Old South Monument Backers Embrace 'Confederate Catechism'

[Jimbo101]

Wow - In a warped alternate universe - the traitors are patriots - and the patriots are the traitors

U.S. News and World Report

Sometimes it seems like the impassioned people who want to preserve Confederate monuments across the South are reading a different history book than the rest of the nation.

In fact, they are.

A decades-old booklet called the "Confederate Catechism" lays out core beliefs of Southern heritage groups including the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sells the book and has defended rebel monuments in New Orleans and elsewhere. Some of those monuments were erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which has programs to educate children on its version of Southern history.

Here is a look at Confederate catechisms — what they teach, how they developed and how they are used today:

WHAT WAS THE CIVIL WAR ABOUT?

Certainly not slavery, according to the most popular version of "A Confederate Catechism," which is promoted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans on its website.

"Both from the standpoint of the Constitution and sound statesmanship, it was not slavery, but the vindictive, intemperate anti-slavery movement that was at the bottom of all the troubles," states the 12-page text, written in question-and-answer form.

Such claims don't square with much of today's scholarship. To critics, they seem at odds with the secession documents issued by Southern states, some of which specifically mentioned slavery as a reason for the dispute that led to formation of the Confederate States of America in 1861. Mississippi's declaration said the state's position was "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

The "anything but slavery" narrative is popular among Confederate sympathizers who maintain the war was about something other than maintaining the ability of white Southerners to own black people.

SO WHAT CAUSED THE WAR?

The catechism lays the blame on Abraham Lincoln. The 16th president of the United States brought on four years of bloodshed by rejecting the legal right of the 11 states of the Confederacy to leave the Union and sending troops into the South, it claims.

For emphasis, it states in all capital letters that the South: "... FOUGHT TO REPEL INVASION AND FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT, JUST AS THE FATHERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION HAD DONE."

[Hoyt]

1. I would suggest white wingers read the Mississippi Declaration of Secession.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

"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.

Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. 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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."



The second sentence in the Declaration is quite clear to me. These same white wing, confederate loving fools can't read the 2nd Amendment either.

[Jimbo101]

2. it's mentioned in the fifth paragraph from the bottom

[Docreed2003]

4. Damn near every one of the Confederate states'

"Declaration of Secession" contained quotes nearly identical to Mississippi in the causes for secession being preservation of slavery. The only exception that I know off the top of my head is Tennessee, who's declaration beats around the bush at naming slavery as the cause of secsssion and shines a light on the internicene state controversies at the time that Tennessee was equally divided between siding with the Union or the confederacy. In East TN, a largely Union stronghold, there are Union cemeteries maintained to this day. No state was as divided along the lines of brother against brother as Tennessee...but that's a topic of a different discussion. My point is, anyone who questions the cause of the secessionists, would do well to read the "Declarations of Secession" from the Confederate states and it clearly shows slavery was at its core. Slaves were viewed in economic terms and these states saw the abolishionists as attacking their means of economic stability.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Question: how or why would there be a ' intemperate anti-slavery movement' without slavery?

[Warpy]

5. The south had simply never been able to let go of the early federalism

that featured an extremely weak central government with all the former colonies self governing as independent states, responsible for everything from minting money to making their own trade agreements, to providing for their own defense. The south loved that, they knew how repugnant slavery was to the north and took steps from the beginning to make sure the north would never interfere.

When the Federation broke down with some states on the verge of war with others, the south had to be dragged into signing the new constitution, which gave a central government the lion's share of the power. That "slaves are 3/5 human" clause is to increase their population numbers enough that they wouldn't be dominated by the more populous free states. Even at that, they resisted any attempt of the central government to inconvenience them in any way, "state's rights!" being their rallying call in Congress after Congress.

Saying slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War is a little disingenuous, but slavery is the main thing the rich men in the south wanted to protect. What they wanted most of all was to be independent principalities, the European aristocracy replicated by the wealthy and slaves their serfs.

They will never admit they started the war by firing on Fort Sumter, even as they glorify the act.

Understand all this and you begin to understand not only the south, but the gradual poisoning of American politics for far too long by ideas that should have died an ignoble death 230 years ago as the constitution was being written.

[Hoyt]

6. Agree. Although it was not just rich southerns protecting slavery. Randi Rhodes explained it like

this on Air America years ago. I think she was joking, but there is a lot of truth to this:

Two old southern dirt farmers were discussing whether they should join the confederate army. One said he wasn't going to risk his life to preserve slavery. The other said, "Yeah, but old Mr. Beauregard ain't gonna pick his own cotton."