There are few things that divide people are much as the issue of the Confederacy's place in American history. Yesterday marked the 150th anniversary of Jefferson Davis' inauguration as President of the Confederate States of America. The city of Montgomery Alabama celebrated the historic event by hosting this reenactment. It seems that quite a few folks took this event (too) seriously.
In case any of you forgot what the Civil War was about, I will take the time to remind you: THE SOUTH WANTED TO KEEP SLAVES. All these arguments about "States' Rights" and "Northern Aggression" are irrelevant.
As for a government for the people, by the people? It's about as true as the assertion that large numbers of Black soldiers served in the Confederate Army. The Confederate Army
was made up of poor, slaveless southern Whites. Wealthy landowners, industrialists and politicians were exempted from military service, though some chose to serve. If by "The People" one means the wealthy landed class, then sure, the Confederacy was for "The People."
The quote that really got my attention was Kelley Barrow's assertion that "the people of the confederacy have been forced to the back of the bus" in reference to Rosa Park's daring decision to not give up her seat and sit at the front of the bus. It almost sounds like Nathaniel Bedford Forrest made that statement.
Photo Credit: Mark Calendine
I wish to take issue with cherry picking a bit of history. The Civial War was fought over economics. It was the South fighting for free markets against the North's anti-competive central planning. The North wanted to improve its cloth manufacturing competitiveness and therefore wanted to force the South to sell cotten to them for less than what was being offered by Europe. (I'll agree that Great Britain was probably playing around to infuriate the new nation), but the fact is that the South was offered better prices from Europe and seeked to sell their wares to them. The North, having more political clout, somewhat based on a larger number of voting citizens, (slavery definitely factored in here) wanted to force the South to adopt their cotton prices and threatened and did pass tax and import duties specifically to punish the South and force their compliance with the North's cotton pricing plan. The South returned the favor and succeeded. The Slavery issue was hardly mentioned in the beginning of the war. It wasn't until 2 years later that Slavery became the poster child. This was probably when the North's marketing people got involved and decided "Slavery" was a better rallying call, especially for the more religous North, than the truth which was that this was an issue of Free Markets and Capitalism. While I agree the European prices (especially those from Great Britain) may not have been completely Samuelson free economics and partially politically motivated, the tactics used by the North, were inappropriate to address the issue. The unfortunate fact is that history is destined to repeat itself. 150 years after the Civil War Politicians are still playing the same games. Justin, keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete