Ideology of Confederate States of America

File: flagsofcsawar.jpg (33KB, 307x394px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 307x394px

Bump 1/5

Google Abbeville Institute

They have many articles dedicated to Southern History

File: Jefferson Davis.jpg (64KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x551px

>>134690120

It was an alliance of states that voluntarily chose to form one national government, but were not forced to bend to its will and were free to withdraw if they did not feel that it represented their interests.

Basically the early United States prior to the rise of Federalism.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (150KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x720px

Bump 2/5

>>134690120
They wanted to follow the constitution basically 100%. They agreed with the goals of the founders and believed in property rights and a decentralized government, with the states dictating their own ways of living

It was very much constitutionalism

File: 1479355411737.jpg (108KB, 624x434px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 624x434px

they had a peculiar insitution

File: bill2.jpg (194KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1920x1080px

I've recently finished 'This Vast Southern Empire" by Matthew Karp. The Confederate constitution was based almost entirely on the US constitution with a few of the minor exceptions being term limits, ability of office holders to serve in the executive and legislative branches simultaneously, and some language on internal improvements and infrastructure. While slavery is never far from the topic of conversation when the antibellum south is involved, that's mostly because it's true. While the south was mostly about strict interpretation of the constitution, they often bent their ideology to accommodate slavery. After all, slaves were the most valuable property in the country and the means of so much southern economic productivity. It was an issue worth bending for.

>>134695114
Yeah this is pretty much spot on from my knowledge. Slavery was a pertinent issue and they followed the founders goals and ideology because slaves were seen as property and so much of the U.S. was founded on property rights

They were basically fighting what they saw as a second American revolution with the same exact goals. Slavery is emphasized simply because it was the majority of the economy and was what sustained the South

File: flag.png (49KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 2000x1333px

>>134693476
MS anon reporting in. Jeff Davis was a brilliant man whose pre-war career doesn't get nearly the attention or acclaim it deserves. In addition to being a war hero, he was Sec. of War for in the Pierce administration and other than the depressed alcoholic Prez himself, he was the most prominent man in the country during those years.

>>134690120
The CSA basically just copypasta'd the US Constitution, with a few minor changes. In their eyes, they were a continuation of the system the founding fathers created.

Secession was a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party.

File: missisippi-rifles-riley-buena-vista.jpg (539KB, 1280x942px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 1280x942px

>>134695405

>In September, Davis participated in the Battle of Monterrey, during which he led a successful charge on the La Teneria fort. On February 22, 1847, Davis fought bravely at the Battle of Buena Vista and was shot in the foot, being carried to safety by Robert H. Chilton. In recognition of Davis's bravery and initiative, Taylor is reputed to have said, "My daughter, sir, was a better judge of men than I was." On May 17, President Polk offered Davis a federal commission as a brigadier general and command of a brigade of militia. Davis declined the appointment, arguing that the Constitution gives the power of appointing militia officers to the states, not the federal government.

The only 20th Century American leaders I can think of who possessed anything resembling that level of personal courage are Teddy Roosevelt (who resigned as Secretary of the Navy to take command of the Rough Riders) and George H. W. Bush (his plane was hit by Japanese AA fire and he still managed to complete his attack run before bailing out).

File: forrest.jpg (48KB, 632x420px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 632x420px

>>134696428
>He was himself wounded three times, the first was on April 8th 1862, right after Shiloh. Forrest’s troopers were acting as rearguard for the Confederate withdrawal. As Federal infantry approached a Confederate camp and field hospital, Forrest led a mounted charge to push them back. His troopers had the good sense to halt when they realized the Yankees were there in force. Forrest forgot to look over his shoulder and hit the Yankee line all by himself. Emptying his pistols and swinging his double-edged saber, he managed to extricate himself from the mob, but not before taking a musket ball to the lower back. Then, in June 1863, in a dispute with a junior officer named Gould. Gould shot him in the hip. Immobilizing Gould with one hand, Forrest opened a pocket knife with his teeth and mortally wounded Gould.

You said 20th century so I won't call you a faggot

>>134696428
Indeed. Courage and principle. Polk was an interesting guy too. Robert Merry's "A Country of Vast Designs" is a great account of the President, his administration, and the Mexican War. I recommend it.

>>134695114
>>134693476
These two are the correct answer for how the Confederate government worked. This had benefits and detriments for a war effort though.

>>134690120
there was no "confederate ideology". They just attempted to secede from the union for political reasons. You could say that they were pro-slavery but even that wasn't necessarily ideological so much as survival based.

>>134700050
>They just attempted to secede from the union for political reasons.

Yes but those could be seen as ideological reason you dindu

>>134700143
they thought the north was going to politically encircle them and bleed them dry through tarriffs and abolition. Unless believing that the constitution allows secession counts as an ideology, there wasn't really anything that separated the confederates from the earlier founding fathers.

>>134695114
>'This Vast Southern Empire" by Matthew Karp

how was it? Just from the internet it seems like he's trying to force a narrative, as if expansion was only a southern phenomenon.

File: 6th Arkansas at Shiloh.jpg (402KB, 739x937px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 739x937px

>>134698846

War doesn't just breed central planning, it necessitates it. Especially when you're the ones who are suffering disadvantage in numbers and resources.

>>134700919
It was very good. You can infer from his writing that he's an effete "enlightened" northern lefty. Otherwise the narrative he constructs is actually righteous. Southerners formed the core and majority of the nation's leading statesmen in the antebellum era. His story is of how these statesmen performed and functioned in their world.
>only a southern phenomenon
Despite his narrative he's very careful to include caveats in his writing for the same of academic scrutiny. But despite his personal "enlightenment" I still highly recommend the book. It's a perspective that I'm glad I"ve been clued into.

Bump for interest.

>>134696319
The republican party didn't exist at the time dipshit.

>>134700143
Secession is not really an ideology it is just the reality of being a minority in a democracy
New England wanted to secede during the war of 1812

File: Ghost Douchebag.png (55KB, 586x661px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 586x661px

>>134701978
>The republican party didn't exist at the time dipshit.
>Abraham Lincoln was literally the first Republican President

File: Robert_Edward_Lee.jpg (16KB, 220x326px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x326px

>The consolidation of the States into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it. - Robert E Lee to Lord Acton

To answer you question OP: Liberty

Come feel with me /pol/. Im in the mood to remember a time long gone.

https://youtu.be/JsPJXx3WFH8