Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

At the end of the day, none of this really relates to the root causes of the Civil War, be it slavery, economics or phases of the moon. Rather Jonah’s opening remark is telling;

I think we all agree that slavery is wrong but…

Once one qualifies a statement like that then one can move on and rationalize anything. Either slavery was wrong in the context of the anti bellum South or it was not. Just as one cannot be a bit pregnant, one cannot pick and choose which parts of the Confederate cause warrant support. While history is subjective it also tends to be somewhat messy and we have to take the package deal, not select only those bits that make us feel good.

In this regard, comparisons between Southern slavery and the Nazi Holocaust are not as far fetched as one might think at first sight. Both institutions were unashamedly part of the fabric of the state, endorsed by the leadership and accepted or ignored by most not directly involved. Note that I am making no moral equivalency here, the comparison is entirely mechanical as it were. One cannot separate the Nazi’s from the Final Solution anymore than one can separate the Confederacy from the Peculiar Institution.

Slavery had started to go out of fashion in the so-called ‘civilized’ world during the 18th Century’s Age of Enlightenment, the same era that gave birth to America’s Founding Fathers. They were of their era and pragmatic enough to they know that slavery was profitable and well suited to supporting the social order that they held important. Slavery was even compatible with democracy since both Attic Greece and Republican Rome, two much admired democratic ancestors, were ardent slaveholding states. However, Europe by and large had abandoned slavery as such and even in despotic Russia, the Tsar Liberator would soon end serfdom, de facto slavery by another name.

One of the great ironies of the Civil War was that the lives of many English factory workers idled by the cotton drought were probably worse than many plantation slaves in the Confederacy. He probably lived a subsistence lifestyle in squalor, could be jailed for debt and transported by force. Corporal punishment was law and flogging was still a feature of the British Army and Royal Navy. There were still over two hundred capital crimes on the books. One could legally still be hung, drawn and quartered but admittedly that had not happened for some time. Yet, when it came down to it, the idea of personal freedom that in many ways was more theoretical than real in their world caused them to overwhelmingly support the North. Of course the Confederacy found many willing recruits but the overall failure of the textile working class to rise up and force Parliament to recognize the South must have been perplexing to Southerners in the know.

So, to the simple question, “Was the South Right?” I would submit that the answer is YES if you believe that slavery was acceptable and NO if you do not. The issue of slavery is inseparable from the Confederate cause and if the South was right, then slavery was right. One should not cherry pick the nasty bits out of one’s history just because they may be unpalatable in the here and now.

I viewed his "but" not as a rationalization for slavery but a question as to whether the federal government had the right to force the southern states to make reforms they didn't want to.

Good Hunting.

MR

Jonah is an articulate and able defender of the Cause, I would not presume to imply he was merely rationalizing slavery. My read is that by removing slavery from the central issues of the day, the righteousness of the Cause somehow becomes more acceptable. I contend that slavery cannot be separated from the Cause since without slavery there was nothing worth secession and subsequent war.

If slavery was wrong then the Federal Government had every right and duty to force emancipation upon the slave states. That it did not do so until significant amounts of blood and treasure had been spent is pretty strong evidence in my opinion, that the Confederacy got it very wrong from the start. Secession doomed slavery and the anti bellum South while giving the extreme radicals on both sides of the argument exactly what they wanted: War.

If slavery was right then there were no legal justification for Washington interfering in the affairs of the slave states so but if that was the case then there was no requirement to secede in the first place.

From where I sit, one can build any number of straw man arguments to justify the Confederate war aims but one cannot subtract the right or wrong of slavery from the Civil War equation and still keep an accurate picture of the event.

Cheers to those here treating a difficult and contentious issue with respect and civility.

ORIGINAL: haruntaiwan

Slavery is wrong. Period end of sentence.

Today noone will claim you are wrong in this remark, however this discussion cannot be made from todays viewpoints, but has to be seen by the state of mind of the people of the same time.

I believe the question "was the south right" has several answers.

1. Morally - No
2. Lawfully, in the aspect of breaking with the Union? - With no immense knowledge of the US Constitution I cannot say.
3. Lawfully, in wanting to atleast keep slavery in their own states? - Again I do not know what the constitution said about the issue at the time.

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

So, to the simple question, “Was the South Right?” I would submit that the answer is YES if you believe that slavery was acceptable and NO if you do not. The issue of slavery is inseparable from the Confederate cause and if the South was right, then slavery was right. One should not cherry pick the nasty bits out of one’s history just because they may be unpalatable in the here and now.

In your statement (I've only quoted the part I'm going to have a go at [:D]), you start out fine, however you simplify things at the end (the part above). You only adress the issue of slavery, not the issue of cecession. As you mentioned , history is a package deal, you do not get to chose bits to adress, you have to take into account the whole issue. Is slavery inseperable from the Confederacy? Off course, but so is the question of state rights, yet this you do not take into account.
That would give you more options;
1. The South was right because slavery was right
2. The South was right because each state had the right to break with the Union
3. 1+2=true
4. The South was wrong because slavery was wrong
5. The South was wrong because although each state had its right, the right to break with the Union was not one of them.
6. 4+5=true

1 and 4 both goes to moral, while 2 and 5 goes to legislation, which again makes it even more difficult.
1. The South was right because slavery was right and cecession was right
2. The South was right because slavery was right, cecession however was not
3. The South was right because cecession was legal, slavery was however not
4. The South was right because cecession was legal, slavery however was morally wrong
5. The South was wrong because slavery was wrong, and cecession was wrong
6. The South was wrong because slavery was wrong, cessession however was lawful
7. The South was wrong because cecession was wrong, slavery was immoral
8. The South was wrong because cecession was wrong, slavery however was lawful

So then the question is not just about legislation, but also about moral and ethics. The legislative questions can be answered by looking at historical documents, the moral and ethics however will be the difficult part for any of us living today, as we are incapable no matter how hard we try to see things in the ways of a person from the mid-1800.

Today noone will claim you are wrong in this remark, however this discussion cannot be made from todays viewpoints, but has to be seen by the state of mind of the people of the same time.

I've seen this arguement quite a few times, however I would argue that infact the morals and conscience of those people are not so different than today.

Thomas Jefferson tried to emancipate the slaves in Virginia, about 50 years before the Civil War, and only missed doing so by one vote.

Although I sometimes imagine if things would be different if the South had won, and there would be greater States rights and a better system of checks and balances, I know it's only a pipe dream. Some of the State laws in Virginia are enough to make you shake your head in disgust, and ironically and hypocritically the State motto is "Sic Semper Tyrannis". Even Jefferson said it best himself about democracy being nothing more than a mob rule where 51 percent take away the rights of the other 49 .

I also look at what he said about slavery:

"But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

I'm sure that many plantations were profitable, but for those that weren't, I'd imagine it was a scary propostion. At the same time the new Federal government wasn't offering many solutions.

There was right and wrong on both sides really.

If you look at the laws of the era the slavery issue was legal and just for the time. Morally it is wrong but non the less legal. Tjere were slaves in both the north and the south. The blacks were considered in the north to be sub class as was in the south. If you look the the bigger issue of Does the state have a contitutional right to govern themselves the answer is yes. This issue of states rights is still a hot bed issue in todays times as it was then. The argument has always been "What defines a state issue and not federal?" I am not ashamed to admit that my ancestors did own slaves...5 very small. It was an entire family. My GG Grandfather decided it was better to keep a family together and treat them right then have a family torn apart. He did free them before the war was over. They stayed on with the farm and took our last name. He gave them land, food , medical and an education. "A man's worth is the value of a man's self being" he wrote that in a letter. He fought valiently for the cause of state rights not slavery. Most troops knew or felt slavery but never owned them. To them it went back to the old saying "Don't Tread on Me".
 
The most ironic twist of the war was in fact the south had black fighting troops in the wat "early war". There are pround southern black men who's ancestors fought for the south. there was over 25,000 blacks in the confederate army, Black NCO's, even a black officer over a mixed company who got elected to lead them in battle.
 
So to say it was about slavery only and not even considered the strangle hold the north put on the south as cruel is very narrowsighted. If a person looks at history he must look at both sides of the issue and look at it objectively without bias.
 
Marc

ORIGINAL: barker

I am not ashamed to admit that my ancestors did own slaves...5 very small.

Pygmees? [:D]

ORIGINAL: IronWarrior

Today noone will claim you are wrong in this remark, however this discussion cannot be made from todays viewpoints, but has to be seen by the state of mind of the people of the same time.

I've seen this arguement quite a few times, however I would argue that infact the morals and conscience of those people are not so different than today.

I cannot agree with that, and if you think about it more carefully I guess neither can you. That is because, if slavery was ok to quite a large part of the population, it is neccessary for a population to see itself as more importan/worth/divine than another population, and this I do indeed hope is not the fact today (should atleast be one of the one main lessons learned from nazism).

So, there are differences from 1860 and 2008, they might not be huge, but they are there, and you cannot fully understand 1860 if you look upon it with the moral/conscience of 2008.

very true....and not pygmee...lol though...the normal slave holder had very few if any...the bigger plantations where alot of the abuses were on the huge plantations in La. and Miss. Some of the largest slave owners were blacks. The most brutal slave owners were blacks....also what about the atrocity the north did to New Orleans? Columbia SC, Atlanta? ....You could say the egyptians were wrong for slavery and then out of those ashes came moses......what about the spoils of war in the middle east where one tribe took over another and slaughtered the them and took the survivors as slaves? The Mayans, The Aztecs, The Spanish, French and the largest of them all the English? The US slave holdings was miniscule in the world slave market comparatively speaking in the 1860's. The biggest trading was in Africa to Europe so who is to say that slavery was not a world moral issue and just a Southern issue?

Please note that at no time have I made any value judgments on either side of the argument. The initial question was “Was the South right?” This is a simple question demanding a binary answer, Yes it was or No it was not. In this context the South cannot be a bit right anymore than a person can be a bit pregnant. A different question may well have produced a different response.

That is not to say that the Southern Cause was entirely negative or that the Union was entirely positive. Terej439’s logical construct may be accurate (nice piece of logic BTW) but also irrelevant since it deals entirely with subjective points of view. There was a considerable body politic in the South who considered slavery to be right and proper. For them and their followers, the legal niceties mattered not at all: slavery had been tested in the Supreme Court and upheld. Acceptance of the rightness of slavery opened the door to the issues of States Rights and secession.

Their counterparts in the North held slavery to be entirely wrong and therefore emancipation was a sacred duty. Whether they were on solid legal ground to impose emancipation upon the slave states with regards to the Constitution of the United States is also entirely irrelevant. Belief in the wrongness of slavery overrode any constitutional niceties blocking emancipation in the near term.

As with most contentious issues, most people were somewhere in the middle and while one might try to be indifferent eventually one has to decide whether slavery, as it applied to the USA in November 1860, was a right or a wrong. The moral and ethical component here is huge but also entirely subjective since morals and ethics vary with the culture and era under the microscope. Slavery’s supporters found no dichotomy keeping other people as slaves in a country whose central creeds included “… the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” and “All Men are Created Equal”. That slavery was long out of fashion in the most other parts of the (so called) civilized world mattered not in the least and it’s unlikely most slavery advocates even noticed.

The American South certainly did not invent slavery, which is probably as old as human social order. However, the institution of slavery defined the Southern way of life and it cannot be subtracted or ignored from analysis of the righteousness (or lack thereof) of the Cause. IronWarrior’s Jefferson quote nicely sums up the situation as seen by a man possessing great personal integrity and high moral standards for his day and age. However, here we see the root of the problem, he seems to imply that in his view slavery is a moral wrong (“Justice is on one scale…”) but that pragmatism prevents anything from being done about it (“… and self-preservation on the other.”). However, one should be cautious taking a single quote too far. When all is said and done he was a man of his times and such a viewpoint was entirely reasonable for a man in his position.

If one finds slavery to be a wrong than the question becomes simply “How can defence of a wrong be right?” Slavery was an end, not a means; its preservation was a Confederate war aim from day one. For that reason alone, the South could never be ‘right’.

If one believes that slavery, as it applied to 19th Century America, was right, then everything follows from that and one can safely conclude that the South was in fact ‘right’.

I have tried to steer clear of the broader but subjective moral and ethical issues here but do believe that Southerners today have nothing to be ashamed of or to apologize for with regards to the Civil War. Neither do the ancestors of the Northern Aggressors. My personal belief is that slavery is ultimately self-defeating and that in defending slavery the Confederacy negated any political and moral justifications for the war.

Edited slightly for content to correct my error in misquoting IronWarrior

@Anarchyintheuk: thx for the correction.

Minor point, the 'wolf by the ears' quote is by Thomas Jefferson not Jeff Davis.

Slavery still exists...in same forms (workers chained to tayloring machines) in some countries...but in modern world, unfortunately, everyone is slave to money. What else would u call a person who earns 600EU a month in a place where the rent costs 700EU a month?

Work work work work ... for whom? For your master...who doesn't need to use the whip. The new slavery is much is less brutal...but very real. I believe the war was primarily waged to build one country and, to those who studied it, there's more than just slavery as moving reason.

There's no right or wrong...and, in my opinion, Lincoln managed to abolish THAT slavery but not our slavery....whose masters are those who actually had him (and Kennedy) murdered.

An interesting movie/documentary which will make you see how the slavery works nowadays: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
(Be advised...it's a pretty ugly feeling once you understand it)

Thanks Gshock....great words

First on a note of clarification, My viewpoint is this: The war was fought for economics and states rights and not slavery. I’m not saying the south is right, rather they are wrong. But more wrong for seceding from the union then slavery, because slavery was a problem on the country as a whole for tolerating it, not just the south’s. Also I’m not justifying slavery, something a lot of you have been saying and an issue I’ll speak of later.

I’m first going to go over what the war was fought over, then about how evil was the south, Then I’ll discuss what the south’s viewpoints and ‘dreams’ of slavery, then finally I’ll address ‘Personal’ attacks.

From the top, I don’t know how many times I have to say this, the war was NOT about slavery. Lincoln, Grant and Sherman all show that: Sherman used blacks for slave labor in Atlanta, Grant said ‘if the war was fought over slavery he would’ve joined the other’ side and Lincoln said: ‘If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I’ll do it. If I can save the union by freeing the slaves, I’ll do it, and If I could save the union by freeing half the slaves, I’ll do it.’ The great emancipator himself recognizes that freeing the slaves is important, but he wanted to save the union anyway. It’s great that the slaves were freed, but that’s not why 600,000 people died(see my posts above). The three key leaders of the north recognized that slavery wasn’t the issue: If it was, Emancipation would’ve happened before of in the beginning of the war, not in the middle.


On the second issue, how evil was the south? Claims by people as knowledgeable as Anthropoid say that the south was one step worse then Hitler, for reasons already explained, that’s not so. With that, one could say that America is the worst country in the world just because of abortion.

Another issue that sparked my interest was that Abolitionists are similar to Gay Rights groups. An invalid claim due to the fact that abolitionists were trying to get basic human rights for slaves, rights that homosexuals already have.

None of our "homelands" are entirely just. It was a President of the U.S. who was the architect of the Trail of Tears, later Presidents promoted the Indian Wars. These were also entirely unjust, wrong, and "evil," deeds by "my homeland" the United States.

In response to this, I am proud of being in my Homeland, The United states of America, I hope you are as well. Instead of looking back on the evil things, look at how we can make our nation better. This clearly links with the Confederacy: Instead of looking back and saying how A MINORITY enslaved people, look at what we can learn from them to make our nation better. The same way through preserving the union, the cause of the north, we can also make our nation better by also freeing the slaves. I would not trash any period of history that we can learn from, also, if you go to other nations, you can see deeds worse than the trail of tears, any other nation, I assure you.

Now on the issue of what the south thinks of slavery. The south’s goal in life was not slavery. For reasons stated, the southern majority of non- slave owners would not spend thousands of lives (And the ones in the army were not the wealthy plantation owners that supposedly by claims ‘Wanted slavery for the world’ but it was the Farmers without slaves) and their homes and money to support the war. Also, as stated, slavery is a means, not an end goal.

The government’s goal was not to spread slavery, doing that would kill any chance of having an ally like France.

22 million murdered in cold blood in the span of 9 or 10 years is a gargantuan, and grotesque credit of human evil. The potential outcome had the CSA not been stopped: Hundreds of millions enslaved in scores of states around the globe over the last 160 years is a different scenario of human evil, but I would not necessarily be so quick to discount it as a "lesser evil," unless any of you are actually willing to take up Mr. Lincoln's challenge:

Hmm, saying that the library of congress stated that the amount of slaves between 1859-1865 numbered three million, the death of 22 million would be impossible. Not only that, since they viewed them as property, it would therefore be a waste to murder them all. Would you buy twenty beach houses then blow them up? Also you compared the south to Hitler, who killed more then your supposed statistic. The lesser evil was that they chose going to war against political threats was a lesser evil then killing their family, I hope you do too.

You mentioned that the south’s life goals were slavery, and that it’s not absurd to say they would go to war for the small elite. Those other instances of yours when Kings or Emperor’s inspired men to war? Never had they been for a small group, It’s been for the supposed welfare of the entire country. It is unlikely that they would go to war over something not even threatened, and the fact that it didn’t affect most of them. It’s like if a French winery went out of Business and the people that liked their wine invaded France. would everyone else in America go to war for that?

My final issue is Personal Attacks. Anthropoid and Randomizer seem to be under the impression that I am Pro slavery Randomizer furthered this when he said:

At the end of the day, none of this really relates to the root causes of the Civil War, be it slavery, economics or phases of the moon. Rather Jonah’s opening remark is telling;

quote:

I think we all agree that slavery is wrong but…


Once one qualifies a statement like that then one can move on and rationalize anything. Either slavery was wrong in the context of the anti bellum South or it was not. Just as one cannot be a bit pregnant, one cannot pick and choose which parts of the Confederate cause warrant support. While history is subjective it also tends to be somewhat messy and we have to take the package deal, not select only those bits that make us feel good.

Excuse me? May I note the thing I stated that he quoted was:

I think we all agree that slavery is wrong but is that the cause of the war?

He carefully omitted the end of my statement. I’m Rationalizing slavery? Far from it, my point is stating it wasn’t the cause of the war. And that I’m selecting bits of History to make me feel good? I appreciate the truth sir, and if I just want to feel good, why did I get into this discussion at all?

Cheers to those here treating a difficult and contentious issue with respect and civility.

I would appreciate if you read your own words randomizer, I wanted a discussion, now that you are out of things to say you resort to saying that the reason I say the war was fought for other reasons is that I’m trying to rationalize slavery. No disrespect to you though, I’m just a little perplexed.

All in all, many of my points were ignored, and Hopefully this can further explain my previous comments.

Jonah. It was never my intention to insult and since I have caused you offense I will publicly apologize. I also stated that you are an articulate defender of your point of view and I mean that in all seriousness.

I never meant to imply that you were pro-slavery. Rather I took your qualification as an indicator that you were perhaps trivializing the slavery issue as it applied to the Civil War and in that regard I was incorrect.

Wars tend to create their own dynamics and root justifications blur and change as conflict evolves. While your discussion contains any number of accurate observations as to specific actions and words by key players, I consider few of them really relevant to the actual war aims of both sides. It mattered not at all what a general or a politician may have said so the points that you felt were ignored were those that I felt made little difference to the big picture discussion. Whether emancipation was a stated Northern war aim or not is irrelevant, once hostilities commenced the South’s goal of status quo ante bellum, which included slavery, realistically came off the table.

As for the rest, I will respectively agree to disagree. I feel that without slavery there would have been no secession and so no Civil War since none of the other issues of the day (and there were a number) were divisive enough to provoke conflict. In the end slavery was the elephant in the House Divided that caused the conflict to unfold as it did.

Once again I am sincerely sorry for causing offense. I will leave the floor to you.

Randomizer you need to do some reading about the nullification crisis to get some good back ground on the mood leading up to the war. The war was essentially a growing political struggle between the Northern industrializing states and the agricultural South. Increasing tensions were brought about by the South resenting the growing power of the North and their decisions to act on their regional interests in Congress despite hurting the South. Tariffs were a particular sore spot. Many other issues were more pressing than slavery. The states felt that they had a right to fight these tariffs and regulations that were hurting them and their economy. This is after all what the American Revolution was fought over a few decades earlier.

d

d

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

Jonah. It was never my intention to insult and since I have caused you offense I will publicly apologize. I also stated that you are an articulate defender of your point of view and I mean that in all seriousness.

I never meant to imply that you were pro-slavery. Rather I took your qualification as an indicator that you were perhaps trivializing the slavery issue as it applied to the Civil War and in that regard I was incorrect.

Wars tend to create their own dynamics and root justifications blur and change as conflict evolves. While your discussion contains any number of accurate observations as to specific actions and words by key players, I consider few of them really relevant to the actual war aims of both sides. It mattered not at all what a general or a politician may have said so the points that you felt were ignored were those that I felt made little difference to the big picture discussion. Whether emancipation was a stated Northern war aim or not is irrelevant, once hostilities commenced the South’s goal of status quo ante bellum, which included slavery, realistically came off the table.

As for the rest, I will respectively agree to disagree. I feel that without slavery there would have been no secession and so no Civil War since none of the other issues of the day (and there were a number) were divisive enough to provoke conflict. In the end slavery was the elephant in the House Divided that caused the conflict to unfold as it did.

Once again I am sincerely sorry for causing offense. I will leave the floor to you.

That's fine Randomizer, I'm never one who's overly defensive, I just was trying to get across that I'm not a pro slave person. Now that I see your intent I'm absolutely fine and thank you for the compliment about being articulate but that's not why I'm saying this. As far as agreeing to disagree i'm fine with that, anyone else who wants to discuss thism, let's do it then. And I didn't mean any disrespect to you randomizer, I just don't want to come across as something I'm not.

The question I always have about the "industrial north vs. agrarian south" hypothesis is this: why would an industrial north, that is producing more industrial goods, and more reliant on industrial goods be in competition with an agrarian south that was producing farm products and raw materials? I'd think they would have made excellent trading companions no?
 
I'll tell you why they were competitors: because the biggest chunk of the Southern economy was cotton, with tobacco coming in second. Their biggest customers, the industrial north, and England. Now does the whole "competition" thing make a bit more sense?
 
Whereas the north was growing its infrastructure, factories machinery, and working classes (which granted were not exactly living laps of luxury) the south was growing people. Indeed, in about the late 1840s, it became more profitable in some southern states (SC, NC, TN) to grow people and sell them to other states were large mega-plantations were feasible (MS, LA, southern AL, GA). This was industrial people husbandry, and it was responsible for a whole lot of cheap cotton garments being produced and used in Europe and the north.
 
Folks like your relative ancestor who had a small farm and "staff" slaves are the image that is the more quaint, and indeed, in many families with a small number of slaves, relations were probably more familial. But the big plantations were industrial affairs. Families were often irrelevant, and productivity was the number one priority.
 
When northern politicians tried to get bills put through for canals, roads, factories, etc., often times southern politicians would team up to block them. When southern politicians would try to get bills to extend slavery to new states, the north would do likewise. These were predominant themes in American politics in the 1840s through to the war.
 
Slavery was unethical, but legal; the founding fathers never explicitly made any constitutional statement that it was not legal. On this grounds you can quite rightly argue that the ultimate source of the 'wrong' was deeply ingrained in both northern and southern divisions of American society.
 
Secession is not legal in my opinion, and I cannot imagine any polity that would define it as being such. Any nation or other political entity that allows subdivisions to get out at their choice would never make it through one-generation, thus seccession is fundamentally an act of pure spite (which I do not think it was for the CSA) or it is standing up for what you think is right. The CSA thought it was right to secede. I do not.
 
A bit about what got this thing started: my comments.
 
Jonah, I deeply love the United States. Trust me, I'm not one of these radical left-wing conspiracy theory-driven America-bashers, and I 99% likely to vote McCain. I have defended the U.S. against America-phobic rhetoric on teh internet more times than I care to remember. I deeply love the United States, my homeland, and believe deeply that our nation has generally (over the long haul of history) tended to do more right, ethical, and and beneficial things for her people and indeed the world. But we are not saints, and it behooves us to recognize the bad things that have happened in our past. Letting slavery stay for so long was one thing. The Indian Removal Act, and Indian Wars, more. Lots of other things that are debatable, but those two are old enough that I think we can be sufficiently dispassionate about them as to adopt a fairly objective view, and I like to imagine we'd all agree that they were unethical acts of opression.
 
I also love the south. People in the south are terrific. They are often the descendants of the people who made up the CSA, but they are a lot different a lot of the time. The modern south has become something so totally distinct from the CSA, what happened then is hardly anything for anyone to feel proud, indignant, or guilty about. A lot of our ancestors did bad things, and we should just get over it! They lived in different times, and yes, the argument that "the bad they did was not regarded the same as it is today" is certainly valid.
 
At the time, many perhaps most did not regard slavery or racism as being quite the totally wrong thing that is is mostly regarded today, and that is worth noting. But from my perspective, as a person living in 2008, any polity that uses slavery, justifies it with elegant and lengthy philosophical rhetoric (which many learned Southern writers did do), and fights for it (whether as one part of a larger cassus belli or as the whole cause to fight) is wrong, and was wrong. I'm not going to refer to 1860s values in judging whether or not I think the CSA was noble, just, right, or "cool." I'm going to use the most up-to-date notions of human rights at my disposal.

Well, if you asked the Yankee soldiers from the Union Slave states of Kentucky, Maryland, or Missouri if they were fighting fighting to free slaves, what do you think they would say???

Many people forget that in fact slavery was still going on, albeit not as much, in the Union Border States. It's ironic that Georgia voted to get the Confederate flag off the state flag because it reminded people of Slavery. Especially when slavery was also perpetrated in the Union.

The Amancipation Proclemation was simply a piece of paper that gave the Union the "Moral High Ground". Although it was all paper, it "freed" slaves in the Confederacy, not Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri.