 issue of the Harper's Weekly we find an article titled FOR US OR AGAINST US? Part of that article states "The correspondent of the New York Herald, in one of its late numbers, reports that the rebels had a regiment of mounted Negroes, armed with sabres, at Manassas, and that some five hundred Union prisoners taken at Bull Run were escorted to their filthy prison by a regiment of black men."

In an article titled Rebel Negro Pickets appearing on page 17 in the Saturday, January 10, 1863 issue of Harper's Weekly the following was found. "So much has been said about the wickedness of using the negroes on our side in the present war, that we have thought it. worth while to reproduce on this page a sketch sent us from Fredericksburg by our artist, Mr. Theodore R. Davis, which is a faithful representation of what was seen by one of our officers through his field-glass, while on outpost duty at that place. As the picture shows, it represents two full-blooded. negroes, fully armed, and serving as pickets in the rebel army."

As of Feb. 1865 1,150 black seamen served in the Confederate Navy. One of these was among the last Confederates to surrender, aboard the CSS Shenandoah, six months after the war ended. This surrender took place in England.

A Black Confederate, George _____, when captured by Federals was bribed to desert to the other side. He defiantly spoke, "Sir, you want me to desert, and I ain't no deserter. Down South, deserters disgrace their families and I am never going to do that."

http://www.florida-scv.org/Camp1316/Minorities in the Confederate Army.pdf

 

In much the same way you never hear of black owned plantations, free blacks who owned slaves, or other things that broke the stereotypes.

And even as slaves, a great many identified with their home states as their "home".

http://www.craterroad.com/richardpoplar.html

 

Ample information has been posted that proves the South DID NOT start the war. Prove otherwise or move on with your ignorance.

White racists. Can you prove there is no such thing as "black racism?" Would you care to engage in that discussion?

I have not looking for respect, especially from someone like you; I am looking for someone who can engage in an honest exchange of information. Honestly you fall way short of being that person.

gee you really hate being white don't you???

Ah who is we? By your own admission racism is abundant in the North so who are you counting own. Really I can only think of one thing you might be able to whip, but will refrain from saying what.

George Purvis
http://southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?4

 

Mushroom,

Check out the SHAPE website "Negros In Gray." We have been building this site for some time and to be honest we haven't scratched the surface of the information available. One must remember the only information that will be found is that information which has been saved over time. Fires, floods, theft, and mis-handling have cut down on what may be true numbers.

George Purvis
http://negrosingrey.southernheritageadvancementpreservationeducation.com/page.php?2