Confederate General E. Porter Alexander on the Causes and Outcome of the Civil War

[@unbreakable7633]

Alexander's memoir, Fighting for the Confederacy, is one of the finest accounts of the war you can find. One of the best war memoirs I've ever read.

[@mikemcmanus116]

I was about to make the same comment when I read your comment. I have Alexander's memoir before me as I type. I think I've read it at least four times over the years. Fighting for the Confederacy is a must read, and an easy read, for folks interested in the Civil War.

[@lynnhightower1963]

In my estimation, the two finest books ever written on the subject....by ANY author. The story of the discovery of Gen Alexander's private papers illuminated the oft wished for personal opinions which were omitted in M.Memoirs. One of the greatest post-Civil War finds of all time. Masterfully written. By far my favorite.

[@WilliamDoyle-rb6lt]

Years ago I had an opportunity to get a first edition at a book store in Vermont. By the time I talked myself into buying it when I returned it was gone.You can imagine my regret.

[@markbower1171]

We owe a great debt to Gary Gallagher from finding and editing Fighting for the Confederacy.

[@tobystamps2920]

Fascinating. His conclusion is what Lincoln in his foresight saw and why he believed the Union needed to be preserved.

[@peterschief9778]

Thanx. I have the book but maybe my focus on his battles commentary means I’ve never appreciated these comments. Cheers and thanx from Australia

[@jonrettich-ff4gj]

I’ve read his book. He was a recognized military genius by his contemporaries. It is always great to hear what he has to say.

[@robertlee8474]

I have the book and read it several times. The part that caught my eye was where Alexander talks about one reason artillery could not support Pickett in his charge. Confederate artillery rounds were many times faulty and fell within the ranks of advancing confederates. It caused many casualties and made advancing confederate troops so angry , Porter said, that often times when artillery would fire in support, the supported troops would turn around and fire on their own artillery men. Great book.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Great comment, thank you! I'm not aware of any artillery bombardment successfully paving the way for an attack over the course of the whole war...possible exception of the Union bombardment on the second day at Pea Ridge.

[@starvingsum1]

I stumbled upon this channel and a few others over the past year. I credit KZbin for me cutting the cord, these tidbits of knowledge are astounding to me, thank you for sharing.

[@avenaoat]

South was not industrial area so the artillery rounds were wronger qualities than the Northerns! The blockad runner ships could bring saltpepper but artillery rounds were not in the ships thanks to the Northern blockader Navy!

[@avenaoat]

I am sorry Saltpeter was blockad runner load............

[@arturrofi5933]

The reason why artillery was not there when John bell hood got shot and his boys got killed because Longstreet said so and only did it so just like Stonewall Jackson, finest Commander of the south, JBH got removed out of the way and the tides shift!

[@terrclymac]

This comment is more a general comment on what you do here - you bring out a genre of Civil War history that few others pursue (at least as far as I know of) the written history by those who witnessed it all first hand. I'm grateful for your work. Thank you.

[@Psittacus_erithacus]

Very much agree. This is an excellent channel and indeed, a public service.

[@PeterM8987]

Thanks

[@allanburt5250]

Merry Christmas Ron

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

Merry Christmas to all!

[@G.I.JeffsWorkbench]

Wow, you continue to outdo yourself with your rigorous research. General Alexander’s book, likely in a summarized form, should be mandatory reading for all students desiring an unbiased view of the origins, conduct, outcome and effects of the War of the Rebellion. Thank you Ron for continuing to expand our knowledge base on this fundamental topic.

[@williamsmith8292]

I don't think I'm alone in considering the War of the Rebellion to be the American revolution.

[@G.I.JeffsWorkbench]

@@williamsmith8292 count me as yet another person who agrees with your point of view. Thanks to Ron’s diligent research, I’ll be reading General Alexander’s memoir in the new year (along with my annual reading of Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”).

[@rockjohnson7980]

This absolutely NOT an unbiased view of the origins, etc. of the war. It is the view of a very biased participant, who is trying to find some way to justify his actions. His claims don’t quite track with reality either. Porter’s memoirs are an extremely valuable source. But they should never be seen as unbiased/impartial. Nor should any participant’s writings be taken as wholly unbiased. He says as much himself, in a quote offered in this very video.

[@williamrossetter9430]

E Porter ALexander got it, like Longstreet, one of my favorite Confederates.

[@Randy-nk2ne]

Democrats were big mad the Republicans took their slaves from them.

[@jojohnston4113]

Quite an interesting commentary.

[@billcarrell8622]

Porter was a fantastic writer.

[@ClancyWoodard-yw6tg]

My favorite book about the army of northern Virginia is called detailed minute of soldier life

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

Porter 1:11 Alexander was right there with Longstreet on his independent command do his failed attempt to take back Knoxville. Longstreet lost 813 men and only 20 minutes at the Battle of Fort Sanders, only 10 days after President Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address. 📜 ⛓️ 🗽 The fort has been long built over but Knoxville still has two of its 16 earthen forts you can tour today. 💕

[@michaelwilson9986]

Well Said on His Part.

[@susanschultz1762]

That has always been my argument. If the south had won, the US would have been split in half and we would not be the powerful, great nation that we are today. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone else say that, and for it to be a Confederate is astounding. Thank you for sharing that.

[@wcg19891]

I think many people today in much of the country would be happy to see the South leave.

[@bjohnson515]

My argument has always been the inevitable reconnection due to commonalities and relationships. Slavery was on the way out. The Federal Govt had, with the DEMANDING of troops to fight the Deep South and DEMANDING federal military port access and DEMANDING engaging in an embargo and DEMANDING to allow federal troops to traverse certain states CAUSED the final FRACTURE (VA NC TN AR) of departing states. Without those 4 leaving, without the federal coercing the Deep South, reunification would have been accomplished in short order.

[@manilajohn0182]

Another conflict would have taken place within a generation, over western territorial claims, tariffs, the existence of slavery, or (insert your reason here). In any event, the Confederacy had no realistic chance of victory unless the Union decided to quit.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@bjohnson515 What historical evidence is there that slavery was on the way out? If we turn to the words of the slavers, there was a strong desire to expand slavery, not phase it out. Oh, and as to the Federal government DEMANDING troops...you do realize that the Constitution gives the President authority to act as COMMANDER if chief, not SUGGESTER in chief...

[@wcg19891]

@@aaronfleming9426 The historical evidence is that every other western nation outlawed it with Brazil last. The South would have had to abolish its explicit form of slavery if they wanted to export to any occidental country. However they would have still kept a brutal form of racial class segregation impoverishing blacks But they did that anyway.

[@DavidReeve-i8e]

I want this book!👊🏻🇺🇸

[@amadeusamwater]

The South should have paid more attention to history. The original Articles of Confederation did not work, the South's version wasn't that much different. That showed up in the fact that most of the states printed their own currency, and some governors withheld troops for their own use, when the armies could have used them.

[@blackwidowsm]

You know those articles of confederation also included the bill of rights and Patrick Henry would sign constitution if it didn’t include those bill of rights without those rights the conditions very federal oriented Patrick Henry was the one framer who generally looked after the people. He was also authored confederation you need read document in its entirety he Thomas Payne and same Adams were the trio who led the revolution for independence with Henry doing most of work. It started with the stamp act moved to the tea act until Henry threw the biggest tea party in Bostons harbor he nat have been oldest framer and most intelligent and was this nations greatest orator and he didn’t need a teleprompter lol His speeches was spell binding his weakness he was also biggest radical of the framers as well as the one politician who generally looked out for the people. “ we the people that is all Henry. He gave his army of Virginia which was largest army in colony’s Virginia was strongest state so federal government would have a proper army. He warned the new establishment about pit falls of turning federalism into a monarchy why thier are so many checks and balances in executive judicial and legislative branches of government curtailing each from becoming more powerful than the other. Tsar Alexander 3 admired the new nation and furing civil war stopped Prussia France England from turning our civil war into a world war. He sold Alaska to USA what was undisclosed was imperial Russia was to receive Hamilton banking system in turn he may have been a militarist but a reformer as well. When knows broke out of his dealings with the new country several weeks later he was assassinated in front of a department store in Moscow was well known was a oligarch hit dad for them his successor wasn’t as kind oligarches disappeared never to be seen again more than likely in a 55 gallon barrel in bottom of Siberian lake baiul a favorite disappearing place for agitators of tsars.

[@bjohnson515]

The North paid more tariffs......but it was their industries that were being protected. The South paid the higher import prices, nothing was protected for them. The South did the majority of exporting for the US and when they did, they met countervailing duties and fees on their products levied by those countries which paid had their products tariffed upon entry to the US. BTW the Southern ports did a vast majority of the collection of the import duties , from Baltimore to New Orleans. Once collected, the monies were sent to WA DC where most went to Northern and Northwestern infrastructure projects.

[@bjohnson515]

@ Oh your one of those walking around with a two page high school social studies knowledge of the war. Why did VA NC TN and AR all stay in the Union and were strongly against secession after the Deep South clearly seceded to protect their institution of slavery?

[@bjohnson515]

I havent read Alexander's book in a while... did he take the blame for the overshoots on July 3, 1863?

[@KevinCave-rj8eq]

Ron if you could have met one general officer who would have been?? Myself I think it would have been mosby he was smart never took unnecessary life and he never got caught 👍💯🍀🍀🍀

[@Jsmith2024]

Mosby was smart, but he was never a general officer.

[@stevewixom9311]

@@Jsmith2024 Very true... but he was close enough. Loved to have met him too.

[@joesmith-t2z]

fascinating! No Lost Cause mythmaker, he.

[@toddchaddon4249]

Interesting comments, though there is no way he could known what 'could have been.' I believe men's opinions can change over time as to the propriety of their actions, especially defeated men's opinions. He is writing this after seeing a victorious US military in the Spanish-American war only a few years before publishing this book which came on the heels of the military subjugation of native American tribes in the middle of the country. It is logical to assume the opulence of the victorious US never would have occurred as it did had the Confederacy won its independence. If the union was preserved by military conquest (in 1865), what sort of union were we left with? It cannot be described as voluntary, and if that is true, we cannot claim to be free. Keep up this great work!! These points of view by the participants of our history are always enlightening! Merry Christmas to all.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

There would not have been a Federal operation under the Constitution to suppress the armed insurrection if the slave owners who dominated politics in Southern states had not lead and/or cheered on mobs that lynched pro-Union sympathizers and the violent seizure of Federal property before many of the states formally seceded from the Union, only because it was evident that the Southern slave states had lost the control or at least veto power, over the Federal government in 1860 and could no longer defend or perpetuate slavery, much less extend into the territories.

[@Psittacus_erithacus]

You seem to be offering these ideas thoughtfully rather than zealously. So in that spirit, I'll comment on them. Not looking to convince or be convinced; just adding to the pile of ideas: \* Membership in nation states has nearly always been involuntary. A consequence of birth or geography if not outright conquest. \* I didn't get to choose what laws I'd be subject to. I was born into a nation and am subject to its laws. I'm not allowed to simply opt out, in ideology or with arms from that subjugation. I could lawfully relocate to another nation, but I cannot stay here and pretend that the laws of the land do not apply to me. \* Only a radical few would consider all these nation states, both present and in history, somehow illegitimate because they are involuntary. In fact, most consider the inability to arbitrarily opt out of membership to be foundational to maintaining a functioning society. Certainly it is at an individual level.

[@ToddChaddon]

@@Psittacus_erithacus Thank you for your comments. When I say voluntary, I am referring the individual states (which our founders recognized as their own countries) voluntarily joining the union by way of state conventions to debate whether they should join the union proposed by the Constitution. I was not referring to individual persons. Keep in mind, it only took 9 of the 13 states to ratify and put into effect the Constitution. If the other 4 states did not ratify, the Constitution would not apply to them. It was also generally understood at the time that just as states can voluntarily join the union, they can also leave when it no longer served their purposes. Virginia, New York, and I believe, Rhode Island included specific language detailing this understanding in their ratification documents. Contrary to a popular belief that Southern States committed treason by leaving the union, the states were executing the only remedy to their political situation after the 1860 election. Lastly, if anyone thinks secession is or was a bad thing, it really isn't. New England states considered secession during the 1814 Hartford Convention. We had several states created by secession: Kentucky from Virginia, Maine from Massachusetts, Tennessee from North Carolina and West Virginia from Virginia. Certainly Lincoln had no problem with secession when he welcomed West Virginia into the ranks of the union. Also, what does anyone think happened in 1776? Secession from the British Empire. We don't call it that, but that is what it was; separation from one political entity to create a new political entity. Merry Christmas to you and your family!

[@gregoryeatroff8608]

A majority in the south opposed secession, but millions of them were not permitted to vote on the matter. Separation was being imposed by a minority. And the Confederates were just as insistent on territorial integrity taking precedence over self-determination as the Union was -- they sent troops to put down countersecession movements in eastern Tennessee and northwestern Virginia.

[@bjohnson515]

@@gregoryeatroff8608 Did the North vote on invading the South?

[@Teaman596]

If the federal government told people they could no longer use their gasoline powered cars, without just compensation, people would be angry. Same thing with the slaves of that time. Slaves were property, and the slave owner did not think the federal government had the authority to set them free without just compensation.

[@RSQ-z4m]

If the person has no right to the car, no compensation is necessary.

[@billsmith5109]

How about the federal government says no more tennis balls,and no compensation. It’s just as likely as your proposition.

[@scottw5315]

Middleton Place Plantation has a garden patterned after the Palace at Versailles. The Planters could have paid wages and still lived like Kings. If you don't know, the issue of slavery was known at the Constitutional Convention. Georgia and South Carolina refused to join the Union unless they were allowed to import slaves for another twenty years. They chose poorly and found out the hard way.

[@barryj388]

@@RSQ-z4m but they do have a right if the purchases were legally permitted by the same government that later wants to confiscate the private property they allowed to be purchased and owned.

[@talkingwalnut]

However, the South's statement of secession & its firing on Ft. Sumter occurred in 1861. At the time, the South wanted slavery to expand into free territories while Lincoln did not. The Emancipation Proclomation did not occur until January 1863.

[@brianniegemann4788]

Porter's words really are nonpartisan, taking into account his conclusion. He persists in defending the Lost Cause, but admits it was for the best that the South was defeated and was better off rejoining the Union. In fact, after regaining Union status the rebel states were accorded the full range of state's rights they enjoyed before the rebellion. And they took full advantage of those rights. They even escaped the 14th Amendment penalty for disenfranchising their supposedly free black citizens; to my knowledge no state ever had its congressional delegation reduced or penalized for not allowing blacks to vote. If they had backed down and avoided the whole conflict, they would have ended up much better off.

[@mikemcmanus116]

Generally speaking no one on either side envisioned the amount of death and destruction such a war would create. We lost more Americans in that war then all our other wars totaled. One Northern Congressman stated that if war came he could clean up all the blood with his handkerchief. I studied under professor T. Harry Williams at LSU who stated the Civil War was the last of the Napoleonic Wars and the first of modern wars. Repeated frontal assaults against an entrenched enemy didn't work well especially against the rifled musket. It didn't work for Burnside at Fredericksburg , or Lee at Gettysburg. The generals of WW I didn't learn this lesson either with massive amount of improved arterially and machinegun. If people understood what was about to happen, we would have found a political solution to the political, economic, cultural issues.

[@bjohnson515]

What would his book have been about if the South had won independence? He wrote this with 20 20 hindsight.

[@geoffrohde2886]

I still think that it necessary to observe, that on the point of "The right to self government...", we really do need to recall that in the "definition" of that concept, as stated by the Confederate leaders, that included Federal imposition of fugitive slave laws on Free States, exclusively. Thus - what about the exact same rights of all of those states? Geoff Rohde

[@talkingwalnut]

Indeed. It's also contradictory to wrap oneself in the sheer shawl of "state's rights" while having signed onto a Confederate constitution that explicity mandates member states to allow slavery.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Well said. We might add that those same Confederate leaders strictly limited "The right to self government" and the "right to revolution" to white people.

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

East Tennessee 💥🇺🇸💥 still did not want to succeed in the last wave of states to do so, but "we" were outvoted by Middle and West Tennessee. ✍️ Tennessee was the last state to secede, and the first state to rejoin the Union. 🇺🇸 In fact, East Tennessee actually wanted to rejoin as the State of "East Tennessee" like West Virginia did, it just didn't work out that way...

[@aaronfleming9426]

Indeed. Tennessee had two Unionist regiments at the battle of Mill Springs, defending Kentucky from the rebel invasion. I've really enjoyed vacationing in Tennessee the last three summers, but haven't made it as far east as Knoxville. I'll have to get out that way and see the remnants of those forts.

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

@aaronfleming9426 Fort Dickerson is among the best preserved earthworks you'll ever see in the US. 💥🇺🇸💥 And it is highlighted by interpretive signage as well as three very nice non firing, replica cannon.

[@meofamily4]

The Confederate general defends the South of charges of seceding on behalf of the preservation of slavery, and then is pleased to glory in the defeat of the secession, since the Union was a valuable institution. He suggests later generations may decide for themselves. They have. The South seceded in order to defend slavery, and it was a good thing they lost, because that meant slavery was abolished.

[@DuffyF56]

To reduce the cause of the Civil War to a single issue is ridiculous and ignorant of historical fact.

[@LorenzoMagnesium-cu8pr]

Bullshit. How many CSA soldiers owned slaves? The War Of Northern Agression is an accurate label of what the war was fought over……states rights.

[@gregoryeatroff8608]

@@DuffyF56 every issue of the war was tied to slavery, either contributing to its survival in the south and collapse in the north or deriving from that change. Tariffs and states' rights played out in relation to slavery. Different immigration patterns were driven by the difference between slave-based and free labor economies. The growth of industry in the north and its slower development in the south were largely (though not entirely) driven by the presence or absence of slavery. And differences in climate and soil allowed plantation slavery to thrive in the south while it never really took hold in the north (the efforts to establish patroon agriculture in the Hudson Valley were always shaky, for example). You're not going to find any major sectional issue in the early to mid-19th century that isn't intimately tied to the slavery question. Slavery wasn't the only issue, but it was the central and necessary issue, and all the other issues tied into it. Without slavery there would have been no attempted secession and no war. None of the other issues impelled men to such extreme measures.

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@LorenzoMagnesium-cu8pr Good question. The answer is that at least 30% of white southern households held slaves. Slave owners and their sons enlisted at about 40% higher rates than non slave holders. Southerners who did not own slaves joined the Union army at a higher rate. Regions with low slave owning rates often recruited whole regiments to fight for the Union. For example, at the battle of Mill Springs, there were Unionist Tennessee regiments defending the state of Kentucky from an invasion by rebel forces. I suggest that you educate yourself thoroughly in the following 2 topics: 1. The Declarations of Secession - those will tell you what "states rights" the war was fought over. 2. The military actions taken by rebels against the United States before Lincoln was inaugurated.

[@SecNotSureSir]

If the northern people were told they were going to war with the south to free slaves, Lincoln would have a rebellion in the north as well. Lincoln, should he lived through his second term, would have pressed with the forced migration and deportation of blacks to Africa, central and South America. Your moralistic high horse doesn’t have legs.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Porter was full of prunes (as my dear old Grandmother used to say). In everyday life we are all fully aware that people are quite free with their unpopular opinions when they think they're going to win, who then suddenly begin singing a different tune when it turns out they are, in fact, going to lose very hard. This is exactly the case with the Slave Holders' Rebellion, but thankfully we have an abundance of historical data, in their own founding documents and declarations of causes, which demonstrates they were rebelling for the express purpose of perpetuating their slave economy indefinitely. I submit this quote from a wiser man and better general, George H. Thomas: "The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property-justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people-was not exacted from them."

[@23rdMS_Inf]

There's no point in arguing with someone like you. You come on here with a preconceived agenda and had no intention of taking in anything positive from his remarks but instead find ways to childishly demean dead people that can't defend themselves to serve your sick fantasy you have construed in your head. "Slave Holders' Rebellion" has to be the most silly, pathetic revisionist title of the American Civil War I have ever seen.

[@M58West]

George Thomas was a traitor to his neighbors. If he didn’t feel he could have supported the perceived cause for which his neighbors fought… he should have sat it out. He’s the same as the character in the movie “The Patriot” who torched the church holding his fellow countrymen.

[@MrHand-ih4sz]

"Slave holders rebellion". Sorry...couldn't get thru the rest of your fairytale after that one. Was laughing too hard.

[@michaelhanna7720]

“Slaveholders Rebellion” is much more (uncomfortably) close to the truth than the lost cause myth likes to acknowledge…

[@aaronfleming9426]

@@MrHand-ih4sz Didn't realize you'd get such a kick out of the truth. Glad to hear it. But I don't think you know what a "fairytale" is...

[@RileyRampant]

It seems a bit that Gen. Alexander is trying to have it all ways at once - justifying the rebellion, side-stepping the main issue of slavery and nay-saying any prospect at compensation, while finally admitting that had the confederacy succeeded, North America would have been at the mercy of the other great powers, a prospect clearly in view to anyone who cared to notice before it all got started. This may have been the necessary palaver to ensure his work would get a fair hearing by all sides.

[@Oct14cya]

I feel the war wasn’t about states rights but about money. To stop slavery would have meant the slave owner would now have to pay to get the work done. One video I watched,not long ago,had a confederate soldier refusing to sign up for another year. The soldier said “He wasn’t going to die for some rich man’s war.” Southern politicians looked to the wealthy plantation owners to support their campaigns so the plantation owners held the reins so to speak. Now if your profit margins are going to be cut into by paying people to work for you how do you go about keeping the status quo? You start a campaign stating your way of living is going to be erased by the North. You can’t tell people to get killed or maimed so you can keep your profit margin. It wouldn’t be the first time a populace was lied to to start a war. Hitler started World War II by having Special Operations soldiers dressed as Polish soldiers and had them attack a German radio station near the Polish border. Good video though.

[@ToddChaddon]

@Oct14cya For the South, it was states' rights. For the North, it was about money. See my other comments about the economic causes.

[@aaronfleming9426]

Except that the rebel politicians didn't lie. They told the whole world it was about slavery. They were loud and proud about it. Phrases like "the southern way of life" weren't merely economic. They were steeped in white supremacy as well. Whether or not a white person held slaves, vast majorities of them believed that without slavery to control black people, all the white women would run off with black men (I'm sorry to say this is factual...they called it "miscegenation" and they were absolutely paranoid about it), and/or that there would be race wars. So most white southerners could be convinced to fight for slavery, at least for a while.

[@yanshi34]

What a bunch of apologist garbage.

[@Losantiville]

Why not secede prior to the 1860 elections? Why participate in an election if you will not abide the results?

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

Because they weren't really threatened by anyone but Lincoln.

[@Grant25]

Sounds like old Porter was suffering from lost cause syndrome

[@owensomers8572]

I thought his conclusions stated a change of heart.

[@kevinjohnson-lf3kj]

Porter was a Traitor to the Union.

[@bjohnson515]

Curious that the alleged "Lost Cause" syndrome is regarded as a post war myth, crafted by bitter Southerners. Yet before ANY SHOTS were fired, in Feb of 1861....Jefferson Davis laid out, what is now called by detractors as the "Lost Cause", in his inaugural speech. Remarkable, huh? How'd that happen? BEFORE THE WAR? Maybe those who call the causes of the war and the Southern perspective and referring to it as the "Lost Cause" myth is a recasting of actual history, the victors controlling the narrative.

[@YSLRD]

Not a bit. He delineates the thought processes of the combatants and then accepts the benefits of union. A different opinion might be letting the US become a world empire was not fully positive.

[@bjohnson515]

"Lost Cause Syndrome"......want to define it?

[@schutendohkji548]

i liked the last sentence: We became the most freest nation in the world and became the strongest in the world bc. of the Union as one nation vs. two weak nations, at least, i dink the South will be much weaker bc. of the agrarian vs. industrial w more nat'l resources of the north n bigger population. Yet, w/o the Southern States, we won't have been able to help Europe against the Germans in WWI and against the Germans n Japanese (two fronts of vast distance apart) in WWII.

[@ToddChaddon]

I don't see how we are more free as a result of the war. The southern states were militarily defeated and occupied for 11 years. That shows it was a war of conquest and forced to join the union by force of arms. Then...the armies were let loose on the native tribes in the central and western portions of the country. Another war of conquest. We are not free if the union is held together by shotgun to the head of each state. If we were not so powerful by the turn of the century with our success in the Spanish-American war, we would not likely have been involved in WW1, and WW2 may not have happened.

[@talkingwalnut]

"All Confederates repudiate ... all accusations of fighting to preserve slavery". This statement can hardly be sourced from "thorough research". The Confederacy was indisputably founded on the preservation of slavery as documented in Confederate secesstionist writing.

[@ronbell7920]

and their constitution

[@williamcollins2782]

How many Confederates owned slaves?

[@ronbell7920]

@williamcollins2782 , good question! While many of us are sympathetic to "states rights" issues and are aware of the trade injustices imposed on the southern states, the fact is slavery was the central issue.

[@bjohnson515]

The Deep South was clear on their fears. BUT VA NC AR and TN did NOT secede when the Deep South went out over the declared cause of slavery. They did NOT align with their cause, for if they did they would have seceded concurrently with the Deep South. IN FACT, VA voted 2:1 against seceding.....and some of the other states I mention refused to even have a convention to consider. THEN, Lincoln called for those four states to join the coercion and make war upon the Deep South. They refused and in a sense were forced to secede.

[@davedammann741]

Make your point, dancing around it indicates a question of intent.

[@patmyles4776]

I've studied the Civil War for over 50 years. My conclusions on the causes are these: Southerners would have never endured the sacrifices the War demand of them for slavery. They were motivated by the same thing their grandfathers had rebelled against 85 years earlier, self government. As for the North, originally they were fighting to preserve the union. As the war went on, their cause became not only that but also to end slavery. Lee was no more a traitor than John Adams and George Washington were.

[@avenaoat]

Problem is you should explain why the most slow % slave populatated were prounionists in the South!

[@HardscrabbleBlake1968]

But not all Southerners endured the sacrifices of the war . . . Many ultimately decided The Cause, whatever it was really for, wasn't worth dying for and they went home.

[@lancegauthier489]

Except for all the slave owners who said that it was all about slavery, until they lost.

[@HardscrabbleBlake1968]

@@lancegauthier489 Amen. All you have to do is read the different states' Declarations of Secession, they all declare threats to slavery as the reason for secession, usually in the 1st or 2nd paragraph.

[@RSQ-z4m]

John Adams, George Washington, and fellow founders were, in fact, engaged in treason.

[@johnmartin2502]

Alexander's explanation of the causes of the war are dead on. Even H.L. Mencken noted in his critique of The Gettysburg Address that the reason for the war was for self government, not for slavery. Instead of a civil war. Southerners thought of it as a war for independence. A continuation of the American Revolution. No one can deny the South was crippled by onerous tariffs and they rightly objected vehemently to them. Instead of compromise the government doubled down triggering secession which in itself was not prohibited in our Constitution.

[@Grant25]

Well sorry for you but the southern governments were nice enough to put in writing that it was over slavery. Especially you can thank Alex Stephens for the cornerstone speech

[@wcg19891]

Sure they believed in self government Unless you were black.

[@wcg19891]

@@Grant25They definitely seceded over slavery. There is no doubt about that. You are absolutely correct. But it’s also true that they believed they had the right of secession and pointed to the Declaration of Independence and the example of the Revolution as both justification and precedent. History just like politics today is complicated.

[@daltonadams4672]

Both yours and Porter's arguments are the post hoc excuses and justification for the rebellion. The rebellion was to retain the enslavement of Black African Americans, and the rebels accepted no compromise on that point.

[@owensomers8572]

I can deny the "South was crippled by onerous tarriffs". The South was crippled by dependence on agricultural commodities that had fluctuating values that required a coerced labor supply. Most of the economic disruption in the South was traceable to the speculative Cotton Bubble of the 1830s.

[@Losantiville]

Sd

[@robbrown4621]

Of course it would be too much for him to consider what Alexander and his kind were doing to millions of people who he fought to have remained in slavery. When he speaks of freedom his racism mind only thinks of White folk. A lot of his offspring still feel the same way even if they fear speaking of such things out loud today. Also, when you think about it, it's less than one and 1/2 full lifetimes (115 years) between Alexander and you who are reading this note. In that light, have we made a lot of progress? Perhaps. But his offspring may not feel the same way. Who knows what is their version of MAGA in their hearts?