40 Percent Of Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

Poll: 4 in 10 Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

3010 Lauren Frayer Contributor

 

A century and a half after the opening shots of the U.S. Civil War, nearly four in 10 Southerners say they still sympathize with the Confederacy.

 

That's according to a new CNN poll released on the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, when Union soldiers raised a U.S. flag over Fort Sumter in South Carolina and the opening shots of the war rang out. The poll's results reveal that the war that divided the nation for four years still divides American public opinion today.

 

In the South, 38 percent of respondents said they sympathize with the Confederacy, which lost the bloody war. More than 600,000 American soldiers on both sides were killed. Overall, the number from all geographic areas who said they still side with the South is less than a quarter.

 

Richard Ellis, Getty Images Re-enactors portray Union soldiers occupying Fort Sumter in South Carolina's Charleston Harbor. Tuesday was the 150th anniversary of the first shot fired in the Civil War, when Confederate guns fired on the fort. The poll also reveals divisions over what Americans see as the reason the Civil War was fought. Overall, 54 percent of respondents said they believe the war was over slavery, and 42 percent said that wasn't the main reason. Those percentages didn't change substantially when it comes to Northerners versus Southerners. But the issue of slavery was different for respondents from opposing political parties, and different races.

 

Sixty-five percent of respondents who described themselves as Democrats said they believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, while 45 percent of Republicans said so. The belief was strongest among nonwhite Americans as well. Some 66 percent of nonwhite respondents said they believe slavery was the main reason for the war, while about half of white people thought so.

 

The poll also examined whether the responses of tea party supporters were different from those of Americans who described themselves as opposed to the grass-roots conservative movement, or those who said they were neutral to it.

 

Tea party supporters were only 2 percent more likely to have sympathy for the Confederacy instead of the North, and that difference falls well within the poll's margin of error for that question. Tea party supporters were 9 percent more likely to say they have "some" admiration for the leaders of Southern states during the Civil War, compared with those who said they oppose the tea party. But compared with the poll's overall numbers, their views fell within 2 percentage points of the general population -- again, within the poll's margin of error.

 

The poll was conducted by CNN and the Opinion Research Corp. Pollsters surveyed 824 adult Americans by phone between April 9 and 10. The poll's overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, though the sampling errors were slightly higher for some questions.

[Westside Steve]

I've recently heard that 12% of Vermonters and 15% of Texans favor secession.

Alaska and Hawaii have separatist movements. WSS

[Westside Steve]

By the way I assume every war is fought fgor the same basic reasons which are rarely (if ever) the reasons stated by those who start them and/or win them.

 

Heck do you think freeing the slaves was the #1 reason Lincoln fought the war?

 

 

If the south had prevailed does anyone think they'd say the reason was to keep slavery in placce?

 

Just curious.

 

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

the war was fought over secession, not slavery.

[VaporTrail]

My drummer is from Kentucky. I go to Borders with him. He sees a book, goes "No way... That would be AWESOME!" He walks up to it, picks it up. It's "If the South had Won the Civil War."

 

My drummer is kind of a dumbass.

[heckofajobbrownie]

By the way I assume every war is fought fgor the same basic reasons which are rarely (if ever) the reasons stated by those who start them and/or win them.

 

Heck do you think freeing the slaves was the #1 reason Lincoln fought the war?

 

 

If the south had prevailed does anyone think they'd say the reason was to keep slavery in placce?

 

Just curious.

 

WSS

 

The main reason for secession was clearly slavery. There's a big movement to ignore this historical fact and sub in "state's rights" or "economic reasons" as the primary mover because it's easier to swallow, but the main reason for southern secession was clearly the dispute over the legality of slavery. They wanted to keep their slaves because it was good for business and didn't want anyone telling them otherwise.

 

I'd say the #1 reason Lincoln fought the war was to preserve the union.

[Chicopee John]

Why should this surprise anybody?

 

OF COURSE they sympathize with the Confederacy. That is a legacy. Part of their legacy. Sherman ran amok and generations after generations remember.

 

The United States has a very short history.

 

Lincoln is on record as saying keeping the country together was priority #1. Slavery would have been one of his bargaining chips, I presume.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, it should surprise people that, in 2011, they sympathize with the Confederacy, which hasn't existed in generations, instead of the country that they live in.

[Mr. T]

Slavery?

 

Today we are all slaves to the government.

 

So why would it hurt to raise more taxes and add new regulations so government employees can reep the benefits from the real working class?

 

And as for your poll of only 40% siding with the Confederacy; you should remember the 60% of those who live in the south are from the North or Mexico.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Slavery?

 

Today we are all slaves to the government.

 

Oh, for xxxx's sake.

[calfoxwc]

You'all er allowed to say "xxxx" on this here forum. Git yerself right, boy.

[Westside Steve]

The main reason for secession was clearly slavery. There's a big movement to ignore this historical fact and sub in "state's rights" or "economic reasons" as the primary mover because it's easier to swallow, but the main reason for southern secession was clearly the dispute over the legality of slavery. They wanted to keep their slaves because it was good for business and didn't want anyone telling them otherwise.

 

I'd say the #1 reason Lincoln fought the war was to preserve the union.

 

 

The "big movement" to paint garden variety warlord Lincoln as some kind of altruistic abolitionist is just being challenged.

 

Cotton was the oil of its day and freeing the slaves was only a means to an end.

 

Few doubt that he'd have gone with the status quo had that been enough to keep the union intact.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The "big movement" to paint garden variety warlord Lincoln as some kind of altruistic abolitionist is just being challenged.

 

Cotton was the oil of its day and freeing the slaves was only a means to an end.

 

Few doubt that he'd have gone with the status quo had that been enough to keep the union intact.

 

WSS

 

There's a big movement to pretend slavery had little to do with the Civil War, which apparently you're part of.

 

And "garden variety warlord"? Really?

 

You really shouldn't approach every person, especially those as complicated as Lincoln, as if they're as monochromatic as you are. It would keep you from saying stupid, uninformed shit, like calling Lincoln a "garden variety warlord."

 

Also, do you agree that the main reason for Southern secession was the dispute over slavery?

[Westside Steve]

There's a big movement to pretend slavery had little to do with the Civil War, which apparently you're part of.

 

Little to do with and main cause mean the same to you?

Really?

 

And "garden variety warlord"? Really?

 

Imagine the NYT coverage of Shermans march.

Maybe he waterboarded somebody.

 

You really shouldn't approach every person, especially those as complicated as Lincoln, as if they're as monochromatic as you are. It would keep you from saying stupid, uninformed shit, like calling Lincoln a "garden variety warlord."

 

Unless, of course, it's Dick Cheney.

 

Also, do you agree that the main reason for Southern secession was the dispute over slavery?

 

No.

Do you think freeing the slaves was the reason for the war?

Do uyou think we went to Iraq to "free the people?"

WSS

[VaporTrail]

Imagine the NYT coverage of Shermans march.

Maybe he waterboarded somebody.

Unless, of course, it's Dick Cheney.

No.

Do you think freeing the slaves was the reason for the war?

Do uyou think we went to Iraq to "free the people?"

 

In my opinion, preventing half the country from seceding is more legitimate than going to war over imagined WMD's. If the US became two separate entities, the Union and Confederacy would both be worse off.

 

Freeing the slaves was a major factor in the decision for the South to secede, and therefore a major factor in the decision for the two states to go to war.

[Westside Steve]

In my opinion, preventing half the country from seceding is more legitimate than going to war over imagined WMD's. If the US became two separate entities, the Union and Confederacy would both be worse off.

 

Freeing the slaves was a major factor in the decision for the South to secede, and therefore a major factor in the decision for the two states to go to war.

 

 

So you think Lincolns moral compass is what brought him to slaughter tens of thousands of "his own people." OK then.

 

Anyway just for the sake of argument how much worse would the planet be had the south prevailed?

Think the history books would look the same?

WSS

[VaporTrail]

So you think Lincolns moral compass is what brought him to slaughter tens of thousands of "his own people." OK then.

 

Anyway just for the sake of argument how much worse would the planet be had the south prevailed?

Think the history books would look the same?

 

You're misunderstanding my argument. It wasn't his moral beliefs about slavery that led him to war. The South was a huge part of the economy of the United States. Losing those states would be an economic disaster. The South losing the North would have been bad for their economy, too, and in fact, this factor greatly contributed to them losing the war.

 

I never claimed the world was a better place because the North won. I never claimed the world would be worse off if the South won. The point I am making, is that if the South had won, there would be two separate nations. The Union was more industrious, the Confederacy was more agrarian, and the West was not yet settled. I believe that those two separate nations would never be as powerful as the US became.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm sorry, Steve, but you're just factually wrong. Historically incorrect.

 

When the states decide to secede they all wrote documents declaring why they were seceding. You can find them all online very easily. And the answer the give above all else: slavery.

 

I'll give you a little taste. Here's Mississippi's. It's not just mostly about slavery - it's almost exclusively about slavery. From the very first paragraph:

 

"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."

 

Next line: “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.”

 

 

Here’s second line in Georgia’s declaration: “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.”

 

Then Georgia goes on to say the “policy of anti-slavery …into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.”

 

“The party of Lincoln… is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.”

 

The more things change, huh?

 

South Carolina’s declaration isn’t very long. It mentions “slaves” or “slavery” 18 times. Texas mentions it 22 times. Georgia: 35.

 

 

You're simply wrong about this. The dispute over slavery was the primary reason the Southern states seceded.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This may have been a perfect distillation of your barroom idiocy:

 

And "garden variety warlord"? Really?

 

Imagine the NYT coverage of Shermans march.

Maybe he waterboarded somebody.

[VaporTrail]

I think he brings up an interesting point, heck. If the media then had the technology they did today, there would probably be some international outrage (maybe outrage is too strong a word, but there'd be some sort of negative response). I mean, everyone knows what happened to South Vietnam once we left. The decision to enter total war is a bitch. And while it wasn't total war, how much did video footage of the Highway of Death in Desert Storm have to do with us not eliminating Saddam then and there? I wouldn't know, I was only 3 or 4 at the time. I just remember reading that there was a negative reaction to it.

 

I think it's a different, but legitimate perspective on the situation, and I'll admit that, until this conversation, I haven't seen it as such. My experience while being educated about the Civil War was basically that Sherman was a badass and burned down Georgia, killing all the men who wouldn't defect. The decision to go to total war ultimately lies on Lincoln's shoulders, and strategically, it was a good move given that this was a conventional war. The South had superior generals, and more Union soldiers were killed in the war than Rebels; the North won because they were simply able to throw more troops at them.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't know how interesting it is, but if we want to talk about the brutality of Sherman's March, we can talk about the brutality of Sherman's March. But he and I are having a different debate, one I think he's clearly wrong about.

 

The Southern states seceded from the Union primarily - in some cases, exclusively - over slavery. You can't whitewash that fact because it doesn't feel good. You've got to deal with reality.

[Mr. T]

I will believe that why and or how the southern states seceded from the Union and how you base your opinion will be how you have been taught and what you have read in text books.

 

 

 

In war, the victor writes the history. And then a progressive liberal rewrites it 100 years later.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Or, you know, you can go back and read the reasons the Southern states themselves gave at the time. Like, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."

 

Maybe it's me, but that would seem to suggest that slavery was a big reason. Call me crazy.

[VaporTrail]

But he and I are having a different debate, one I think he's clearly wrong about.

 

I agree with you on the point that slavery was a major reason the South went to war. The standard of living (for non-slaves, anyways) was so much higher because they had slaves. To get rid of slavery was to get rid of their way of life, and it would completely change the landscape of their economy.

[Westside Steve]

More from South Carolina:

 

The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue....

 

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th July, 1776, in a Declaration by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES....

 

It would seem that this had been going on for decades and that slavery was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

 

So you're only correct in that it may have been the tipping point.

Like the battered wife whose husband came home drunk once too often.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

This may have been a perfect distillation of your barroom idiocy:

 

And "garden variety warlord"? Really?

 

Imagine the NYT coverage of Shermans march.

Maybe he waterboarded somebody.

 

Hey I know you don't follow along well but gee. you and your ilk have shit your pants over "torture" that barely surpasses a college prank and then then classifies Shermans march as boys will be boys?

 

 

 

Perhaps you should visit more barrooms than spin centers.

 

Lest we forget the premise of the thread is that lots of Americans might like to throw off the yoke of the union.

And you think that's somehow unAmerican.

 

Was it unAmerican in 1776?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Honestly. Let's try and diagram that out for you. And then I'm going to hate myself for spending 10 minutes on you.

 

Following your "logic", Lincoln was a garden variety warlord. The proof this is to imagine the NYT coverage of Sherman's march, which was filled with barbarism. Liberals "shit their pants" when Bush made torture our official policy. Imaginary liberals in Steve's head dismiss Sherman's march as boys will be boys. Therefore, Lincoln was a garden variety warlord.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Also, seceding from the America in 2011 wouldn't be un-American. (Obviously, it's pro-American to not want to be part of America. Silly me.) And the proof of this is when a majority of colonists decided to separate from the British crown in 1776.

 

Q.E.D.

 

You'll forgive me if I find your arguments laughable.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But let's get back to the topic. Because, once again, you're wrong. Historically incorrect.

 

Now, you're pretty proud of yourself for having once learned that the 5th grade answer to why the Civil War was fought is incomplete, and you'd like to show everyone that it was more complicated than the answer 5th graders give, which is "Slavery." I'd simply suggest to you that most people have moved beyond the 5th grade understanding of the origins of the Civil War, and so trying to get someone to post that the Civil War was about slavery so you can pounce with posts about how it wasn't is kind of comical.

 

It's also entirely typical to see people like you try to erase the actual importance of slavery to the discussions about the Civil War. But, having been shown the importance of slavery to Southern secession, you've ignored the inconvenient evidence that you're wrong, and posted part of South Carolina's document, then said slavery was only a tipping point.

 

Of course, you're wrong about this, too. South Carolina's document is about the dispute over slavery. Clearly. Did you read the whole thing? What's the only specific, enumerated dispute that South Carolina mentions having with the federal government, Steve?

 

I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "savory."

 

The first part is about how the Constitution set up free and independent states who could abolish the government if it failed to serve its purpose. The second part is about the "compact" between the states and the federal government, and how the federal government isn't living up to their end of the compact. And what do they then cite as the compact they're not living up to, Steve?

 

I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "bravery."

 

"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

 

Translation: if our slaves escape to non-slave states, they're still slaves and shall be returned to the people who own them.

 

"This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

 

Translation: if we weren't allowed to have slaves, we wouldn't have joined the union in the first place.

 

"The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States."

Translation: I'm serious. Give us back our escaped slaves.

 

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: All those northern states have grown so anti-slave that they've stopped returning our escaped slaves. And the agreement was to allow us to have slaves, and to return them if they escaped. But now they're not going to return our slaves. So we're seceding.

 

...Did you even read the whole thing? Because there's even more than this. South Carolina's document might as well be titled, "We had a deal on slavery, and the northern states broke it, so secession it is."

 

You want to relent now?

[Westside Steve]

Honestly. Let's try and diagram that out for you. And then I'm going to hate myself for spending 10 minutes on you.

 

Join the party.

 

Following your "logic", Lincoln was a garden variety warlord. The proof this is to imagine the NYT coverage of Sherman's march, which was filled with barbarism. Liberals "shit their pants" when Bush made torture our official policy. Imaginary liberals in Steve's head dismiss Sherman's march as boys will be boys. Therefore, Lincoln was a garden variety warlord.

 

Oh no Heck.

Sorry.

Abandoning the constitution and butchering thousands of women and children (not only Sherman) was the right call.

He wanted to free the slaves so it's all good.

Sorry.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Also, seceding from the America in 2011 wouldn't be un-American. (Obviously, it's pro-American to not want to be part of America. Silly me.) And the proof of this is when a majority of colonists decided to separate from the British crown in 1776.

 

Yeah, silly.

Hey wasn't that why the founders wanted citizens to be armed?

In case they needed to revolt again?

 

But these days Heck prefers the Khadaffi/Lincoln approach.

 

Q.E.D.

 

You'll forgive me if I find your arguments laughable.

 

 

As I forgive a hyena.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Look, Steve! There's more! Seriously, keep reading! From that thing that you posted saying it wasn't really about slavery! Make sure you get to the point where they say that the dispute over slavery was the thing that that had been pissing them off for years, and that slavery broke the camel's back. And not just that, but Lincoln's belief that the union should be not be half free, half slave really upset them.

 

"These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States."

 

Translation: The government we bought into let us keep slaves, but clearly they're not on our page anymore and we can tell they're eventually going to take it from us, so screw them.

 

"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

 

Translation: Non-slaveholding states think slavery is sinful and think they can decide that question for us. Well, they can't! What's more, not only have they freed blacks, they've let blacks hang out with them at parties, and encourage our blacks to be free, and trying to educate our slaves with book sand pictures so they want to be free, too!

 

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

 

Translation: This anti-slave business has been going on for 25 years, and it's been getting worse every year. What's more, they just elected a president who doesn't believe in slavery, and says crazy anti-slavery stuff, and wants to take our slaves and end slavery forever.

 

"This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

 

Translation: It's against the Constitution, but some northern states are allowing blacks to become full citizens! Which clearly they are incapable of being. And making them citizens means they can vote, and so now there are lots more votes against slavery! They'll probably vote for anti-slavery!

 

"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."

 

Translation: When Lincoln takes office, they're going to favor non-slave states over us, and will fight a war to abolish slavery everywhere. Without slavery, we have no rights. If we keep slavery, the government will discriminate against us.

 

"Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief."

 

Translation: The North is crazy. Thinking blacks are people is a strange, mistaken religious belief or something. We're not going to see eye to eye on this, and things will get worse.

 

 

...And then there's a paragraph that re-states that South Carolina is seceding, effective on such and such a date. That's it. There's no more in there. Nothing that suggests you're right at all.