Jim Webb vs US Grant
In today's edition of TPM there is a post about Jim Webb's views regarding the Civil War and how that might damage his chance to be the VP nominee. First, I don't think Webb is a very good choice mostly because he will be a much better Senator and have far more power in the Senate than as VP. We need his voice in the Senate cajoling and shaming other Democrats into acting like Democrats instead of cowardly, craven politicians as they are want to do. But also, I don't want to see anyone taken from the Senate who we may not be able to replace with a Democrat.
As for Webb's views on the Civil War he's just wrong. It appears that Webb clings to some of the standard exculpatory rationale that many others also share regarding what those who fought for the south believed in and so on. I believe it is extremely important for Americans to understand quite clearly why the Civil War occured and what those who would have destroyed the United States were fighting for. I further believe it dishonors all those who sacrificed and suffered so much as slaves and as wounded or killed US soldiers to allow the truth about the war to be blurred. I think it important to remember that more US soldiers died in the Civil War than in all the other wars we have participated in combined! Over and above the military deaths, millions of men, women and children were held under the cruelest conditions of slavery for centuries and their descendants still feel the negative after effects. Thus, glossing over the cause of the Civil War and why some southern men chose to fight for the destruction of the Union is thus a great disservice even to our citizens today.
While a deep understanding of the Civil War naturally requires an appreciation of many of the details of life and thought in that time and so forth, the reason the war was fought is crystal clear and it was also crystal clear at the time: slavery. And thus, all those who fought for the side of treason fought for slavery primarily and they knew that. It is also true that many southern men fought because they were forced to do so by impressment gangs established by the illegitimate state regimes throughout the south, but that's a whole different issue.
By the way, the night before last, Stephen Colbert did a brilliant piece on this question during "The Word" segment. I highly recommend it to all. It was devastatingly witty, sharp, on point and hillarious!
But back to the question of whether sovereignty or slavery was the issue for which southerners fought. It is clear to me after much study of the Civil War that the only part of that line of argument that is genuinely factual is that those who fought against the United States did so with a great deal of skill, courage, and gallantry. It ends there.
While one might be able to find evidence that a particular individual may have actually believed more in the absurd notion of the sovereignty of the states and was thus willing to destroy the Union over it, it is simply beyond question that in the larger sense, this alleged belief was never anything more than political cover designed to dress up the defense of slavery and the destruction of the union in order to maintain it.
Tactically speaking, it seems to me not unlike how in today's political environment Bushco fell back on democratizing Iraq when it was clear all along that the WMD's didn't exist and securing the oil fields was the primary objective for the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq. Though Bush and his henchmen continue to deny this truth, their denials do not make the truth any less true. The denials do, however, serve to obfuscate the truth and those who believe these lies fail to understand what has taken place. So too, the claims of all those who have made the sort of argument Webb has made serve only to obfuscate the truth. These sorts of claims versus the truth about why southern men fought against the United States often end up in a sort of he said/she said stalemate which is unfortunate and keeps people from understanding the reality behind the Civil War.
I don't believe that Webb or most of the people who sincerely believe these claims are deliberately lying about why soldiers fought and what they believed in. I do believe it is much more comforting for them to believe that their own ancestors were not fighting solely for the evil of slavery and so they choose to emphasize what is now far more palatable than the real truth. They cannot bear the idea that their ancestors were traitors--though traitors they were. They can be forgiven for being in error on this, but such claims should never be treated as though they were/are equally valid with the real truth of the matter.
In short, it is beyond question that the south seceded solely for the defense and preservation of human slavery. Period. All other claims are false and serve only to obfuscate the truth about why the war was fought and why so many lost their lives. Yes, it was a complicated time and many arguments were made by various people at various times, but the war would never even have been considered had the interests of the slave powers not been the issue.
I rely on many sources I have read over the years for this conclusion, but I believe the best single, succinct source is the nation's greatest military hero and a great President (all the propaganda about him notwithstanding) who has never been given his full due: Ulysses S. Grant.
In his memoirs, among many, many other things, Grant elaborates about the conditions and circumstances leading up to the war, the reasons for the conflict, what motivated the participants and more. Grant made clear also, what he thought about the reasons the war was fought when reflecting upon his acceptance of Lee's surrender at Appamatox. With genuine respect to Senator Webb, Grant is a far more credible source than he or any of the other apologists for treason in my opinion.
In the event others might be interested in Grant's writing on these matters without having to read the entirety of the book, I am posting below some excerpts from the Memoirs of US Grant to demonstrate how clearly and how long it has been known that the arguments Webb and others make are simply untrue and serve no other purpose than to justifiy the participation of southern soldiers in the treasonous attempt at secession in order to defend and preserve human slavery. Given his involvement and when he wrote the memoirs, Grant certainly cannot be considered a revisionist academic who, of late, has decided for political reasons to try and recast the causes or motives for the Civil War.
I hope that some will find these rxcerpts of interest. The headings are mine.
ON THE HONEST REASONS FOR THE WAR AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECESSION
As for Webb's views on the Civil War he's just wrong. It appears that Webb clings to some of the standard exculpatory rationale that many others also share regarding what those who fought for the south believed in and so on. I believe it is extremely important for Americans to understand quite clearly why the Civil War occured and what those who would have destroyed the United States were fighting for. I further believe it dishonors all those who sacrificed and suffered so much as slaves and as wounded or killed US soldiers to allow the truth about the war to be blurred. I think it important to remember that more US soldiers died in the Civil War than in all the other wars we have participated in combined! Over and above the military deaths, millions of men, women and children were held under the cruelest conditions of slavery for centuries and their descendants still feel the negative after effects. Thus, glossing over the cause of the Civil War and why some southern men chose to fight for the destruction of the Union is thus a great disservice even to our citizens today.
While a deep understanding of the Civil War naturally requires an appreciation of many of the details of life and thought in that time and so forth, the reason the war was fought is crystal clear and it was also crystal clear at the time: slavery. And thus, all those who fought for the side of treason fought for slavery primarily and they knew that. It is also true that many southern men fought because they were forced to do so by impressment gangs established by the illegitimate state regimes throughout the south, but that's a whole different issue.
By the way, the night before last, Stephen Colbert did a brilliant piece on this question during "The Word" segment. I highly recommend it to all. It was devastatingly witty, sharp, on point and hillarious!
But back to the question of whether sovereignty or slavery was the issue for which southerners fought. It is clear to me after much study of the Civil War that the only part of that line of argument that is genuinely factual is that those who fought against the United States did so with a great deal of skill, courage, and gallantry. It ends there.
While one might be able to find evidence that a particular individual may have actually believed more in the absurd notion of the sovereignty of the states and was thus willing to destroy the Union over it, it is simply beyond question that in the larger sense, this alleged belief was never anything more than political cover designed to dress up the defense of slavery and the destruction of the union in order to maintain it.
Tactically speaking, it seems to me not unlike how in today's political environment Bushco fell back on democratizing Iraq when it was clear all along that the WMD's didn't exist and securing the oil fields was the primary objective for the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq. Though Bush and his henchmen continue to deny this truth, their denials do not make the truth any less true. The denials do, however, serve to obfuscate the truth and those who believe these lies fail to understand what has taken place. So too, the claims of all those who have made the sort of argument Webb has made serve only to obfuscate the truth. These sorts of claims versus the truth about why southern men fought against the United States often end up in a sort of he said/she said stalemate which is unfortunate and keeps people from understanding the reality behind the Civil War.
I don't believe that Webb or most of the people who sincerely believe these claims are deliberately lying about why soldiers fought and what they believed in. I do believe it is much more comforting for them to believe that their own ancestors were not fighting solely for the evil of slavery and so they choose to emphasize what is now far more palatable than the real truth. They cannot bear the idea that their ancestors were traitors--though traitors they were. They can be forgiven for being in error on this, but such claims should never be treated as though they were/are equally valid with the real truth of the matter.
In short, it is beyond question that the south seceded solely for the defense and preservation of human slavery. Period. All other claims are false and serve only to obfuscate the truth about why the war was fought and why so many lost their lives. Yes, it was a complicated time and many arguments were made by various people at various times, but the war would never even have been considered had the interests of the slave powers not been the issue.
I rely on many sources I have read over the years for this conclusion, but I believe the best single, succinct source is the nation's greatest military hero and a great President (all the propaganda about him notwithstanding) who has never been given his full due: Ulysses S. Grant.
In his memoirs, among many, many other things, Grant elaborates about the conditions and circumstances leading up to the war, the reasons for the conflict, what motivated the participants and more. Grant made clear also, what he thought about the reasons the war was fought when reflecting upon his acceptance of Lee's surrender at Appamatox. With genuine respect to Senator Webb, Grant is a far more credible source than he or any of the other apologists for treason in my opinion.
In the event others might be interested in Grant's writing on these matters without having to read the entirety of the book, I am posting below some excerpts from the Memoirs of US Grant to demonstrate how clearly and how long it has been known that the arguments Webb and others make are simply untrue and serve no other purpose than to justifiy the participation of southern soldiers in the treasonous attempt at secession in order to defend and preserve human slavery. Given his involvement and when he wrote the memoirs, Grant certainly cannot be considered a revisionist academic who, of late, has decided for political reasons to try and recast the causes or motives for the Civil War.
I hope that some will find these rxcerpts of interest. The headings are mine.
ON THE HONEST REASONS FOR THE WAR AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECESSION
"In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,--"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we
know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,--''Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution
did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the
probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.
