The Southern Confederacy

[deadmeat1471]

A leftist organisation in its day, or not? thoughts?

Considering most countrys were inherently racist in the 19th century the existance of slavery in the south was largely an economic followon from the 17th century. This being said, slavery itself is a conservative and possibly very rightist concept.

That being said, states rights, it could be argued are a very leftist idea. The reasoning being the freedom of peoples to ensure and protect their own localised beliefs, whilst being fixed to the confederacy in loyalty, duty and law, is for the good of all peoples.

Another issue is the fact that the Confederacy had no medals, the common reasoning being that all Confederate soldiers were equal and it would be unfair to single any one out. This is most definitely a leftist idea in that it does not single out people for distinction, it rather depends on the loyalty and zeal of the people without any thought of bribes or 'incentives'.

There were parts of the economic policy that were akin to Soviet policy during the pre-war years, such as requisition of grain and war materials. However in the Cofederacys case this was a war measure not an emergency peace policy.

Just some thoughts.

[Dimentio]

In the USA, more progressive ideas have often come from the federal level.

[Tablo]

There are certain elements in the confederacy that could arguably considered somewhat left leaning, but they were not leftist at all. The confederacy was formed out of economic reasons by slave owners.

[deadmeat1471]

There are certain elements in the confederacy that could arguably considered somewhat left leaning, but they were not leftist at all. The confederacy was formed out of economic reasons by slave owners.

I would argue the reasoning here, the key was not the slavery itself, it was the economic impact and determined necessity of the slave economy.
I wouldnt dismiss the confederacy for its slaveholding due to the social reasoning for it. Slavery was most definitely on the decline, but due to historic and geographic issues it was retained as the prime need for the economy.

Though this was mostly just a random thought than a firm belief ;)

[Joe Payne]

But the dirty truth about the confederacy was that it wasn't a confederacy, it was more unitary than the Union. The states in the confederacy had less soveriegnty than the union states, with Richmond becoming the center for the whole country. The states rights thing is just propaganda. The Confederacy was the first country based on the concept of "scientific" racial superiority. It had far more in common with Nazi Germany than any form of "leftism."

[FreeFocus]

What a ridiculous thought. The CSA was attempting to break away to form a full-on slave empire. Slavery is not "possibly very rightist," it's the worst form of human degradation and oppression conceived. Do you realize what institution we're talking about? The same one that kidnapped tens of millions of Africans from their homelands, stripped them of their identities and forced them to labor for their entire lives, facing brutal abuse day in and day out, including rapes and whippings?

States' rights is an idea emphasized by slaveowners to protect the institution of slavery. And Confederate soldiers not having medals, or all of them being equal, whatever. The lack of medals isn't a "leftist idea," and can you cite a source for that anyway?

[deadmeat1471]

What a ridiculous thought. The CSA was attempting to break away to form a full-on slave empire. Slavery is not "possibly very rightist," it's the worst form of human degradation and oppression conceived. Do you realize what institution we're talking about? The same one that kidnapped tens of millions of Africans from their homelands, stripped them of their identities and forced them to labor for their entire lives, facing brutal abuse day in and day out, including rapes and whippings?

States' rights is an idea emphasized by slaveowners to protect the institution of slavery. And Confederate soldiers not having medals, or all of them being equal, whatever. The lack of medals isn't a "leftist idea," and can you cite a source for that anyway?

The Union had slaves aswell, as did many other states, to call slavery rightist without respect to its historical location is ignorant at least, insane at the worst. Nations must be taken within their historical contex, if the Confederacy existed today it would not have any slaves. Hence, once again, it must be taken within its historical context.

As for the medals, the Confederate army is the source. If you want one in particular however I can find one lying about.

[deadmeat1471]

The Confederacy was the first country based on the concept of "scientific" racial superiority. It had far more in common with Nazi Germany than any form of "leftism."

Many nations until very recently enacted policies based on scientific racial superiority, this is not unique to the confederacy.

[HEAD ICE]

A leftist organisation in its day, or not? thoughts?

What the fucking fuck?

No, if anything the Union was more "leftist" (clearly more progressive) because capitalism was developing in the North and the destruction of slavery and the replacement with capitalism in the South was a progressive step.

[Eastside Revolt]

A leftist organisation in its day, or not? thoughts?

Considering most countrys were inherently racist in the 19th century the existance of slavery in the south was largely an economic followon from the 17th century. This being said, slavery itself is a conservative and possibly very rightist concept.

That being said, states rights, it could be argued are a very leftist idea. The reasoning being the freedom of peoples to ensure and protect their own localised beliefs, whilst being fixed to the confederacy in loyalty, duty and law, is for the good of all peoples.

Statements like these are exactly where post-leftism starts to make a lot of sense!!

[Rafiq]

Definitely not.

It was actually considered very right wing in it's day.

[deadmeat1471]

What the fucking fuck?

No, if anything the Union was more "leftist" (clearly more progressive) because capitalism was developing in the North and the destruction of slavery and the replacement with capitalism in the South was a progressive step.

Capitalism was happening in both states, and the destruction of slavery was happening worldwide. The existance of slavery was not an Idealogical necessity of the Confederacy, rather a economic want.
It would be easy in an very wealthy and industrial state such as the North to take a high ground and ban slavery. This is not due to their idealogical and moral superiority, but due to the lack of large scale farm holding as per their climate.
The north showed more anti slavery due to their lack of economic substance backed by it, not the other way around. The north was largely outraged by the Emancipation proclaimation by lincoln, infact the abolitionists were an extremist element in the societies.

Slavery is wrong, slavery is not right for the people, but slavery was not unique in the least in this time frame to the Confederacy, nor was it absolutely incongrouous with ther survival of the Southern state.
It was however in the timeframe, in the minds of the southern people a necessity to defend the right of the states to choose their own laws as per the Constitution of the USA and the law of the land. The right to seceed has been debated, but this is not the issue.

I am not defending slavery.

[Dimentio]

Well... at least this is rivalling the Pol Pot thread.

[RED DAVE]

A leftist organisation in its day, or not? thoughts?What on Earth would ever lead you to think that?


The International Workingmen's Association 1864

Address of the International Working Men's Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865

Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci; George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General SecretaryComrades need to do some reading and learning before they even start threads like this.

States rights is now and always has been a cover for some of the most reactionary politics in the history of the US.

RED DAVE

[Rjevan]

Many nations until very recently enacted policies based on scientific racial superiority, this is not unique to the confederacy.
True but that doesn't make it any better. And what do you mean by "scientific racial superiority"?

[ComradeOm]

Considering most countrys were inherently racist in the 19th century the existance of slavery in the south was largely an economic followon from the 17th century. This being said, slavery itself is a conservative and possibly very rightist conceptThere is nothing "possibly" about it. Slavery is an abomination that is the anti-thesis of every progressive programme. It was also the central plank of the Southern agenda and the issue on which the 'slave states' (hint hint) chose to secede. That this was an economic necessity in maintaining the dominance of the ruling landowning class does not even begin to excuse it. That includes attempts to cloak this crime with federalist trappings or talk of "states' rights". Owning another human being is not a right that the left fights for


Another issue is the fact that the Confederacy had no medalsReally? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Cross_of_Honor)


There were parts of the economic policy that were akin to Soviet policy during the pre-war years, such as requisition of grain and war materials. However in the Cofederacys case this was a war measure not an emergency peace policyThe move towards a command economy is common in bourgeois states in times of war. Hence the 'war economy' label. When confronted with scarce resources and a single cause, state direction, even in capitalism, is inherently more efficient than free market mechanisms

[Ocean Seal]

A leftist organisation in its day, or not? thoughts?

Considering most countrys were inherently racist in the 19th century the existance of slavery in the south was largely an economic followon from the 17th century. This being said, slavery itself is a conservative and possibly very rightist concept.

That being said, states rights, it could be argued are a very leftist idea. The reasoning being the freedom of peoples to ensure and protect their own localised beliefs, whilst being fixed to the confederacy in loyalty, duty and law, is for the good of all peoples.

Another issue is the fact that the Confederacy had no medals, the common reasoning being that all Confederate soldiers were equal and it would be unfair to single any one out. This is most definitely a leftist idea in that it does not single out people for distinction, it rather depends on the loyalty and zeal of the people without any thought of bribes or 'incentives'.

There were parts of the economic policy that were akin to Soviet policy during the pre-war years, such as requisition of grain and war materials. However in the Cofederacys case this was a war measure not an emergency peace policy.

Just some thoughts.
No, not in any way was the Confederate South leftist. The slave owners were there to protect their own financial interests. Not giving out medals but promoting slavery is not equality the two things are of a greatly different magnitude. To me personally I don't care how many medals are given out by the other side, if this side promotes an institution as backwards as slavery.

[syndicat]

if you go back to the American Revolution, you'll find that was also a civil war. And the planter elite then were absolutely resolute, obsessed, about having access to more and more land and more and more slaves. Their key concessions wrung at the constitutional convention in 1787 were a continuation of import of slaves, use of the slave population as basis for higher number of votes per actual voting person, and agreement that the central state would pursue escaped slaves to all states and return them.

there were also major conflicts in that era in the south between the plebeian white farmers and the slave owning planter elite. this shows up again during the Confederacy. if the Confederacy was so egalitarian, why did the poorer farmers in the more mountainous areas with few slaves refuse to support it? western Virginia seceded. the Confederate army was never able to hold the more mountainous eastern part of Tennessee during the war because they lacked popular support there. the Confederacy was very much a creature of the slave owning planter elite.

you talk about alleged egalitarian character of the army. but during the American war for independence there were many cases where militias demanded and won the right to elect their officers, and even created the equivalent of soldier councils in the Continental army. where was anything like that in the Confederate army?

the slave system was very much incorporated into capitalist commodity production. this gave it very much an expansiionist dynamic. for example the massive war against the cherokee and creek indians under Indian-hater Andrew Jackson was aimed at opening up lands for expansion of slave plantations in Mississiippi and Alabama. slavers engineered the secession of Texas from Mexico because Mexico had abolished slavery.

yes it is true that slaves existed in some non-Confederate states and racism was rife in the white population of the north. but one of the important things that happened during the civil war was a radicalization of much white opinion, especially in the army, in regard to slavery. the war wasn't started to abolish slavery but that became its aim in the course of the struggle. by the end of the war union soldiers were singing hymns to John Brown wereas in 1859 he'd been regarded as nutcase.

the relationship of this struggle to slavery is made very plain by the massive flight of 400,000 slaves to the north, to join the union army, after the union army began to create black regiments. and, as WEB Dubois points out, there was a massive go slow...a huge labor action...throughout the plantation economy. this is a massive class struggle by the slaves themselves in support of the forces of the north. so this gives a lie to the claim that the struggle wasn't about abolition of slavey. and because of the flight of the slaves and the go slow, the Confederacy had to commit a large part of its troops to guarding the plantations....one of the things that brought down the Confederacy. the confederate army was a bosses' army of a particularly vile sort.

[The Red Next Door]

You're an idiot.

[gorillafuck]

Nations must be taken within their historical contex, if the Confederacy existed today it would not have any slaves.
Then it wouldn't be the government we're talking about, because slave ownership was an integral part of the Confederacy.

That's like saying if Nazi Germany existed today, it wouldn't be Nazi. Well, it wouldn't really be Nazi Germany then.

[Reznov]

Then it wouldn't be the government we're talking about, because slave ownership was an integral part of the Confederacy.

That's like saying if Nazi Germany existed today, it wouldn't be Nazi. Well, it wouldn't really be Nazi Germany then.

Sorry, not that I am "FUCKING FASCIST NAZI RACIST DICK ASSHOLE*
or anything.

But I think you really can't compare The Southern Confederacy to Nazi Germany, there are just to many different factors and reasons on each to try to compare them (Or anything in history for that matter.)


Also Zeekloid, can I ask what you think personally, is "Nazi"?

[gorillafuck]

Sorry, not that I am "FUCKING FASCIST NAZI RACIST DICK ASSHOLE*
or anything.Nobody accused you of it.


But I think you really can't compare The Southern Confederacy to Nazi Germany, there are just to many different factors and reasons on each to try to compare them (Or anything in history for that matter.)I didn't say the Confederacy was like Nazi Germany. But slave ownership was as integral to the confederacy as Nazism was to Nazi Germany.


Also Zeekloid, can I ask what you think personally, is "Nazi"?Following the Nazi ideology. What else could it be?

[Nolan]

Obviously it wasn't leftist. That's ridiculous. Any Marxist would support the Union in the Civil War.

And if the Confederacy had won and existed after the war, it would have abolished slavery eventually and maybe become dependent economically on the Union or some European power. It would have been backward economically speaking, at least until it expanded like the US did and a strong industrial capitalist class developed.

But slavery was not vital to a state called the CSA existing.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I will echo what almost everyone else in this thread has said. One could not possibly construe the confederacy as left wing or progressive. Just take one look at the sort of people who champion the "lost cause" of the confederacy and wave its flag.

[Mindtoaster]

Sorry, not that I am "FUCKING FASCIST NAZI RACIST DICK ASSHOLE*
or anything.

But I think you really can't compare The Southern Confederacy to Nazi Germany, there are just to many different factors and reasons on each to try to compare them (Or anything in history for that matter.)


Also Zeekloid, can I ask what you think personally, is "Nazi"?

I think the closest thing you could compare the Confederacy to would be a classical republic such as Rome

ie: Oligarchic social relations, ruled by a small aristocratic elite, economy is supported by institutionalized slavery, the rest of the populace lives in grinding poverty and unemployment due to the lack of paying jobs in the slave economy.

I know it sounds too nice to compare the Confederacy to a "republic", but I think that word will one day have the sense of brutality associated with it that it deserves.

[The Author]

A leftist organisation in its day, or not? thoughts?

Ha. Fuck no. Not even remotely "progressive." The Confederacy consisted of a hierarchy of southern slaveowners and planters who wanted to cling to their agrarian lifestyle and a sense of faux-feudalism with a deep hatred and resentment towards the industrial North with its more free concept of labor. "Free," in the sense that at least the labor there was wage slavery and not total slavery as was the case in the South. The Southern planters wanted to thrive on their cotton and tobacco trade, to name a few commodities, with the European powers and often competed with the North over commodity exchanges. The South had no industrial capacity, its only cities of some manufacturing capacity were in Richmond and Atlanta, and its railroad and canal infrastructure was inferior in quality and quantity to the North. Then, the population of the South was smaller as well. It was the North that was more progressive, considering that it had the industrial capacity to reach advanced capitalism, and thus, eventually socialism and communism through the right forms of class struggle. That doesn't mean the North was holding the red flag, though! And the Union war effort was mainly to preserve the Union, not ending slavery as the goal until really 1863. If you think there was some noble cause as depicted in the film "Gettysburg," think again.


Considering most countrys were inherently racist in the 19th century the existance of slavery in the south was largely an economic followon from the 17th century. This being said, slavery itself is a conservative and possibly very rightist concept.Slavery thrived in the South mainly due to the success of the cotton gin. It was a source of profitmaking never achieved before the 1790s because the manufacturing of cotton was simplified and the capital accumulated was enough to indulge in the slave trade. It also made life for blacks even more miserable than ever before.


That being said, states rights, it could be argued are a very leftist idea. The reasoning being the freedom of peoples to ensure and protect their own localised beliefs, whilst being fixed to the confederacy in loyalty, duty and law, is for the good of all peoples.Uh, no. "States rights" in the South is a fallacy first of all. The Confederacy was run pretty much as a unitary dictatorship because it lacked the resources to coordinate a war properly and whenever "States' rights" was invoked by the governors on issuing of uniforms or provisions or holding holidays, this seriously weakened the Confederacy as the states argued amongst each other. Secondly, it becomes more progressive to move from independent states to a confederacy, then to a federal government, and then to a unitary state where the differences in regions are gone completely.


Another issue is the fact that the Confederacy had no medals, the common reasoning being that all Confederate soldiers were equal and it would be unfair to single any one out. This is most definitely a leftist idea in that it does not single out people for distinction, it rather depends on the loyalty and zeal of the people without any thought of bribes or 'incentives'.It was actually an attempt at a moral incentive to introduce some kind of camaraderie amongst the soldiers. But let's be honest here, a poor carpenter from Nashville, Tennessee had nothing in common with Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson who were diehard acolytes to the cause. And there were a lot of desertions from the Confederate army, especially towards the end in the last year when things really were falling apart- no one had shoes, clothes, food to eat, and the point was lost in why there was the need to fight. It wasn't a "leftist" idea at all. In fact, equalization is a very stupid concept. But that's subject to a different sort of discussion from what we're talking about here.


There were parts of the economic policy that were akin to Soviet policy during the pre-war years, such as requisition of grain and war materials. However in the Cofederacys case this was a war measure not an emergency peace policy.If you're thinking of "war communism" during the Russian Civil War, perhaps. If you're thinking of the 1930s with the Five Year Plans, you're way off. The Confederacy had no centralized coordination, no planning, no resources, not even a "bureaucracy" of large size!


Just some thoughts. I recommend that you do some serious reading because some of these "thoughts" are not very good.

[deadmeat1471]

Btw I was joking. Anyone who thinks anyone believed the OP has a lower view on mankind than even I ;)

I have studied the Confederacy for the past 2 years, I am well aware of their actual status in history, however I was intrigued as to the amount of frothing at the mouth over the Confederate issue. It lets one know whom exactly have thought the matter over and whom are a mere kneejerk reaction void of all grey matter.

Gettysburg is however one of my favorite movies. But those who think any one movie condensed into a trivial 3 hours can in anyway describe any entire nations people, let alone two, are much confused.
It is clear there were many whom disliked slavery in the south, and many who adored it in the north. Having said this, I would not consider a friend anyone from any nation of the 19th century whom arrived in a time machine with his inherently racist and bigoted views on the world. Nor would I elect him to our government on this basis.
Even the most firebrand abolitionist would be looked upon poorly by modern society, in his/her other aspects.

This is all I will say on the matter.