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

[loax]

The Republicans don't know anything about history, unless it is to point and say see what we Did!! There will be no more terror in the White House! Obama 08!!

[JonSmiley]

Jim Webb is not wrong on the facts, its just that our media doesn't appreciate nuance and would prefer to make caricatures of people.

[BushBites]

Interesting article.

Most of what I got from it was that Southerners were just as anxious to jump into a war for an odious cause then as they are now.

Of course, now they don't really fight. They just watch Fox News and pretend they're doing the fighting.

[OfficialA]

They? They? You paint with a very broad brush, sir.

[RoloTomassi]

Oh yeah, such insightful commentary...as if no one above the mason-dixon line is responsible for anything related to BushCo.

Yoou morons never get enough of laying anything you don't like at the feet of the southern states. Go grow a brain.

[smilodon1]

If you grow a brain you become a Democrat.

[Mike169]

Webb is entilted to his view like everyone else. It is, however, wrong. The Civil War was fought over slavery and not states rights. The Southerners, who had, in the first part of the 19th century, attempted to have the Federal government embrace slavery, were out maneuvered when the Republicans wanted to outlaw slavery in the territories. The writing was on the wall when Lincoln got elected. They could have submitted in the name of democracy but they chose to split the union. The rest is history.

[ThirdSection]

Slavery was THE big issue that brought the Southern elites to secede their states from the Union. One of the grievances outlined in South Carolina's articles of secession was the federal government's inability to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law (which had Northern states up in arms over states' rights). Also, the confederate Constitution prohibited states from outlawing slavery and made it more difficult for individuals to free their slaves.

However, Jim Webb's point was not about why the South seceded. It was about what motivated Confederate foot soldiers to fight for the Confederacy. I doubt that they were laying down their lives to bolster the 5% slave-owning elite, just like I doubt that our soldiers in Iraq today are motivated to action by a desire to put more oil profits into the pockets of Halliburton shareholders.

Really, when has a foot soldier ever laid down his life because he wanted to further enrich an already wealthy ruling class?

[robXdion]

Just like soldiers today (and I was one of them) they fooled them by making it personal for those in uniform. It was "They want to take our freedom!" Sound familiar?

[Liberal2]

When does the philosophy of the average citizen define the national philosophy? Do we judge the nature of nazism on the musings of a Wehrmacht private or the Führer? The secession movement was financed by wealthy plantation owners who wanted to maintain their wealth and status.

One must keep in mind the Civil War end less than a century after the colonies revolted against the British Crown. For about two centuries prior, they were distinct colonial entities under British control. Given the educational system and means of mass communications, I am not amazed by the fact average men were loyal to their state first.

States' rights today are more about state governments getting all pissy over power going to the federal government than where a Virginian sees his citizenship originating.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

Lincoln's intent was to save the Federal union--in his own words. Webb's remarks are irrelevent to any role except an assumed one as historian. That said, Webb will be better off NOT being chosen to run with Obama. A signal role in the Senate is more important!!!

[robXdion]

Exactly. Southern senators and representatives threatened secession throughout the first half of the 19th century. The Civil War could have happened sooner if Martin Van Buren was more belligerent. I can't fathom the mental gymnastics Webb and others perform to prove their case to themselves. It's only believable to those who want to buy it and share in the imagined nobility for heritage sake OR those embarrassed that their ancestors were at the heart of so much destruction. The denial of the dehumanization behind the thinking of slavery and it's long fallout is why race has never been resolved in the US.

[RoloTomassi]

Your comments contain an inherent bias that renders them worthless.

[Suthngal]

I see someone didn’t do so well in US History. Webb is correct...the underlying cause was slavery, but that was not WHY the war was fought.

[robXdion]

Really? Give us proof. For too long people throw this out there and never back it up. I'm sure if you read some history, you'll be surprised to know Lincoln's refusal to let slavery spread West led and his subsequent election led to 7 southern states seceding. Lincoln didn't care about slavery where it existed, but he didn't want it spread. The South wanted the new territories becoming states to be free to have a choice, which actually meant "decide to have slavery". Ergo, we're back to slavery's spread being why the war was fought.

[Soundofthunder]

Check the actual history books, not the Civil War Cliff's Notes you read, and you'll discover that no, the Civil War at the outset was not about slavery.

In the early years, Lincoln was quoted as saying he would free some of the slaves, none of the slaves or all of the slaves, whatever measure would PRESERVE THE UNION. It wasn't until 1863 that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, when Lincoln realized that freeing slaves was the only option to save the union.

That fact in and of itself contradicts your précis that the Civil War was solely about slavery. Union first, slaves second. Also, when Lincoln was inaugurated in March of 1861, the south had already seceded from the Union no thanks to James Buchanan who stood idly by and let it happen.

And if you check the history of why those states seceded, you'll find the 10th Amendment, states' rights, at the core of their dispute.

SOT

[GeorgeSalt]

If, as you say, the Civil War at the outset was not about slavery, then please explain to me why the words "slave", "slavery" or other variants appear in the document "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" a total of eighteen times.

[Mike169]

Sorry SOT - that history is just wrong. I didn't get this from a Cliff Notes book as you demeaningly suggest but through actual reading of books - somthing you ought to try some time.

[jashecht]

This "controversy" is a reflection of one of the saddest situations in American politics and indeed the nation today. We will never gleam the lessons of history if we just learn its catch phrases as opposed to its content and motivations.

While slavery will forever be a stain on our nation's conscience, it was not the only factor, nor was it the driving factor leading to the Civil War. The motivations of the Confederacy to cecede from the Union were numerous and included states rights and economic issues, some of which were built around the expansion of slavery into new territories to the west. The cecession of the South and subsequent war were a tragedy that had been building since the ratification of the constitution ( the 3/5 compromise being an example of a dissagreement between the north and south over whether or not slaves should be counted as persons and the electoral college being an illustrationof regional concerns over state representation)

When Mr. Webb states that slavery was not THE cause of the civil war, he is doing what a historian is supposed to do, commenting upon events as they actually happened without passion or prejudiced opinion. However, in an era of politically correctness and broad generalization, only the simplest of explanations seem to satisfy. If we expect no more than sound bytes and simplicity, we will be rewarded with spokespersons and not leadership.

[WasteNJ]

Ironically, most of the people who are "offended" about the premise that slavery wasn't the SOLE reason for the civil actually don't know too much about the civil war. Nothing as complicated as war is ever about one issue. Everybody has their issues that are important to them, and they did back then too. I'm sure some people didn't want to give up their slaves (Bad for business) and some didn't like the idea of Federal taxes. Funny how no matter what, money is never far from the cause for wars.

[MsBrina]

Exactly!

However, this is America, attention spans are short and politicians are elected by sound bytes.

God Bless America *blank stare*

[mhoiles]

LOL!

[washington31]

LOL! Love it!

[PATina]

So true !! There was a lot of debate on whether this country should have a strong Federal Gov't... or a weak one. Lincoln's committment to keeping slavery to the states that already had it (not allowing it to expand to newly formed states) was merely the straw that broke the camel's back and those favoring a weak Federal gov't left to form their own country. .

[GLaB]

Funny how ALL the states "favoring a weak Federal gov't" that "left to form their own country" were SLAVE states.

Kind of makes me think SLAVERY might have been the driving force. Does it seem that way to you, too?

[Teyshar]

If only history were so cut and dry in either direction. Slavery was an issue in the forming of the nation not just the civil war. Slavery was too an issue in the civil war. Even before the war started, during the initial years and as a tactic later in the war. The Mason-Dixon line law preceeds the war. Who can have slaves or not. Can we buy more slaves or not. Are slaves property of not. There was compromise after compromise. The North was infringing on the south's right to choose. we are a Nation of Nations. Each state has a constitution. Our National elections are really state electors not popular votes. The debate for strong centralized government or a loose federation was always the question. If it was about equality then right after Emancipation blacks would benning for President. To insinuate that Webb is somehow not understanding of the plight of Blacks in american history is a farce. Infact he is amplifying the other facts in the cause for war and not ignoring them as a true historian should.

[Liberal2]

"....The debate for strong centralized government or a loose federation was always the question..." But the problem is why the debate raged. The non-slave states had the greater population. Slaveholders wanted questions about the continued legality of slavery to be decided at the individual state level, where state population differences would not matter.

Webb wants to shift attention from the core issue, slavery, to something more abstract, such as economic issues. This allows Virginia and the other slave states to pretend a certain political noblity to their side in the Civil War. But when a state's economy is based on slavery, the economic issue is slavery.

Yes, Mr. Webb "understands" the plight of blacks, both ante and post bellum. But he also understands the historical consequence of admitting each abstract factor reduces back to one physical reality: slavery.

[OfficialA]

It is also worth mentioning that a great many Southerners joined the Confederate army not out of belief in States Rights or Slavery, but because of societal pressure and, not infrequently, conscription. The great majority of those who fought and died had no vested interest in the success of the Confederacy.

[OfficialA]

If you read Webb's book, "Born Fighting," you'd assume everyone of Scots Irish descent would as soon clobber you as look at you, and that they (we) were all willfully and proudly ignorant. Maybe his Scots Irish ancestors were stupid and mean, but there were lots and lots of educated and humane Scots Irish.

I think Webb has a tendency to oversimplify and exxagerate, and I am certain he has aggression issues.

[Liberal2]

"...I think Webb has a tendency to oversimplify and exxagerate, and I am certain he has aggression issues...."

He packs a pistol when he travels. Ya never know when a Vietcong sniper's gonna pop up out of a hidey-hole. Kinda' tells ya something....if you're paying attention.

[Heidfeld]

Wait what? Where are the cries of racism? Surely Webb is a racist, no?

Are you Obamabots saying that, because his statements are "factually correct," they are not racist? Really?

Then why was that same standard not applied to Bill Clintons factually correct statements? Ahhh, because Obamabots are hypocrites. Right, I almost forgot for a second.

[adl]

Actually, neither's statements are racist, but Bill Clinton's were race baiting. Intent matters.

[copernikus]

Who said anything about this being racist? I'm black, support Obama, liked Jim Webb before this came to light and still like him now. However, I think that his analysis is wrong.

Yes all the rhetoric prior to the war was about preserving the Union. But why was the Union in peril? Because of slavery! I just don't know how you can treat these as separate issues.

[PATina]

Hi Heidfeld...

Why would it be racist to say that the Civil War was NOT fought because of slavery? This is something most African Americans I know (and I am one) have always known.

[robXdion]

The South had that motive, the North didn't. Don't be fooled.

[kdublya]

Douchebot,

I didn't find Bill Clinton's remarks particularly offensive, just off kilter and counter-productive.
The omen that Sen. Obama might be another Jesse Jackson is a projection entirely based on fear.
That's a fact.

As for Webb's writings, I'm receiving all kinds of perspectives on a contraversial time in American History. There's no malice in that.

[BushBites]

I don't see how this can hurt him, as long as Obama believes him.

What? You think African-Americans aren't going to vote for Obama because Webb is on the ticket?

[mhoiles]

This sound bite from Webb should bring the "bitters" to the polls.

[robXdion]

Some will sit home. Obama already has a record of blowing AAs off.

[bronceye]

The Civil War began with the American Revolution. Southern states wanted their own country, unaffiliated with the North. Many skirmishes were fought between north and south states during the Revolution. The North needed the finances of the South. Slaves represented a huge financial investment for the South. Proclamation essentially bankrupted the South on international levels. If students were to read the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks would be very upset. Even Jesus spoke of slavery w/o condemning it. Slavery was a way of life since humanoids appeared on the planet. There were no jobs for unskilled people before the industrial revolution. If you weren't a skilled person, you were apt to starve as the well to do and the powerful owned everything. Putting our lives into our ancestor's is a parlor game, not reality. George Washington was so dumb, he couldn't figure out e-mail, my 8 yr. old can get email. God, was Washington ever dumb.

[Mike169]

Um...What?

[OfficialA]

"George Washington was so dumb, he couldn't figure out e-mail"

Huh?

[Liberal2]

it was a fool's attempt at wit.

[MsBrina]

You were stating valid points in your post, up until your last two sentences.
Did you mean George W. Bush?

[LeaveArtieAlone]

"George Washington was so dumb...." That was a mistype? Correct?

[bigfro]

Obama/Biden '08

[bigfro]

The bottom line is that the North couldn't compete with a free labor force. It was threatening to put all but a few Americans on the unemployment line. It was one of those time when the right thing to do just happened to be the answer for the economists also

[Mike169]

Actually free labor (as not enslaved labor) could not compete with slave labor in the territories which would soon become states. If you look at the history of the first part of the 19th century you will notice that the major compromises were compromises involving letting in a free state and a slave state in order to preserve the balance of power. This became untenable and the South rather than submit to the democrat process chose to subvert it by seceeding from the union.

[washington31]

I heart Webb!!

[washington31]

WEBB is my governor and he is very effective and smart. He is right!

[robXdion]

uh, Webb is a senator. You've just disqualified everything that came afterwards.

[Gichin13]

Um, he is Senator not Governor. Kaine is your governor.

On a parallel note, I also think Webb has a historical point on this issue.

[Roxanne2009]

Do you mean Senator? Kaine is your governor.

[MsBrina]

Governor? Senator!

God help us

[bigfro]

No no no, Biden is the VP, Get it right

[Pragmatus]

While it is absurd to barbecue Webb over his views regarding what the most important issue that drove the Civil War, I for one would disagree with him. John C. Calhoun understood that if slavery was ever to be preserved it would have to be defended along another line; thus the "states' rights" approach was developed. If the rights of the individual states trumped those of the Federal government there could never be any interference with slavery. Calhoun and every other thinking person could see that slavery as a practice was immoral, unchristian, and was being banned throughout the world, and to argue for it as some sort of virtue was impossible. Thus the focus on "states' rights".

As a result the Civil War not only did away with slavery but also the foolish assertion that the Federal government should be subservient to the will of the people of the various states.

[washington31]

I disagree w/ you. It had very little to do w/ concern for slaves. Our ancestors simply benefited from it.

[RoloTomassi]

Very true; economics, as in all wars, was much more the concern than slavery.

Slavery was a problem from the get-go, and because as an issue it provided great cover, the civil war accomplished more than it was actually about--thus slavery was abolished--a great, even if unintentional result.

[etermalspring]

I second that. Yes there were calls from abolistionists, etc. but we know $$$ changes everything.

This should not hurt Webb, I remember learning early on that Abraham Lincoln did not *free* slaves simply because he wanted to do the right thing.

It was a horrid, complex situation.

I'm thinking Senator Webb doesn't want the VP nod, he keeps stating reasons why he would not be a good candidate. I've learned recently that its proper etiquette to distance yourself, but this is about the third comment I've heard from him.

[adl]

Abraham Lincoln said that his main concern was maintenance of the union and he didn't care if this was accomplished with or without the continuance of slavery. I'm sure for some, like the slaves who fought in the war, slavery was the main issue, but for the people in power it wasn't.

[soothwriter]

If Pragmatus is correct, shouln't we be seeing recruitment underway for the civil war to abolish the death penalty?

[Liberal2]

If your state decides to secede over the issue, yeah. But as the citizens are unlikely to form the Second Army of the Confederacy of Dunces....a couple of FBI agents to arrest your govenor are probably enough federal power to take care of the "conflict."

[robXdion]

Correct. The South could have kept their slaves in the states that had them, but they had to press the issue and lost it all along with several hundred thousand lives, just for "pride". The attitude behind black subservience resurfaced 100 years later with segregation parlayed as "state's rights". Once again immoral and unChristian but defendable only with code phrases.