Jim Webb Explains His Remarks On Civil War, Confederacy

Sen. Jim Webb responded to an article this morning suggesting that as a vice presidential candidate he would have difficulty explaining past comments about the Confederacy and the Civil War.

Webb repeatedly pointed out that his work as a historian is more complex than the treatment in the press. However, he stood by his statement that war service during the Civil War was motivated more by concerns of states' sovereignty than by the issue of slavery.

Watch Webb discuss the history of Appalachian voters and their effect on the 2008 election.

Read the case against Jim Webb for Vice President.

Read the myth of Jim Webb's "anger issues."

Comments

[SCharb]

It was the old liberal/co­nservative divide that caused the South to secede. They couldn't bear having such a liberal president in the White House, and feared he would revoke slavery. Lincoln, in his First Inaugural, made every effort to assure that he definitely would never ever even consider even barely touching slavery in the states where it exists. Basically, he tried to play himself as politically moderate. Nevertheless, within a few weeks the shots were fired at Fort Sumter.

His views on slavery were way too far to the left for the South, who would rather secede than have a far-left liberal President.

And when they seceded, and before they had a draft, if you'd asked any of those Confederate soldiers what they were fighting for, they'd say "Old Virginia!" or "our way of life!" Robert E. Lee was getting ready to fight on the Union's side, but when Virginia seceded, he told Lincoln that he had to be loyal to Virginia. Basically, the whole secession was caused by political spin and fear-mongering about Lincoln's view on slavery. Only 12% of the South owned slaves, and less than 2% of the South were Plantation owners. The Confederate soldiers fought for another political spin, which was loyalty and their way of life. But mostly, they fought because of misled politics.

[yesyesyes]

Yet there are still who call it the War Of Northern Aggression.

[prcleburne]

Or the War For Southern Independence.

[yesyesyes]

Don't care, they were rebel terrorists no matter how you slice it. Why they were doesn't matter. They asked for what they got and they are still crying about it. "The South's gonna do it again." What, lose? They have a chip on their shoulder that will never go away.

[prcleburne]

The Civil War began over slavery. Period. However, the rank and file
Confederate soldier fought not to preserve slavery but to defend his " Country."
He may have been a traitor , but he was no more a terrorist than his Union counterpart.

[Chalkeater]

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—su­bordinatio­n to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”

The Cornerstone Speech

Alexander H. Stephens
Vice President
Confederate States of America

March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia

[addisonsteele]

It is well documented that the sole argument raised in Southern state legislatures about whether to join South Carolina in secession was to protect slavery. States' rights was not even mentioned. Once the slave-owning class made the decision to secede to protect their economic interests, they convinced the non-slave-owning Southerners (the vast majority) that they had to fight for their states and their way of life. The problem is that Senator Webb is a lousy historian.

[FogBelter]

Webb's response was straight and to the point. I really feel that he would be an asset to Obama on the ticket unless Democrats are willing to cede the Ohio Valley and the states that comprise it to John McCain. If people don't want to be reasonable regarding Webb then they at least need to be pragmatic about November. Coupling Obama with a North East Senator or a middling Governor will not aid him. I have a lot of confidence in Obama, but he has some hardcore deficiencies with some constituencies that will be difficult to overcome.

People who don't like Webb had better come up with a candidate that can communicate with similar rural white voters because we need them too come November.

[dreday911]

Oh it's complicated Mr. Webb? My black grandparents wouldn't vote for your confederate loving A** so you can scratch that one Mr. Obama. You don't have to have a degree or be an historian to know right from wrong. I guess next we'll be explaining how Nazi Germany was just about expansion.

[joeholla]

The war was about slavery as a source economic and political power more than about a moral outrage/ culture issue.

Plantations were the corporate interest of the time an place, and just like now power players where protecting their source of money and power. Free labor and increased representation in the gov.(saves counted as population(3/5) but could not vote, so in effect inflated the worth of a southerners vote.)

As Webb said Lincon freed slaves in the confederate states but not in the Union. He also wanted all blacks to be moved from the country
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

[outnow]

States rights and free trade vs. the tariff were big issues. The British favored free trade and Lincoln wanted the tariff to protect American industries. The state of New York had tried to secede from the union long before the Southerns. The slave trade was run out of the North. The war had much to do with British interference with the colonies. The British burned down the Whitehouse in 1814, for example. There were three distinct abolitionist movements in the United States. These movements were manipulated by the British who wanted no tariffs and cheap labor. It was only a fluke that slavery was abolished in England first. The MPs fought tooth-and-nail for years because the British are colonialist who believe in cheap labor. I do not condone slavery by any means and neither does Webb. Georgia was the first state to outlaw slavery. Strange how the oil is being traded on the futures exchange under British jurisdiction, not American. They always want us back as a colony. In a very real sense, this moment in history is a re-run of 1861 and of 1776. Either we re-institute the American System or we are just part of the British Empire.

[riverhouse]

Basically, the issue was about whether slavery could be moved into the western territories. In any case, only a fool of a politician would put his foot in that mess.

[zelduh]

My father, an historian who was a known expert on the Civil War (he died in 1973) said the exact same thing. He said that we would like to assume lofty ideals (or evil intents) were behind it, but states' sovereignty - and the right to secede meant more to the Southern leaders back then than the issue of keeping slaves. And it is still a sore subject that they lost the right to secede from the Union - and that is what the flag means to them.

Before you think, "he must have been a white racist;" you would be wrong. My father was Mexican, born, raised and educated, including the best universities.

[WarriorLemming]

Yeah I've read this before and I read about the Civil War more than the average person but I am not a degreed historian. I think your father was right on about that southerns wanted to seperate from the north but one reason beside economics was because of slaves but not the only reason.

[IndependentInquiry]

Of course, the answer is more nuanced than partisan hacks would have you believe:

Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.

(Sound familiar?)

So-was the war about slavery? Of course. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture.

Copped from: http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

[robXdion]

umm, Whoever wrote that is thinking circles. The only reason the Constitutional right to leave to Union was even broached was because of slavery. That was the issue since the 13 Colonies joined up. And the continuation of "antebellum culture" is another way of saying a "continuation of the status quo of white supremacy". SC Senator of 1832 John C. Calhoun made this explicit argument. I have more respect for him because at least he was somewhat honest about. He was even smart enough to reverse course on secession and slavery right before his death in 1850. But that didn't stop his followers from using his arguments as inspiration leading up to 1860.

[alltwisty]

Isn't it true that the abolitionist bloc in Congress at the time did an end run around some Southern congressman by deliberately holding the vote to abolish while the Southern congressman were en route to the capital? I mean, I'm reaching waaayyy back into 10th grade history here. I understand that the fight was really about slavery at its core, but wasn't it this manner in which the vote went down that prompted the secession? So, in that sense, what Webb says is true, if my memory is correct.

[robXdion]

No, Lincoln being elected in 1860 drove the secession. The South had been threatening not to ratify the Declaration of Independence and Constitution over slavery since the US's conception. The Lincoln-Douglas debates made clear where Lincoln stood on the issue of spreading slavery West. The South didn't like it. The Missouri Compromise didn't satisfy them. The Kansas-Nebraska Act ticked them off. They sought compromise as a separate entity apart from the US, but Lincoln didn't respect it for it's sovereign implications. They tried to "buy" federal property thru his Sec. of State and that failed too. So 7 states seceded. SC attacked Ft. Sumter and the North sought to protect federal property.

[WarriorLemming]

lol, we need an honest to goodness History Professor here are there any in the audience, please?

[edzeppelin]

I wanted to post this comment below my first, but this system is slow, here is the portion of the speech that says it all:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the IMMEDIATE CAUSE of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right." ....."The [original] constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—su­bordinatio­n to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Sick, disgusting, but true American History....don't forget it.

[edzeppelin]

This debate over the reason/cause of the Civil War is troublesome for this History teacher. I like Webb, and to a certain extent he is partially right in that the soldiers of the Confederacy, the mostly poor non-slave or few slave owning farmers fought out of duty and pride; however, they also fought to protect the institution of slavery. Although they owned relatively few to no slaves, they feared free black men would be competition in the labor force, among other racist fears. The elite Confederates, the wealthy planters and politicians were most definately fighting to protect slavery. All one has to do is simply read Alexander Stephens', the VP of the Confederacy, "Cornerstone Speech", given in 1861 explaining the cause of secession (in following post):

[citadelgrrl05]

As a African American, I have no problems with webb being VP, they are just trying to stir up non-sense. Looking back and reflecting on history, there is nothing wrong with that even though I disagree with him that the war was faught over states rights not slavery..yeah states rights to own slaves..But I still like Jimm Webb and what he brings to the ticket!! I would be for it. He could appeal to the redneck, white trash vote, sorry for being so blunt!!!

[joselopez]

This is the guy folks. Straight shooter, tough, Vietnam Vet, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan, and could be an attack dog for Obama when Republicans try to attack Obama's foreign policy experience.

[WarriorLemming]

Yeah, that's why I like him too (military experience too) but you're right and your bluntness is appreciated. :)