There is a lack of logic in the claim that the war was not about slavery. Yes, saving the Union was the overt motive behind Lincoln’s challenge to secession but the unalterable fact remains that without slavery there is no Civil War. The entire philosophical basis behind secession was anchored in human slavery whether it be states rights or westward expansion (with slaves of course). No one admires more than I the superb exploits of Lee and his lieutenants with the Army of Northern Virginia than I do. Yet the fact remains that the whole marvelous endeavor of what is probably the finest body of armed men this nation has ever produced was at the service of an abomination.

It is of course common to judge history by today’s standards and norms, which is called ‘presentism’ and is really not conducive to understanding the period. The reality is that in 1861 it was not at all clear in both North and South that secession was unconstitutional as the South left the Union in the same manner as it entered the Union by Conventions of Secession. Remember the Lincoln Administration did not dare test the constitutionality of secession in the Supreme Court because it feared losing the argument. Today we take it for granted that the Union is permanent but that doctrine only came from the legal interpretation manufactured at the point of a bayonet.

While some poor whites were spared, children of slave owners were not. I agree his effort was interesting, but not heroic. Certainly, the nation can find better black role models. The great movie "Glory" shows some heroic blacks.

I think you are missing Tom's point. I doubt he went back and read The Confessions of Nat Turner before he posted - I think it was just a way for Tom to register his disgust at the governor's proclamation.

Given that your last post is only three paragraphs long it's amazing how many questionable points you make - or state as facts when they are just opinions.

For myself, I think it was a fine post with or without the Nat Turner reference. You find it necessary to nitpick about the post but you have nothing to say about the governor's proclamation.

Do you think it was appropriate?

... isn't that uncommon in warfare--especially war between different "people groups." It's largely only been since the 19th c., with its near-adoration of "the child" as something uniquely innocent which adults need to protect at all costs, that we've become utterly horrified at the killing of children.

Though we have no qualms about incinerating them by the thousands, just as long as it's from 30,000 feet.

The imprecatory Psalms ("let their infants be dashed against the rocks"), the Elizabethans in Ireland, the native Americans against the Puritans, the Puritans against the native Americans, and on and on--all involved killing children and infants. It was just part of war.

Or compare Colonel John Chivington's infamous comment, "nits make lice," with the observation of the Arkansas National Guardsman in the (excellent, Discovery Channel) doc. fim, "Off to War," when (at a peculiarly cynical moment) he says we should simply nuke all of Iraq and turn it into glass, adding, "All I can see is insurgents, or women having insurgents, and kids who'll grow up to be insurgents" (from memory, that).

So, what Turner's precise reasons for killing children may have been, who knows? He was a religious fanatic/prophet/terrorist whose motives may or may not have been accurately quoted in the "confessions."

But he was far from alone.

JPWREL wrote that "The reality is that in 1861 it was not at all clear in both North and South that secession was unconstitutional". Actually it seems to have been as clear then as it is now.

JPWREL wrote that "the South left the Union in the same manner as it entered the Union by Conventions of Secession." this is factually untrue about the way states entered the Union. Every state that entered the union did so either through collective action of the states or action by Congress.

JPWREL wrote "Remember the Lincoln Administration did not dare test the constitutionality of secession in the Supreme Court because it feared losing the argument." I don't remember this because it isn't true. The Lincoln Administration didn't test the constitutionality in court because it had no reason to do so.

JPWREL wrote that "Today we take it for granted that the Union is permanent but that doctrine only came from the legal interpretation manufactured at the point of a bayonet." There was actually a lengthy historic basis for the doctrine. It was one of the few things Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay agreed upon.

Let us be clear here Grouchy Historian. Virginians may have said they were defending their way of life (states rights), but since their way of life was built around slavery, they were in fact defending their right, no less, to enslave others.

The odd thing was, most Confederates didn't own slaves and probably thought they were defending state's rights, when in fact they were being lead down the path of destruction by their politicians - and they are being mislead again by one.

Besides, if you'all think this era is important and should be celebrated, why do the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virgnia continually side with land developers and shrink the historic Civil War battlefields?

unless it conflicts with making a quick buck.

In my county seat, one of the few surviving antebellum buildings was allowed to fall into rack and ruin and was eventually destroyed. Keep in mind this building was a crucially important site for the county. One of the earliest county courts was held there, it was a store, and basically a community center. Only one person took any interest in it, a guy who moved into the area and tried to get some local support.

Now, keep in mind that there is an active reenacting sub-culture in this area, and they are bound and determined to have a sign put up every place a Confederate soldier so much as answered the call of nature. Because we must preserve our heritage!

That's how Virginia works. A lot of pious platitudes masking a strong authoritarian and commercial urge on the part of the population. For example, the Shenandoah National Park was only supported by the state because they thought they'd be able to open lots of stores and basically turn the Blue Ridge into a giant King's Dominion. Williamsburg was a Henry Ford project, basically.

So Virginia will only support things if they glorify the status quo, can be moderately profitable, ignore glaring hypocrisies like fighting for slavery while whining about oppression. JPWREL earlier called me an anglophobe. I basically am, because that's where so much of this Virginia system comes from, and we are basically English in our attitudes. If you want to understand Virginia, it's actually worthwhile to read some Thomas Hardy.

Well, of course the Civil War was about slavery. I don't think anyone who seriously studies the war and its causes would say anything less.

However, if you understand history within the context of the times (something few pundits and most talking heads don't) the entire Southern economy was built on Slavery, which, for all the pontificating of many people who don't know their history, WAS, in fact protected by the Constitution, in fact you could say there had been a SUPER-DUPER precedent for protecting slavery in all of the previous sectional crises. So, even though I don't think 21st century Americans would disagree that slavery was evil and inhuman, it was legal and a vital part of the economy. Any wonder that Southern planters felt threatened by what appeared to THEM to be a hostile President. I don't excuse it, but I try to understand it.

As for the point about most Southerners not owning slaves, that's true. However ALL Americans, even Abraham Lincoln were pretty racist, and although some people wanted the slaves freed, I doubt they wanted them to move next door.

LITTLEMANTATE is right, developers rule in Virginia...they had the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in their pockets (where I live) and I suspect they do in other counties as well.

As for the vile and racist remarks, they have no place in a logical debate about the Civil War, which clearly, 150 years later still ignites some serious passon.

BTW, Mr. Ricks, I really enjoyed the interview with Gen. Petraeus. I heard him speak last summer at a CNAS sponsored event and he was outstanding.

South:
Fear of foreign enemies and domestic terrorists/insurgents like Nat Turner who will kill us all.
Skillful manipulation of people's fears, appeals to solidarity between exploiters and exploited based on nationalism or race, demonization of those not in solidarity with the group, forcing poorer individuals to protect the property of the rich by participating in slave patrols. Why was it necessary for the community to police a man's slaves but not his cattle? Finally, a subservient media, and when war begins a complete marriage of government and corporate interests and out right fascism and violent repression including conscripting men.

North (or Britain anywhere for that matter in the 19th century):
Appeals to the populace to fight a holy war against a foreign people, a lazy, arrogant, and violent people. Eventual rampant war profiteering by individuals who previously had no problems wheeling and dealing with said slave despots. Pats on the back when it was all done, though the society in question really hadn't changed. Economic colonialism, and eventual stereotyping of region in question as a land trapped in its own history, populated by sultry women with funny accents, lots of lazy men, and colorful characters (ok this is sort of true, but still). Oh by the way, the local leaders are still in power.

My problem with all this focus on race in regards to the Civil War is that it ignores the more fundamental problems of collectivist group-think that is enabled by informal and formal coercion. People fight "wars" against things like race, but don't realize that racism is just a symptom. It's kind of like lynching. Lynching didn't cause Southern violence, it was a perfect example of Southern violence.

I think racism is still a problem, but racism against African Americans has decreased. When I was a boy hearing the "n" word was not uncommon. Now, even amongst the most reactionary sorts, you never hear so much as the c"" word. But, based on my own experience, a telling fact about how people don't change is witnessing my own contemporaries who were quite avant garde ("I've got a BLACK boyfriend, did you get that, he's BLACK. Or, I only date foreign chicks, they are so much more cultured. Hey do you want to listen to my Bob Marley collection; fight the power!") the products of the educational system which says, America= Good, America= defeated racism, obey the authorities, obey those at the top. Not surprisingly these same folks were baying for Muslim blood after 9/11.

...the history that has been erased from the school books, from the mouths of people who's ancestors fought in the Civil War? I'm talking about the 250,000 free black people in the South at the time of the CW. For a couple of centuries now, the black soldiers have been kept "under wraps". So many think the Confederate Flag stands for slavery, they believe the war was about slavery! For Pete's sake, it's time for them to erase what the left has lied to them about and learn the truth! A couple of great videos to watch:

Behind the Dixie Stars

http://www.youtube.com/v/YF-QIJyLhKQ

Black Confederates Honors

http://www.youtube.com/v/Um9yHU2ahOc

These two videos will shed a light on the Confederate Flag and the cause the South was fighting for in the Civil War. Trust me, it wasn't about slavery. The liberals have run what goes in our public school system's books for too long now. It's time for some truth to come out. It is the liberals who have been putting a wedge between races. I hope McDonnell doesn't back down from his proclamation of a Confederate History Day!

... else. The land of stupid is all around you. I'm sure you'll find it full of eager customers.

GROUNDPOUNDER your comment is disgusting and worse than inappropriate for this blog. You owe Tom Ricks a mega-sized apology for making such a fool of yourself on his site.

I read a lot of blogs and see a lot of vile comments. But I have never seen anything like this on this blog, Disgusting!

What group of "lowlifes" are you referring to?

than runs through Virginia society, and which will never be addressed. Namely, in Virginia, some people have always counted for more than others, people are perfectly fine with legally imposed, coercion based economic inequalities and cronyism, emotionalism and pompous religiousity in politics and public relations that precludes reality, and willful ignorance.

Virginia has been remembering the Civil War for 120 years, it has also celebrated Jamestown. How's about Virginia celebrating 400 years of poverty, illiteracy, and backwardness. We can build a giant statute of a tape worm. Perfect symbol, it was brought from Africa by slaves, infested the South and was only eradicated because some outsiders were kind enough to educate us all.

If not for all the folks coming in to work for the federal government, Virginia's statistics for health and wealth would be far lower than they are. Why is that? Virginians never seem to get around to answering that question. Virginians, and Southerners in general, never have had an internal discussion over what went wrong, is going wrong, and will continue to go wrong with us. We sport a chip on our shoulder vis-a-vis Northern Virginia, because those people think they are better than us. Well, in some regards their critiques are true. Yes, Northerners are hypocrites, and the South was the US' favorite whipping boy until 9/11. As a white southerner with an accent, I can attest to this. But why get all defensive and throw up yet another useless marker or vote in another demogogue.
A simple answer would be education. But as Virginia has shown, throwing money at a problem doesn't help it. When you have an entrenched anti-intellectualism rampant amongst the majority, and semi-cynically encouraged by the local economic players and clergymen, kids will never excel. Virginians as a group need to decide that education and health in this life is more important than false pride and worries about the next life. They also need to stop playing the victim card, because that is part of what this Confederate thing is all about. Particularly in the post-Braveheart era the neo-Confederate movement has taken on a Celtophile tinge. In this alternative universe Southerners have been victims since Roman times. This was basically the argument of Sen. Jimmy Webb's "Born Fighting."
I'm a libertarian, but growing up in the South it sometimes makes me question my views. I know what these people are capable of if not supervised.

Having lived in Northern Ireland I can tell you that the Scots-Irish - called Ulster-Scots in the UK and Ireland - people who populate huge swaths of the South brought that attitude with them.

Scottish protestants who were used by Elizabeth, James, and Charles in the "plantation" of Ulster in the 16th and 17th centuries as the tip of the spear are some of the toughest, most martial, and socially paranoid people I have ever encountered (if I may be permitted this stereotype; I have many Ulster-Scots friends in Ireland who are none of the above).

They were chosen by the English as the folks who would be sent to Ireland to take the good land from the locals, cultivate it, defend it, and make the province a revenue producer for the British crown.

Many of them stayed a generation or three, felt stabbed in the back by the British - as many still do today for somewhat different reasons - and hightailed it over the pond to Virginia and the Carolinas.

And JPWREL - absolutely right. I don't shock easily, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the nastiness and vehemence of some of the comments - including a couple from the left - but I really didn't expect some of this stuff.

They displayed - and continue to display many of the same traits here: militaristic, socially paranoid, prone to believe that most of their troubles are the result of some betrayal or another, and very insular. These are the people that Jim Webb writes about.

during the Antebellum years. According to Southern elite pop culture they were of old Norman stock, driven to Virginia or Carolina for their support of King Charles by those scheming, penny pinching, mercurial Anglo-Saxon Yankees. Oh there was some Scottish affectations based on a love of Sir Walter Scott's romantic musings, but even here the emphasis was less Celtic hill tribesman and more aristocratic. There also was a Scotch-Irish (never Scots, which is actually a newer form, if you please) group, but that identity has been vastly expanded to include lots of people who never thought of themselves as such. I include my county in this; little or no Ulster Scots here, but you wouldn't know it from reading the claptrap they print up for the tourists. We are mountain people with a drawl so we have to be Scots-Irish.

Yanks were fine with this understanding of things until all those Southern and Eastern Europeans started pouring in and terrified the good Brahmins, who then rediscovered allies amongst the pure Anglo-Saxons deep in down in Appalachia. That nasty civil war business was already sentimentalized so it wasn't a problem. Prior to that time, Yanks had basically described Southerners in ways not much different than what lots of people use for Middle Easterners now. In fact, "saracen" was used more than once.

I'm not sure when, but at some point the untamed Celt became acquainted with the untamed Southerner. Gibson did a heck of alot in the 1990s to spurn this on. All my cousins who are into this stuff eat Braveheart up. And when you explain the historical inaccuracies they engage in cognitive dissonance. I'm always amused at Southern neoConfederates who do the Celtic victim thing, but then hate on Ted Kennedy; he was also a master of Celtic victimization, though.

In more recent years neoConfederates have established links with their equally victimized celtic brothers in Northern Italy, members of the Lega Nord.

The Scotch-Irish Calvinist connection partially explains the South, but there is a lot that it doesn't. And I think some of the more aggressive aspects of Southern culture are a product of structural deficiencies caused by slavery and general lower-class British behaviors that were imported.

Really interesting post.

I certainly wouldn't argue with your point about "general lower-class British behaviors" in any way. Nobody would ever accuse them of being peaceful - these are the same folks as the British soldiers and freebooters who took over a large portion of the planet, and they definitely didn't do it by loving their neighbors.

A couple of small points. Goofy Neo-Confederates can mess around with Celtic identity BS (ala Braveheart) and STILL hate Ted Kennedy. See - the Scots-Irish Celts were different from the darker Irish Celts. The Scots came out of Asia, across central Europe to get to the British Isles and Ireland, while the Irish Celts were from a branch that split off about 2500 years ago and went South of the Caspian Sea, into the Levant, across North Africa and up into Spain and from there to Ireland. DIFFERENT CELTS, got it? So they are allowed to hate each other.

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know when I say that Braveheart was about 90% fiction. 100% of the characterizations certainly were.

As for being Normans, not counting the Norman knights who colonized Ireland and tried in parts of Scotland in the 12 century, they went native pretty quickly. Many retained their Norman names but became Irish in every other way. My wife's maiden name is Hayes, a Norman name, and her family is as Irish as can be.

I was under the impression that Virginia, and the the folks who followed Boone through the Cumberland Gap were mainly Ulster-Scots, whereas Georgia and South Carolina had the English migrants.

The Scottish and Irish regiments of the British army were always the toughest. For a lot of reasons that predate the plantation of either the North of Ireland or the South of the US these folks make some of the best soldiers the world has ever seen.

Black Confederates Honors

http://www.youtube.com/v/Um9yHU2ahOc

Behind the Dixie Stars

www.youtube.com/v/YF-QIJyLhKQ

It will shed a lot of light on the fact that the Civil War was not about slavery. There were over 250,000 FREE Black People in the South at the time the Civil War started. And at that time, the largest plantation in the entire South, was owned by a Black man who owned Black Slaves. There's been a lot of history erased by the left that needs to be brought to light! These Black Men fought for their cause, secession from the North, with honor and courage, and a strong belief in it. They were prospering in the South! Most of them did not want to leave the South. We have been lied to for eons because the left took control of our school system's history books! They kept out some of the most important people in Southern history! The Black Confederate Soldier.

War pig? As opposed to whom? Stalin? Kaiser Wilhelm? Please explain.

What would you have proposed he do after a bunch of states left the union and some rebels took over a bunch of artillery and shot up a US Army facility out in the middle of Charleston harbor?

We can argue Lincoln's motives, and there is (and has been since the day he was shot) a tendency to make him into more than he was, but to call him a "war pig" seems more than a little over the top.

JSINAIKO - Apparently admiral slept in private school. Truth be known, President Lincoln felt both sides shared responsibility for the War, and to that end the ultimate cost of it. He therefore believed that both sides should also share in the victory. It is known that talking with General's Grant and Sherman aboard the steamboat River Queen, that he told them both to "let'em down easy," seeing that the end was finally near.

That doesn't sound like a war monger to me.

It is also known Lincoln intended to personally steer the Union back together and told his general's to not concern themselves with the politics. Unfortunately a man by the name of John Wilkes Booth intervened and we'll never know. : |

It is plain and simple for any one who has a grip on the political history of the US, to see the real Lincoln as a brutal and murderous dictator.

This site is an all out nationalistic bent web site, as well as most of the commenters here. Fair enough. The nationalistic war mongrels prop up the war criminal Lincoln in order to perpetuate their nationalistic desires of world empire. In today´s America it is impossible to have an honest debate regarding the real Lincoln, and his utter contempt and disregard of our Constitution and the common law.

The nationalist war mongrels won, and as their fellow nationalist Hermann Goering put it so well. ¨The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused.¨

Admiral -

I have a grip on the political history of the US, and am a lefty to boot. And you still aren't making any sense at all.

It's easy to make over=riding statements as if they were undeniable facts. That doesn't make it the case. Please explain in a way us mere mortals and mental defectives can understand.

Lincoln was a racist! He only wanted to abolish slavery because he thought if they were free, they would get back on their boats and go back to Africa! He didn't like the black race and didn't want them in his country!! And obama emulates the guy? Evidently, he doesn't know his history very well.

Black Confederates Honors

http://www.youtube.com/v/Um9yHU2ahOc

Behind the Dixie Stars

www.youtube.com/v/YF-QIJyLhKQ

These 2 videos are about what truths were omitted from our liberal history books

Black Confederates Honors

http://www.youtube.com/v/Um9yHU2ahOc

Behind the Dixie Stars

www.youtube.com/v/YF-QIJyLhKQ

These two videos will show you some truths you did not know about. There was so much omitted from our history books. At the time of the Civil War, there were already 250,000 FREE BLACK PEOPLE. And at the time of the CW, the largest plantation in the South, was owned by a black man who owned black slaves. The CW was not about slavery, it was about secession from the North. The victor of the battle can usually be found to have 'enhanced' their 'cause' to make them seem more noble than the loser.

Black Confederates Honors

http://www.youtube.com/v/Um9yHU2ahOc

Behind the Dixie Stars

www.youtube.com/v/YF-QIJyLhKQ

The are the reason for the wedge between all races. They omitted so many truths from our school system's history books. This will be the last time I post the links for these videos because I do not want to be accused of spamming. But, I think it is of the utmost importance to get the truth out. I am a member of a forum called "SodaHead" and a black man whom I've befriended, is from Georgia and posted these links to the videos on that website. I learned a lot from them! I hope others will too. At the time of the CW, there were over 250,000 FREE BLACK PEOPLE in the South! The man who owned the largest plantation in the South at that time, was a black man who owned slaves. Even in VA, there was a man, a black man, named Johnson, who owned black slaves. These are just a few of the things OMITTED from our history books by none other than the left wing libs.

Black Confederates Honors

http://www.youtube.com/v/Um9yHU2ahOc

Behind the Dixie Stars

www.youtube.com/v/YF-QIJyLhKQ

Like my grandmother used to say when she saw the civil rights marchers being beaten,
"We just didn't let that good General Sherman finish his godly work."

Yeah, I thought of the Ayran stuff when I was thinking about the silly Celtic stuff. All of it smacks of the same racial purity crap the Nazis spewed - and that's where things get tricky around the CSA revivalist stuff. From what I can tell the Klan isn't dead and there is more than a smidgen of their racial POV in some of the Celtic stuff. Eugenics, garden variety racism, violent solutions to social issues, and heightened nostalgia for the "way things used to be," and over-heated symbols (stars & bars, burning crosses, hakenkreuz, etc.) are all passengers on the same raft.

In N. Ireland I used to hear lots of [mainly] older protestants wonder why Catholics were so angry when things were great back in the 60 and 50s and everyone got along, and there was never any trouble. Talk to older Catholics and their response to this was "yeah, everything was fine as long as I knew my place and kept my head very far down and didn't complain if the cops beat me up or my kid was beaten if he went into the wrong neighborhood."

I have heard many similar statements from American Southerners: "there was racial harmony before civil rights came and spoiled everything." And notwithstanding Nat Turner and a few others there was racial harmony when African-Americans were human chattel as well. I remember in Germany in about 1977 sitting in a train compartment and listening to older folks discussing how in the "old days we had something to believe in, and some order and discipline." They didn't know I understood and spoke German. I was happy to say "ich bin ein Juden" when I left the compartment.

In discussing the Virginia stuff with a couple of friends I was reminded of the Dad of an old friend from grade school The Dad - a prominent law prof at U of Chicago (if I named him you might know the name) - was originally from Virginia (and has a very un-Scots-Irish name). At parties he would get plowed and start bragging about the "100 slaves my grand-pappy owned." These memories date back to the mid 60s - the height of the civil rights movement and the riots here in Chicago. I remember him shouting (while very deep in his cups) "when the blacks (not the word he used) start coming up my street I'll be the guy behind the tripod of the 50 cal!" His kids were permanently mortified. The older and more pickled he got, the worse he was. This was my introduction to the genteel old South.

I have no tolerance for the ignorant, coded garbage some of these folks spew. Things always look great when you are standing with your heel on someone else's neck. See Yertle The Turtle by Dr. Seuss for a classic demonstration.

Does any of this mean that I think the average confederate soldier was akin to a Nazi? No, but the modern revivalist movement and "lost causers" are getting pretty close.