American Civil War, yet again

[NaarioDaharis]

OK, let's clarify the whole Confederacy and Civil War thing...

There was no "Civil War."

This is a topic in which the victors truly did rewrite history.

I know, at this point you're rolling your eyes and getting ready for a laugh, but here's the historical facts.

1. Lincoln never ran on the basis of anti-slavery. Throughout his campaign as president, he always supported the continuation of slavery in the South.

2. There was much more than the issue of slavery on the line. The South was heavily taxed to the point of generating almost no profit on their exports. The issue of slavery was always a state issue, not a country issue, hence the president could not make any of the states do anything. It was when it became clear that the government would attempt to illegally force the states to abandon slavery, which was unconstitutional, that it became clear states rights were no longer respected by the government. Lincoln heavily disrespected the constitution and our national rights, much like Obama does now.

3. The Confederate States did not fight to keep their slaves. Only about 5% of the southern population owned any substantial number of slaves. Most of them fought for the indepence of their states, which seems a ridiculous notion nowadays, but back then, the U.S. government did not have as much power over states. That happened after the "Civil War."

4. When the Confederate States broke from the Union, all the leaders, except for Alexander Stevens, actually opposed the continuation of slavery in the long run. They expected it would slowly die out, and planned on helping it along without completely decimating the economy. Lincoln never insisted that slavery be abolished before the Civil War.

5. The South did not start the Civil War. Fort Sumter, now a Confederate-owned property, was occupied by Union troops, another country's troops. The confederacy asked again and again for the union troops to remove themselves from the fort, but they refused. Lincoln then sent more troops into another country to reinforce a fort, an obvious act of enmity. The confederates fired upon Fort Sumter, killing no one, causing no bloodshed. Lincoln used this as his excuse to engage in war upon the Confederacy. He had to be the good guy in this war, so he needed the confederacy to "strike" first.

6. The South never invaded the north or burnt their lands. They wanted nothing from the north except to be left alone. The north engaged in scorched earth policies that have crippling the US economy to this day.

7. Europe, and the Pope, favored the cause of the Confederacy over the Union up until the Emancipation Proclamation.

8. The Emancipation Proclamation never freed a single slave and was illegal. A president did not have the right to chance state law, so it actually did nothing at all ever. BUT, it turned the Civil War into the moral war we see it as today. After this, no european country could back the Confederacy without being seen as supporting slavery, considered a distasteful tradition elsewhere in the world.

The Confederacy was not some evil empire intent on the continued enslavement of blacks for time immemorial. Go read a book on the actual accounts of the Civil War. Not just your high school history book.

[MerenthaClone]

OK, let's clarify the whole Confederacy and Civil War thing...

Lets not. However, I'll agree that there was no "Civil War." There was only the War of the Rebellion.

[Summah]

ND,

I agree with the other that a new thread should be started if you really want to have a debate you cannot possibly win. That said, the "states' right" is the right to own slaves, is that something you really want to defend? If it is, we have nothing to talk about. Go read the declarations of secessions of the southern states, they make it quite clear that secession was about slavery. If you do that and you think there's still something to debate open a thread and see if you can find people to debate with.

[sToNED_CAT]

1. Lincoln never ran on the basis of anti-slavery. Throughout his campaign as president, he always supported the continuation of slavery in the South.

Of course, he he wasn't so stupid to alienate loyal slave states. Still it was generally known, that if he won it would be game over for slavery.

2. There was much more than the issue of slavery on the line. The South was heavily taxed to the point of generating almost no profit on their exports.

Some southern states hated tariffs almost so much as abolitionists indeed, but for most of them the impact wasn't that bad.

3. The Confederate States did not fight to keep their slaves. Only about 5% of the southern population owned any substantial number of slaves. Most of them fought for the indepence of their states, which seems a ridiculous notion nowadays, but back then, the U.S. government did not have as much power over states. That happened after the "Civil War."

Many rank and file fought for freedom, indeed. But the guys on top who were issuing orders fought for slavery.

4. When the Confederate States broke from the Union, all the leaders, except for Alexander Stevens, actually opposed the continuation of slavery in the long run. They expected it would slowly die out, and planned on helping it along without completely decimating the economy.

The fact is they wanted to keep slavery intact as long as possible. Even forever. And they never showed a concrete plan how to phase slavery out, indeed something like this meant political death for any southern politician.

6. The South never invaded the north or burnt their lands. They wanted nothing from the north except to be left alone. The north engaged in scorched earth policies that have crippling the US economy to this day.

Complete nonsense, they did a lot of damaging raids, Sherman was just far more successful.

7. Europe, and the Pope, favored the cause of the Confederacy over the Union up until the Emancipation Proclamation.

UK and France govts favored COnfederacy, because they thought Union to be too democratic and they saw USA as emerging rival.

[Wise Fool]

OK, let's clarify the whole Confederacy and Civil War thing...

There was no "Civil War."

This is a topic in which the victors truly did rewrite history.

1. Lincoln never ran on the basis of anti-slavery. Throughout his campaign as president, he always supported the continuation of slavery in the South.

This is like arguing that because GW Bush did not campaign on the basis of a war against terrorism, the US never waged war on terrorists.

2. There was much more than the issue of slavery on the line. The South was heavily taxed to the point of generating almost no profit on their exports. The issue of slavery was always a state issue, not a country issue, hence the president could not make any of the states do anything. It was when it became clear that the government would attempt to illegally force the states to abandon slavery, which was unconstitutional, that it became clear states rights were no longer respected by the government. Lincoln heavily disrespected the constitution and our national rights, much like Obama does now.

3. The Confederate States did not fight to keep their slaves. Only about 5% of the southern population owned any substantial number of slaves. Most of them fought for the indepence of their states, which seems a ridiculous notion nowadays, but back then, the U.S. government did not have as much power over states. That happened after the "Civil War."

Ah yes, the "state's rights." What rights, specifically, now? Remind me. Oh wait, the seceding states already made that fairly clear themselves.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

....the right to own slaves. Not, in fact, merely to own slaves, but to continue slavery, to expand it and protect it. And they felt threatened by "negro equality." And far from being some new Lincoln-concocted thing, they were complaining about the "hostility" to the "institution of slavery" beginning as far back as 1787.

So your claim that they did not fight for the right to own slaves is patently, demonstrably false.

The South did not start the Civil War.

Didn't you just say there was no Civil War? Now you're referring to it just like everybody else. ;) Maybe you should be more consistent when you want to rewrite history.

The Confederacy was not some evil empire intent on the continued enslavement of blacks for time immemorial. Go read a book on the actual accounts of the Civil War. Not just your high school history book.

Yeah - they were. But you've managed to convince yourself it's all about "states rights" and the constitution and you even managed to get in a stab at Obama for his (equally imaginary) attacks on them too. Good show. I doubt there's any arguing with you. You probably think Cliven Bundy was right when he was telling us all about "the Negro" and I would guess you sympathize with his "standing up to tyranny" nonsense. Am I wrong there?

[Mad Monkey]

Do Confederacy sympathizers really believe that anyone is going to buy it when they try to rewrite reality now? It's 2014 -- you could probably divide the population of the United States at least into two groups; people who care a lot about the Civil War and study its history, and people who don't care at all about the Civil War and barely remember anything other than the most basic history class facts about it. The latter won't care about long and dishonest "states' rights" arguments and the former won't believe them.

[Linsox]

You could start by recommending some of these books you allude to rather than throw out a list of arguments and insult our intelligence. You're not gonna win any converts this way.

[Galactus]

There was no "Civil War."

It was referred to such by outsiders at the time. It was referred to as such by the newspapers at the time. (it is not, however, the official name for the conflict, that is, according to the US military staff "The War of the Rebellion", which I've always liked) Karl Marx (just to pick a contemporary) wrote several articles on the American Civil War. Most countries used the term, or terms roughly similar. (the swedish term, Amerikanska Inbördeskriget, literally means "(The)American Internal war/The war amongst americans themselves")

Southerners seems to have called it "The Second American Revolution" a lot. Although to most people in the US it was just "The War".

1. Lincoln never ran on the basis of anti-slavery. Throughout his campaign as president, he always supported the continuation of slavery in the South.

Correct, Lincoln however did run as a Free-Soiler (IE: Opposed to the expansion of slavery into the west) Lincoln always (and fairly consistently) saw slavery as a great moral evil, it was not however, his primary concern most of the time, (either as a politician or privately)

Going by the records availible however, he seems to have genuinely changed his mind on the issue as the war went on. (the war seems to have had a great deal of psychological impact on Lincoln, making him much more introspective)

2. There was much more than the issue of slavery on the line. The South was heavily taxed to the point of generating almost no profit on their exports. The issue of slavery was always a state issue, not a country issue, hence the president could not make any of the states do anything. It was when it became clear that the government would attempt to illegally force the states to abandon slavery, which was unconstitutional, that it became clear states rights were no longer respected by the government. Lincoln heavily disrespected the constitution and our national rights, much like Obama does now.

Correct.. Except that all of these things tie back to slavery. The southern agricultural economy was run on the basis of slavery. (that's not to say everyone was a slave, but the slaves were the ones producing the goods the south was exporting, and most of the rest of the southern economy was in some sense ancillary to the slave-complex, either producing supporting stuff (growing food to sell to plantations, providing tools for the production and luxuries for the consumption of the products of slavery, etc.) The Northern economy was (and had been previously) to some extent tied into the cotton-complex as well, but as the 19th century went on their integration lessened significantly. (at the outbreak of the Civil War the slaves were still worth more than all the factories of the North, though)

Southerners had no problems utilizing the federal government to crush dissent when it was in the interests of expanding slavery. (Including refusing to let new states chose their status, slave or free, on thier own, as well as impositions on the laws of other states such as the Dred Scott decision) So southern "States Rights" rhetoric was just that: Rhetoric, they were perfectly capable of abondoning it when pragmatic.

The confederacy also (again, ironically) behaved far more centralistic and high-handed than the Union during the conduct of the actual war. Furthermore, Lincoln had at the point of his accession done absolutely nothing illegal or unconstitutional whatsoever: The Southern states simply seceeded before he ever had time to do so. (and here I'd like to point out that you're contradicting yourself, first stating that Lincoln never ran as an anti-slavery advocate, yet he was about to abolish slavery? That does not make any sense)

Tariff policy is, of course, one of the powers explicitly delegated to the US government, so even if the Morril tariff was unpopular in certain segments of the population, it was duly enacted.

The Tariffs were also not an export-tariff: It did not affect the profit marigins of southerners at all. What it DID was raise the prices of the products southerners had to import from overseas. Since they no longer imported the means of production (IE: Slaves) it didn't cut into their profits too much, althoiugh it did make buying stuff slightly more expensive, as they had to buy from american producers, and couldn't buy from workshop of the World.

3. The Confederate States did not fight to keep their slaves. Only about 5% of the southern population owned any substantial number of slaves. Most of them fought for the indepence of their states, which seems a ridiculous notion nowadays, but back then, the U.S. government did not have as much power over states. That happened after the "Civil War."

Most southerners probably fought for the same reason most people fight: Because they were told to. This is the case for all individual soldiers, from nazi germany to the roman empire. That does not mean, however, that slavery was not a crucial issue: It was certainly the deciding factors for the southerners who actually started the war. It was also how the war was funded, the officers were almost all from the planter-class, etc. etc. And even if a person did not own slaves himself, he was still inextricably bound up in the slave-complex: He almost certainly sold food on the market, that went to either the slaves or their masters, or he produced tools the slaves used, or he sold fine clothes to the slaves' masters, etc. etc. Think of one of those towns centered around one big industry, say a factory, or a mine, or some such. The South was ALL like that, and the one big industry was slave-staffed agriculture. Even if you didn't work there directly, you were involved.

4. When the Confederate States broke from the Union, all the leaders, except for Alexander Stevens, actually opposed the continuation of slavery in the long run. They expected it would slowly die out, and planned on helping it along without completely decimating the economy. Lincoln never insisted that slavery be abolished before the Civil War.

Who are "all the leaders" in this context? That was largely the position of Lincoln, and most northerners, yes. The Southern states however, clung fiercely to the idea of slavery. (of course they would, it was how they made their money) some of them might acknowlededge that slavery ought to go at some future time, most considered slavery the natural state of blacks, and thus should be kept forever. Southerners did not simply try to keep slavery, but often deliberately sought to expand it (which was arguably the most important cause of friction with the North) and many were also dreaming of spreading slavery outside of the South Proper (such as the Central America) even if they did acknowledge that slavery might have to go at some future unspecified time they not only were not about to work to curtail it, but they were actively seeking to strengthen it.

5. The South did not start the Civil War. Fort Sumter, now a Confederate-owned property, was occupied by Union troops, another country's troops. The confederacy asked again and again for the union troops to remove themselves from the fort, but they refused. Lincoln then sent more troops into another country to reinforce a fort, an obvious act of enmity. The confederates fired upon Fort Sumter, killing no one, causing no bloodshed. Lincoln used this as his excuse to engage in war upon the Confederacy. He had to be the good guy in this war, so he needed the confederacy to "strike" first.

Fort Sumter was federal property. The confederates sought to steal it. The Union forces refused.

6. The South never invaded the north or burnt their lands. They wanted nothing from the north except to be left alone. The north engaged in scorched earth policies that have crippling the US economy to this day.

The south did invade the Union: Lee's invasion of Maryland that ended with Gettysburg most famously. (there were also raids by southerners in the west, into union territories) this is simply false.

7. Europe, and the Pope, favored the cause of the Confederacy over the Union up until the Emancipation Proclamation.

The french favoured the confederates. The british slightly so, the russians were hostile (Alexander II was in the process of freeing the serfs, which he saw as analogous Lincoln's work) The germans (both Prussia and Austria) seems to have been largely unconcerned.

The populace at large, however, was almost entirely pro-Union (british mill workers, dependant on confederate cotton, donated money to the Union) as was almost the entire of the political left: Garibaldi offered to lead the union armies. (Lincoln politely declined) Hecker enlisted, as did many other veterans of 1848 and others. The Union recieved many more volunteers than the confederacy did. Karl Marx wrote (actually pretty good) analyses of the war.

8. The Emancipation Proclamation never freed a single slave and was illegal. A president did not have the right to chance state law, so it actually did nothing at all ever. BUT, it turned the Civil War into the moral war we see it as today. After this, no european country could back the Confederacy without being seen as supporting slavery, considered a distasteful tradition elsewhere in the world.

Correct. He did not have the power to change state law, which is why he didn't (at that time, that would be saved for the post-Civil War amendments) he WAS however, Commander-in-Chief, that meant he had the right to dispose of any spoils of war as he saw fit. Slaves were spoils of war, so he disposed of them by freeing them. (hence why the Proclamation only applies to slaves held by states in rebellion) It was not enacted in his capacity as legislator, but as military commander.

The Confederacy was not some evil empire intent on the continued enslavement of blacks for time immemorial. Go read a book on the actual accounts of the Civil War. Not just your high school history book.

They pretty much were, honestly.

[TerraPrime]

They pretty much were, honestly.

Yup. Thanks for the point-by-point, too.

It amuses me to no end that the Confederacy apologists latch on the simplification of the complex history of the American Civil War, typically found in most High School textbooks, as evidence that the Confederacy's legacy has been unjustly maligned, as if the motivation and actions of the Confederat leaders were not documented for all to see. Were every Confederate soldier racist and a slave-owner? No, of course not. Just like there were slave-holders fighting on the Union side. But slavery was the issue that divided the country on both moral and economical terms, both of which contributed to the political antecedents that culminated in the Civil War.

[The Fallen]

` What's the point of this? How does it change anything? Or is it an attempt to sweeten an odious chapter of the south's history.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Galactus

Booyah on Garibaldi!

[Horza]

Fort Sumter was federal property. The confederates sought to steal it. The Union forces refused.

You are clearly misinformed.

[drawkcabi]

Booyah on Garibaldi!

seconded

[The Marquis de Leech]

Let's take a look at those declarations of secession, shall we?

South Carolina:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Translation: The Federal Government isn't safeguarding the institution of slavery. Those pesky Northern States are using States Rights to promote abolitionism.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississppi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Admirably clear in its intent, isn't it?

Texas:

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

Translation: the Federal Government is trying to destroy slavery.

Florida:

By the agency of a large proportion of the members from the non slaveholding States books have been published and circulated amongst us the direct tendency and avowed purpose of which is to excite insurrection and servile war with all their attendant horrors. A President has recently been elected, an obscure and illiterate man without experience in public affairs or any general reputation mainly if not exclusively on account of a settled and often proclaimed hostility to our institutions and a fixed purpose to abolish them. It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act. This has never been charged by any one. But it has been announced by all the leading men and presses of the party that the ultimate accomplishment of this result is its settled purpose and great central principle. That no more slave States shall be admitted into the confederacy and that the slaves from their rapid increase (the highest evidence of the humanity of their owners will become value less. Nothing is more certain than this and at no distant day. What must be the condition of the slaves themselves when their number becomes so large that their labor will be of no value to their owners. Their natural tendency every where shown where the race has existed to idleness vagrancy and crime increased by an inability to procure subsistence. Can any thing be more impudently false than the pretense that this state of things is to be brought about from considerations of humanity to the slaves.

It is in so many words saying to you we will not burn you at the stake but we will torture you to death by a slow fire we will not confiscate your property and consign you to a residence and equality with the african but that destiny certainly awaits your children – and you must quietly submit or we will force you to submission – men who can hesitate to resist such aggressions are slaves already and deserve their destiny. The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise. It is manifest that they will not because to do so would be the dissolution of the party.

The Civil War was started by a bunch of slave-drivers who were sulking about losing an election. They then lost the resulting War they started. I believe the expression is "good riddance".

[The Marquis de Leech]

UK public opinion was overwhelmingly pro-Union. The only leverage the Confederacy had was cotton, and once the UK managed to get its hands on alternative sources, the Government was never going to recognise the South.

[sologdin]

not to waive objections to the other theses, but no. 6 is inconsistent with lee & davis' strategy as articulated in the campaigns that resulted in antietam and gettysburg. these campaigns were proper raids, i.e., advances beyond the army's lines of communication, as opposed to textbook penetrations, supplied along their own communications.

lee and davis regarded the gettysburg and antietam campaigns as logistical and strategic succsses precisely because they supplied their army on union resources and kept the AotP away from richmond, even if the famous battles were not tactical successes.

these raids were different in degree but not in kind from sherman's coarse chevauchee, no doubt.

i refer the kindly interlocutor to hathaway & jones in how the north won.

[awesome possum]

OK, let's clarify the whole Confederacy and Civil War thing...

There was no "Civil War."

Your topic is bad and you should feel bad.

[Mad Monkey]

` What's the point of this? How does it change anything? Or is it an attempt to sweeten an odious chapter of the south's history.

That's one of the things I really don't get. Why do people feel the need to revise reality like this? It's not convincing, it doesn't seem to have any real economic or social purpose (it's not like anyone is going to say, "Oh, OK, I guess we can just do away with half the country now")... is it just a matter of personal pride? To me, trying to minimize the role of the slavery in the Civil War is like trying to tell a story about the Russian Revolution while carefully avoiding any mention of Bolsheviks.

[The Marquis de Leech]

That's one of the things I really don't get. Why do people feel the need to revise reality like this? It's not convincing, it doesn't seem to have any real economic or social purpose (it's not like anyone is going to say, "Oh, OK, I guess we can just do away with half the country now")... is it just a matter of personal pride? To me, trying to minimize the role of the slavery in the Civil War is like trying to tell a story about the Russian Revolution while carefully avoiding any mention of Bolsheviks.

I think there's three motivations:

(1) Some people like a good old-fashioned Government Conspiracy (specifically the US Libertarian Right, who for reasons only known to them, identify with the Confederacy, and downplay the slavery element in favour of highbrow constitutionalism).

(2) If you hate federal legislation in general and Obama in particular, it's a nice retrospective grievance against the evil Federal Government to keep you warm at night - if only everything would be handed back to the States, everything would be OK.

(3) Some people in the South possibly regard it as a heritage thing. No-one likes to think their great-great-great-grandfather fought for slavery.

[sologdin]

the fourth reason might be that some folks are objectively pro-slavery.