The War of Southern Stupidity

I am constantly amused by those who are supporters of the southern cause in the Civil War. It's amazing to think that after 130 years, a lot of people who defend the doomed and wicked cause of the South still do not have the sense to admit defeat, or even to look rationally at the wickedness of the Southern antebellum society that merited defeat. Obviously, this subject has inspired many books, and is far too large of a subject for the modest scope of this blog, but it is a worthy subject to at least broach. In my many arguments with the misguided spiritual descendents of this wicked tyrants who sought to rebel from the United States and earned their just rewards for unrighteous rebellion (not all rebellion is justified), there have been a few arguments that come with regularity.

Lincoln was an unconstitutional tyrant.

This argument appears perhaps the most often, and is usually argued by either libertarian or closet-rebel people with a modicum of knowledge in constitutional law, but with a minimum of common sense. For example, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution clearly grants the federal government the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion. Only the most fatuous of southrons would claim that Southern actions were not acts of rebellion. Furthermore, the Constitution bans stats from levying their own troops without federal permission, and allows the federal government to arm any forces necessary to supress insurrections and enforce its laws. Constitutionally, the rebels don't have any ground to stand on. It is interesting that many laws temporarily done in the Civil War for constitutional reasons (the draft, income tax) later became used for illegitimate reasons later on. However, the Union was fighting for survival, and sometimes desparate measures are necessary to ensure survival. Lincoln can hardly be blamed for the 20th century. Jefferson Davis dealt with the same problems in the south, and had many of the same solutions to it. I don't think he can be blamed for the 20th century either. Raising and crushing rebellions is desperate business, and does not set a precedent for normal governmental procedure.

1776 = 1861.

This is another common argument, where would be southern Patriots equate their rebellion against a just government with the rebellion of the United States against British colonial tyranny. There are a few major problems with this equation, however. The first is that the American colonies were colonies in 1776, without any vote in Parliament, and with a government that not only did not consider them equal citizens, but declared the right to pass any laws it wanted, regardless of the consent of the colonists. That is a pretty serious insult. On the other hand, the south was a wealthy region that was, if anything, overrepresented in Congress in 1861, and was in no danger of losing its representation, only its predominance. The patriots in 1776 fought for liberty and justice for all. The rebels in 1861 fought for the freedom to oppress others, whether that was poor whites, black slaves, or anyone who disagreed with the political ideals of the slavocracy. That's no freedom anyone ought to stand for. As a note, in the period after 1776, half of of the nation (that with fewer slaves) saw the proper extension of liberty and ended slavery voluntarily. The other half of the nation became rigid in its immoral defense of a wicked form of tyranny.

Black people didn't/don't deserve to be free.

Usually, at the base of these arguments is a certain racist assumption that only certain peoples are blessed enough to be able to enjoy the fruits of democracy. Certainly, a certain amount of wealth is necessary before democracy can be truly enjoyed (people who can barely survive are not likely to appreciate the need for freedom). However, there is no genetic marker for democracy. It is a solemn responsibility, and one that many people take for granted and misuse, but misuse of the freedoms of the US is a moral issue that is not causually related at all to race (though racial politics itself contributes to the misuse of freedoms and of government in general). Most of the time, this is an implicit part of the argument, but sometimes it is stated directly. We are all God's children alike, and we ought not to judge each other by such superficial qualities.

The Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.

This particular argument will often be advanced if the foregoing arguments have not gone so well. There will be comments about "economic determination" and "state's rights." Each argument is interesting, but rather pointless. The latter is the more important in the case of coming up with fabrige egg arguments to disguise the unpleasant truth. Defenders of the south will argue that their rebellion was over state's rights, against the tyranny of increasing federal power. This is completely flying in the face of the historical record, however. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 was an unjust expansion of federal power against the pillars of virtue in the US equal to Roe vs. Wade in its deletrious effects, if not even more severe, and with the same intent. Roe vs. Wade said fetuses could not be considered human by any law any state (or the US) tried to pass. Dred Scott said a black person could never be considered human by any law that the states or federal government could pass. The harsher Fugitive Act of 1850 was a great expansion of federal power in the protection of tyranny, and was rightly protested as such in the North. During the War of 1812 and the 1850's, there were many northern abolitionists who wished to seceede because of the evil of slavery. Until the election of Abraham Lincoln, northern free-soilers and abolitionists were the foremost state's rights supporters of all. The same is true of all minority parties. When a party is in control of the federal government, they are for the expansion of federal power. When they are out of power, they are for states' rights. Anyone who would pretend differently is profoundly ignorant of America's political history. The other argument--as to economic reasons for the civil war--mostly involve the consequences of plantation monoculture and its effects on industry, technology, and society, and are secondary effects of slavery.

In the end, the case of the south is without merit.