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

[SpoxLogic]

From what I read of the history of the Civil War, the basis was economical and not for freeing the slaves (please read about the actual proclamation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation).

The Confederacy didn't want to have to give up the gravy train they had going.

Please recall that the Emancipation Proclamation came a couple of years AFTER the war started. If the sole purpose was to free the salves, why wait?

Black folks especially should know the history of everything connected to them. When they do it becomes harder for others to use and view them as sheep for manipulation. Case in point - the reaction to Webb's statements.

KNOWLEDGE IS INDEED POWER! GET SOME POWER!

[bubbadoc]

partially true.
lincoln knew that he could not free slaves independently and the war was not likely to either.
the emancipation proclamation,as i understand it, was initially intended to free slaves in washington d.c. because the city was under federal jurisdiction. the intent was that once slaves found out that they were free in d.c., there would be a mass migration which would leave most confederate states without a work force thus forcing them to free slaves or give up the fight. they chose to fight on to their peril. the truth is, once union troops found out that they were fighting to "free the slaves", there was a revolt and many left the Union Army and went back home. Remember even Lincoln stated that if he could preserve the Union without freeing slaves, he would not free slaves.
this is not history just for as you state "Black folks" but for all Americans.

[DaDawg]

The EP had one major goal and that was to keep England's navy out of the war. England needed Southern cotton thus was seriously considering helping the South in breaking the blockade the Northern Navy had imposed. The EP played to public opinion of Europe, which was heavily anti-slavery. This kept European powers from developing a pubic will to interfere in the Civil War and kept the blockade alive. The fact that blockade help prevent South from re-supplying, won the war for the North in spite of lack of sound military leadership for most of the war. It EP didn't free any slaves at the time it was issued, and everyone knew if the North won that slavery was finished anyways so it was meant to have no particle effect at all.

[washington31]

And I agree w/ you.

[Pragmatus]

Lincoln did not free the slaves at the beginning of the war because he had to keep the border states--Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and most of all Maryland--in the Union or it would have been impossible to prosecute the war. (For example, if Maryland seceded, Washington DC would have been located in the heart of the Confederacy, hardly a viable scenario.)

The Emancipation Proclamation was a military order alone. On this issue Lincoln only had power as commander in chief of the military. The EP reads that slaves were to be freed only in those areas of the country currently in rebellion against the federal government. Lincoln was smart enough to realize that the EP would also forever keep foreign powers from recognizing the Confederacy, or even interfering in the war, because to do so would be to endorse a practice that had, by then, aroused the world's thorough disgust.

[Jocalo]

You are absolutely right. The slaves in border states were NOT freed by the EP. The Proclamation was a strategic move with many purposes. One of which was to create more instability as the news spread to slaves in the Confederacy that they had been freed. Eventually, the slaves were all freed, but with such limited civil rights that one might question the use of the word "free." If Webb was talking about reasons that soldiers fight, he is correct, the rank and file on BOTH sides mostly gave a crap about slavery. They were not slaveholders. Like all wars, the Civil War was complicated and there were many causes and motivations. It's necessary to look at all of them if we wish to learn from the past. The effects of the Civil War are still with us and until we take a hard look at ourselves we won't heal. My Gx3 Grandfather fought for the Union and I have his Civil War diaries. Never once did he mention slavery as a reason to fight. My family has always been proud of his service and rightly so, but his motives were not as lofty as abolition. He, like soldiers throughout history, wished to serve his country and get home to his family. It's the motives of the rich and powerful that lead us to war; behind the words that make it sound pretty on both sides, there is always a bunch of money and power at stake.

[robXdion]

Correct. The North wasn't fighting to free slaves. But the South sure was fighting to keep them. That's the difference. "State's Rights" is a euphemism to cover this up. The same term was used by segregationists too. People always say "state's rights" but they never articulate WHICH rights because it would ruin the whole facade they've created. Lot's of men died and while tragic, it doesn't make the South as a whole any more grand. The correct way to honor them would be to admit the basis was wrong and retire the memorabilia to a museum along with the attitudes behind it.

[PorkBelly]

Webb seems scary-smart.

The more I see him, the more I like him as a VP pick.

[GayIthacan]

As a historian, I give Webb an "A" for his knowledge of the Civil War and its motivating factors. 'Ending slavery' was definitely NOT one of them - especially in the beginning. The early issues were state sovereignty and state control of their economic ties and agreements. Most soldiers were giving their lives for their state or their new nation.

As many historians also admit that the southern states had every right to secede from the Union - their being ample precedent for dissatisfied portions of an empire for 'dissolving the political bands that had joined them to another'. One had only to read the Declaration of Independence for said justification(s).

[Mike169]

Actually he's wrong on the causes of the Civil War. Ic all your attention to The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relations to Slavery Don E. Fehrenbacher who discusses the how the Southern politicians aligned with the Democratic Party and their allies in the Northern Democratic Party attempted to make slavery the law law of the entire United States. They would have succeeded but for the Republican Party which opposed expansion of slavery to the territories. Not content to hol;d on to what they had the South chose to subvert democracy by seceeding from the union.

[realistxxx]

There were also plenty of anti-secessionists fighting/supporting the North that had no problem with slavery.

Webb's views are factually correct for both the North and South.

[Palspal]

No, his views are not entirely factually correct. The slave states argued for states rights EXCEPT when it involved slaves fleeing to the north. On this point they argued that the receiving states had NO right to retain the escapees. The slave states then argued that escaping slaves was a FEDERAL issue. So much for states rights.

And, what was depicted on the Confederate dollar? A slave scene, with black slaves picking cotton on a plantation. Couldn't be clearer what that war was about - continued use and expansion of slave labor.

[Freemind42]

you begin to bring up a good point except that the reasoning for the Southern states wanting to force the Northern states to uphold their slavery laws was because of the requirement of states to uphold the laws of other states (interstate commerce clause).

[TTigerX2]

I doubt this is an african-american inspired deceit; rather it is a republican-inspired imbroglio designed at tarnishing Webb. They have tried before to spark a debate over what Webb has written about sex. Two lines of my ancestry fought for the South Carolina Palmetto Rifles in the famed Micah Jenkins Brigade under General Longstreet. My great-grandfather surrendered, along with his two surviving brothers, at Appomatox. He had a bullet lodged in his shoulder the rest of his life. They walked back several hundred miles to their burnt-out farms and started a new life. They weren't defending their right to own slaves. They were fighting to keep the Yankees from destroying their economy through onerous taxes, especially high tariffs on cotton imposed upon the southern states, which caused an earlier insurrection in 1834. Slavery was a side-issue that Lincoln refused to address because it would cost him votes in the next election, especially in the Union-controlled states of Kentucky, Kansas and Missouri -- other border states where slavery thrived.

[ChristianDem08]

I really don't see a problem with Webb's remarks.

[LINY516]

His statement on the south is slanted.
This flag is a symbol of hate, lynching, murder, slavery, Jim Crow, anti-Americanism, traitors, and enemy combatants. Those that c urrently fly the flag are all too often racist and practice their racism in their personal and professional lives. They practice white supremacy and cause blacks not to be hired or cause them to be fired or not promoted. They shoot blacks for any excuse and terrorize them for being black. Sorry good folks, I can't accept him as VP, and I can't accept anyone as just honoring their hateful and traitor history.

By the way, if their ancestors had won, they wouldn't be Americans now. In fact, if they won, the IQ of this country would probably be 10-20% higher.

[bronceye]

Very few real racists fly the Stars and Bars. We have a huge amount of rednecks in every hue.

[LINY516]

the point isn't that very few racists fly the Stars and Bars. The point is those that fly the stars and bars are racists and fly a flag that has come to symbolize racism. Don't try to change the subject and deflect. Unfortunately, you are addressing someone who understands deflection and nonanswers.

[Fotios]

You are wrong. The flag may represent that to a lot of people today, but Northerners had slaves, hate, lynching, murder, Jim Crow, traitors, racism and anti-Americanism.

Everyone tries to act like the Southerners were bad and the Northerners were good, but both sides had and accepted slavery until two years into the war when Lincoln drafted the Emancipation Proclamation.

I would never fly the Confedrate flag and agree that people who fly that flag now are very similar to the people you describe, but you obviously don't know your history. Northerners liked to beat and hang slaves just as much as the Southerners. And if the South never tried to secede from the union, the Civil War would have never been fought - slavery or not.

[robXdion]

You need to read history and learn what led up to the South seceding. It WAS over slavery being spread West.

[LINY516]

You missed the point, which is typical of people like you who put on blinders. Those that fly the flag today, fit my description in my experience. Those that flew that the flag in the early 20th century fit my description. Georgia, started to fly the flag again after Brown v. Board of education. Way before Brown, certain states, including New York had desegretated schools for years. I know my history and probably have more education than you.

If the South had never tried to secede from the union, the south would still be full of racists, hateful people. Their great grand children still have that hate. I'm not saying that Northerners were or are perfect. We are talking about the flag and what it stands for. Don't try to change the subject.

[RoloTomassi]

You are so grossly biased [which is rather ironic] that I won't even begin to try to correct you, as your bias resembles that of rightwingnuts, who will listen to no one.

[robXdion]

If they had won, blacks would be only 4% of the population (or wiped out) and subjected to serious UN rights violations for the last 140 years. The South losing was for their own spiritual good.

[marymansour]

I was born and raised in the heart of Dixie, with many ancestors dying in the Civil War. Any Southerner who has returned to the Democratic party, knows that slavery is inherently evil and we are glad the war was fought on behalf of the slaves and what other issues might have been at stake. Obama can't afford to lose any votes in the south so if Webb is 'iffy' don't even go there. There are others to be considered.

[Fotios]

Agreed, this issue isn't relevant and doesn't need to be discussed. The job of the President or VP isn't to give a history lesson on the Civil War - especially if the truth is viewed as contriversial, like the treatment of Native American, Japanese Internment, dropping atomic bombs, fire-bombing cambodia, supporting murderous dictators, etc.

These are all issues that people should know, but not things that need to be discussed during an election unless they can be clearly tied to current events (Japanese Internment and Muslim Gitmo).

[RoloTomassi]

The war WAS NOT fought on behalf of the slaves. Their and our benefit derived from the abolishment of slavery was mostly incidental.

And since you claim to understand this from a southern perspective, I'll add this:

When Iraq war vets come home to the knowledge that they've fought a war that was unnecessary, it is a sad and often debilitating thing--but they rarely lose sight of the commitment and intestinal fortitude it took to take a stand and fight. A reverence for sacrifice should be afforded them regardless of our views on the nature of the war.

The same regard should be afforded to those of the Confederacy who fought and died in the service of a cause they believed in, misinformed or not. Had they been the villians they are often made out to be--ignorant rednecks who fought to keep the black man down--then perhaps an aire of disrespect would be deserved. Such was rarely the case.

Most of the men in who died on the side of the Confederacy weren't any different than the young men who die in any war...they go and fight because their leaders tell them that it is necessary.

There is no shame in having ancestors who fought on the side of the Confederacy, in remembering that they fought bravely, or in preserving that history.

[Bluedog12]

Webb is correct. He is a student of history and understands the fact that the Confederate soldier was not economically positioned to own slaves. The wealthy powerbrokers of the south were the plantation owners. The commonality shared with the lower class was the agronomic financial system. That mutual interest was used to prop up the states’ rights argument. Although Lincoln is hailed as our greatest President honest historians note that his use of the Emancipation Proclamation was driven more by the necessity to wage a winning war than by human rights.

[robXdion]

You didn't have to actually OWN slaves to support the mentality behind it. That's why Nathaniel Bedford Forrest started the KKK after the war and the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted: to keep blacks in a social subservient position similar to slavery. Slavery was was means to economic progress and cultural dominance. It was State's Rights (to own slaves) to expand the Southern territory and economy West. What was John C. Calhoun about and why did secessionists cite him as their inspiration in 1859? The North fought to keep the Union together and used any political tactics at hand to do so. Instead of parroting "state's rights" dig a little deeper and see what state rights they were fighting for.

[Palspal]

Slavery was, of course, NOT in the financial interest of the white southern working class. Slavery not only eliminated jobs that would have gone to this class, it held down the wages of the jobs that were open to them - as they could be replaced by slave labor. In fact, poor whites often did jobs that were too scuzzy to waste the plantation owner's most valuable asset - his slaves. That's why poor whites, often immigrants (Irish in Savannah, Richmond, and New Orleans) did some of the hardest labor imaginable. The reason the white southern working class sided with the plantation owners was a *perceived* mutual interest. This interest had to be created thru propaganda - appeals to race that put poor whites a notch above even the best of blacks. And like today, people bought into that.

[LeftRoss]

Hey, some of Webb's best friends are African American!

His answer had a clarity and forthrightness worthy of John Kerry.

Webb was my choice in the VP stakes, but he'll need to do better than this.

[MikeMidCity]

Oh sure he's a son of the south. Does he think that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought? No.

[marymansour]

Virginia was a border state and although producing Robert E. Lee, had others who fought for the Union. If the Civil War was fought for 'states rights' then that is just another term for allowing slavery to continue. I remember in the 60's, the south went for Goldwater because he was for 'states rights' - a euphemism for continuing segregation.

[Bagger]

Every flag has blood on it. The KKK used the Confederate flag which has poisoned it's image. His statement is historically correct. The Confederate flag represented the South. Many men died for that flag. It's a complicated issue.

[robXdion]

Webb only won in Virginia because Allen was more oblivious bigoted. Southerners didn't have to own slaves to support the institution. Sen. Webb needs to stop being selective about history and read up on why Senators Brooks and Sumner were fighting over the issue and why John C. Calhoun supported secession specifically because the North wanted to end slavery and prevent it's spread West. Then he needs to admit to the impact of Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel and John Brown's rebellion. Lastly, he needs to answer what were Lincoln and Douglas debating and why SC fired on Ft. Sumter.

Webb is not an historian. He's a propagandist for Southern revisionist history as started by the Daughters of the Confederacy. He has no place on this ticket and the press needs to stop the drumbeat to get him there. Instead of (just now) popping up everywhere he needs to go back into seclusion where he was doing fine bashing Bush.

[lisakaz2]

It is a complicated issue. I'm not saying Webb is right or wrong but that he may well be within the range of credible interpretation.

[robXdion]

Not really. The North was fighting to keep the Union together and ward off European buzzards while the South was fighting to secede because Congress wouldn't let them spread slavery out West to Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas. It was spread to Texas by default, which was why Gen. Santa Anna invaded leading to The Alamo.

Webb can say what he likes, but others have the right to counter that.

[Midnightrain]

Some how I don't trust this guy. It's his face, or something.

[nathananderson]

Ahhh, a "personallity" voter instead of a "policy" voter. Must've voted for Hillary.

[OfficialA]

Is that a rug on his head, or his real hair? Sure looks like a rug to me.

[adl]

What's the big deal? That's the truth....oh yeah, that's probably why it's a big deal.

[edwcorey]

What's the truth? Why, then, were blacks treated worse than animals after emancipation? Confederates may not have owned slaves, but they followed their Bush-like leaders (who DID own them, and WERE fighting for slavery), which made them no better than Blackwater mercenaries--and just as criminal. They were treasonous Nazi prototypes whose descendants, to this day, consider themselves more patriotic than those whose ancestors kicked their lowlife behinds.