# Was the Confederacy a right-wing institution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540 "2019-03-04T18:26:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/41 "2019-03-05T00:03:07Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > There is never a shortage of destructive ideologies that will claim Lincoln as a prototype. Look at the purveyors of the Iraq War who claim him. Look at historians like Eric Foner who wished Gorbachev would have pulled a Lincoln and slaughtered millions. > > There remains a Greek temple dedicated to worshipping him. The CSA is largely viewed as comic book villains comparable only to Hitler. Yes, Lincoln needs more allies. Yeah, I’m definitely not on, um, whatever side this is (and I’ll ask the OP to, in the future, leave me out of this sort of craziness). I think Lincoln made a good call in using force of arms to prevent the southern states from seceding from the Union, I think he made the tough calls during the war, and I think it’s one of histories great lost chances that he was assassinated before he could push through his own plans for reconstruction. He was flawed, sure, but he was a great man at a time when this country desperately needed a great man. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/42 "2019-03-05T03:32:15Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > In all seriousness. Lincoln had serious flaws. He was a racist, for one. _Not for his time,_ he wasn’t. True, he held preserving the Union first, as he should. And his views became much less racist as he went on. So, let’s not judge men by presentism. The greatest philosophers of the past: Plato (428-348 BCE) Aristotle (384-322 BCE) Kant (1724-1804) Hume (1711-1776) Descartes (1596-1650) Socrates (469-399 BCE) Wittgenstein (1889-1951) Locke (1632-1704) would all be considered terribly racist and sexist \*today. \* ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/43 "2019-03-05T04:30:32Z")
Can we please stop with the canard that the antebellum South or the CSA was ever interested in state’s rights. They knew without strong federal support of slavery in all the states, slavery was untenable. They were all for federal power to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act against the will of the people of the North. The Confederate Constitution gave less power to the states, specifically banning any state from ending slavery in their borders and specifically banning any state from leaving the CSA. The State’s Rights narrative is part of the effort to rewrite the history of the war. Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/44 "2019-03-05T07:11:21Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > Can we please stop with the canard that the antebellum South or the CSA was ever interested in state’s rights. They knew without strong federal support of slavery in all the states, slavery was untenable. They were all for federal power to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act against the will of the people of the North. The Confederate Constitution gave less power to the states, specifically banning any state from ending slavery in their borders and specifically banning any state from leaving the CSA. > > The State’s Rights narrative is part of the effort to rewrite the history of the war. > > Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk Agreed. Reading the CSA Constitution shows examples of where the States _lost_ power to the Confederate government. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/45 "2019-03-05T08:00:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I know of no coherent political philosophy that actually advocates “Don’t change anything!” Certainly not conservatives, and most certainly not right-wingers. I really thought people were disabused of this idea of “conservatives = conserve the status quo.” The reality is that conservatives as much as any political orientation want to change things in certain ways, such as for example, lowering taxes, shrinking government, etc. > > But even by that measure, very surely the Confederacy sought to further empower states’ rights, lower taxes, and much more. Actually, I do believe that “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is an aspect of traditional conservative philosophy. More precisely, it’s a belief in incremental change that accounts for cost and benefits, in contrast to sweeping changes driven by inspiration. That’s only part of the definition of traditional conservatism of course. I will concede that modern American rightism, as expressed by 2/3 of the current government, doesn’t match to traditional conservatism. Neo-reactionary cronyism, maybe? Tying this back to the Civil War, North Carolina Democrats in 1860 are an example of conservatives of that era who sought to maintain the status quo. They were opposed to both abolition and secession. Here’s a write-up of their position: [https://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/exhibits/show/compromise/opposition-to-secession](https://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/exhibits/show/compromise/opposition-to-secession) BTW, acknowledging that past conservatives supported slavery does not imply that modern conservatives support slavery. I certainly don’t. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/46 "2019-03-05T09:45:50Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > In all seriousness. Lincoln had serious flaws. He was a racist, for one. But his zealousness in opposing the south is to be commended, it’s not one of his flaws. His zealousness resulted in many dead and decades of domestic strife, so pardon me if I present an alternative assessment. > [@Ravenman](#): > > But that’s irrelevant to anything Lincoln actually did. Take anyone who is generally admired - just name them - and odds are that someone has twisted their legacy to serve an objectionable agenda. Yes but they point to things he did. Foner loves how he crushed a secession by force. Iraq War supporters love his squashing of due process. > [@](#): > > Without making any comparisons to Hitler, yes, Confederates ARE real life comic book villains. Not sure why you would argue differently. My point is why would I point out CSA were terrible, everyone already knows and agrees on this. > [@XT](#): > > Yeah, I’m definitely not on, um, whatever side this is (and I’ll ask the OP to, in the future, leave me out of this sort of craziness). I think Lincoln made a good call in using force of arms to prevent the southern states from seceding from the Union, I think he made the tough calls during the war, and I think it’s one of histories great lost chances that he was assassinated before he could push through his own plans for reconstruction. He was flawed, sure, but he was a great man at a time when this country desperately needed a great man. My reading of history places men who artfully avoided bloodshed over those who pursued it in defense of political unions or empires. As I said, Iraq War lovers claim Lincoln. > [@DrDeth](#): > > _Not for his time,_ he wasn’t. True, he held preserving the Union first, as he should. And his views became much less racist as he went on. > > So, let’s not judge men by presentism. > > The greatest philosophers of the past: Plato (428-348 BCE) > Aristotle (384-322 BCE) > Kant (1724-1804) > Hume (1711-1776) > Descartes (1596-1650) > Socrates (469-399 BCE) > Wittgenstein (1889-1951) > Locke (1632-1704) > > would all be considered terribly racist and sexist \*today. \* No, he pursued deportation to his last days. He was a supporter of Black Codes and was against the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2019, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/47 "2019-03-05T13:56:05Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > His zealousness resulted in many dead and decades of domestic strife, so pardon me if I present an alternative assessment. Lincoln was too haaaaaard on the poor Confederate! They were traitors to their nation and vile human beings but he was so meaaaaaan to them which caused so many deaths! > [@](#): > > No, he pursued deportation to his last days. He was a supporter of Black Codes and was against the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law. How DARE Lincoln negotiate with the southerners! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/48 "2019-03-06T01:58:27Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > No, he pursued deportation to his last days. Cite? (He favored Colonization (voluntary) rather than deportation (forced).) Racist, probably, but not authoritarian. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > He was a supporter of Black Codes Cite? He accepted some, but where did he promote them? > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > and was against the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law. He opposed Nullification regardless of the law being nullified by the states (and the debate over nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law occurred a decade before he was president). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/49 "2019-03-06T03:30:25Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > What confused me is how you, **Ravenman** ,came back implying Lincoln was a lefty. He was an elitist railroad lawyer, nationalist, and white supremacist and supporter of Illinois Black Codes. There are different flavors of right wing. You have Hamiltonian - Henry Clay right wing repped by Lincoln and you have Southern traditionalist (I.e. slaver) right wing repped by CSA. Both were involved with the maintenance of a certain order. Even Lincoln wanted to continue slavery (Corwin amendment) in order to maintain the order. Ultimately, he went to war to preserve the order. Wait a second. You’re saying Lincoln favored white supremacy and slavery and declared war on the Confederacy to defend those principles? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/50 "2019-03-06T03:34:01Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > His zealousness resulted in many dead and decades of domestic strife, so pardon me if I present an alternative assessment. I tend to put a large share of the blame for the death and destruction caused by the war on the person who declared war. Which was Jefferson Davis not Abraham Lincoln. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/51 "2019-03-06T03:41:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Mind you, I didn’t say the Confederacy was Republican, or Tea Party, or Trumpist, or Christian Conservatives, or whatever. I said it was right-wing. To me, this seems patently obvious, as I said, just like how it is obvious that water is damp. Getting back on topic, I agree with others who have said right wing is a difficult term to apply to 19th century politics. But I’d have no problem saying that the Confederates were conservatives. They were pretty open about it. They said that they were staying true to the principles of the founding fathers while the federal government was trying to change the political system. They were also trying to maintain a traditional agriculture-based economy while opposing the new industrial economy. They often invoked classical societies like the Greeks and the Romans and citing the Bible in defense of slavery. So they were clearly a political system that looked to the past rather than the future. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/52 "2019-03-06T06:41:36Z")
While “right-wing” is not language mid-19th-century Americans used much, the Confederates were certainly at some pains to portray themselves as “conservatives”. From the notorious “[Cornerstone Speech](http://civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm)” of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens: > [@](#): > > In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. And from the [Address Of Congress To The People Of The Confederate States](http://www.civilwarhome.com/addressconfederatecongress.htm): > [@](#): > > This Government is a child of law instead of sedition, of right instead of violence, of deliberation instead of insurrection. Its early life was attended by no anarchy, no rebellion, no suspension of authority, no social disorders, no lawless disturbances. Sovereignty was not for one moment in abeyance. The utmost conservatism marked every proceeding and public act. The object was “to do what was necessary and no more; and to do that with the utmost temperance and prudence.” ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/53 "2019-03-06T23:07:52Z")
Nm ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/54 "2019-03-07T00:05:42Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Yeah that’s about as close as you are going to get. Historically Aristocracy vs Commoners is the most fundamental part of the “left” vs “right” political spectrum (in fact going back to long before the terms “left” and “right” were coined). > > And the confederacy were explicitly self-identified with the aristocratic (“right” wing) part of the that spectrum. I don’t think that’s quite right. I mean, I agree with you that aristocrats stand and have stood firmly on the right of the spectrum for all recorded history, but IMO right vs left is less about aristocracy vs. plebeians than more generally about property rights and special rights. That is to say, right wing thought boils down to individual property and the rights (and privileges) of a given individual or group lying above the needs of anyone else and deserving of protection from these somebody elses (be they an underclass or a foreign entity) ; whereas left wing thought is much more concerned about the rights and (lack of) property of the majority and/or across borders. Which makes the Confederacy squarely right wing, since it fought to preserve the right of certain individuals to a specific type of property that the federal State deemed they should forfeit (to whit other human beings) and deemed their right and privilege to own said property above the well being of others - not just the slaves mind you, but also everybody who had to fight and died in their damned war. A war which was decided not by poor Southern shitkickers with barely a farthing to their name, but by landed plantation owners. No matter the political system they exist in the rich and privileged are nigh always right wingers, almost by definition - since they have more property than the rest, or more rights than the rest, they typically want to preserve the status quo that enables their fortune because, not to put too fine a point on it : fuck all o’y’all, got mine. It’s a rare aristocrat who says “you know what, they’re right, this _is_ fucked up”. Hats off to the marquis de Sade. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/55 "2019-03-07T00:12:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > They said that they were staying true to the principles of the founding fathers while the federal government was trying to change the political system. Yeah but dude, every US politician \*ever \*has said that. That’s the beauty of your founding fathers : you can find something in their writings to support any policy whatsoever (might have to distort and out-of-context it, but hey) and they’re all dead so none can say “Now just wait a goddamn minute, you asshole, that’s not…” They’re very much like Jesus that way, only with more wigs and less shredded abs. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/56 "2019-03-07T02:36:37Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I really thought people were disabused of this idea of “conservatives = conserve the status quo.” The reality is that conservatives as much as any political orientation want to change things in certain ways, such as for example, lowering taxes, shrinking government, etc. Let me introduce you to Dr [Karen Stenner](https://www.karenstenner.com/) who has a PhD in Political Psychology. In her paper “The Three Kinds of Conservatism” the first paragraph reads: > [@](#): > > When people use the terms conservative or rightwing they typically mean one (or problematically,more) of the following: **an enduring inclination to favor stability and preservation of the status quo over social change** (what I call “status quo conservatism”); a persistent preference for a free market and limited government intervention in the economy (“laissez-faire conservatism”); or an enduring predisposition, in all matters political and social, to favor obedience and conformity (oneness and sameness) over freedom and difference Openness to new experiences, and the converse of generally being closed to new experiences, is considered one of the five big underlying personality traits. Twin studies even point to a significant heritable component to those big five - [“around 40–60% of the variance in the Big Five is heritable.”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5068715/) That’s in the range where similar studies put the heritable component of sexuality, as a comparison of strength. It seems unlikely to me that all those people born with a strong predisposition towards being uncomfortable with change don’t show up somewhere in our politics. It seems like there’s two issues with your not believing those people exist. One might be a unwritten assumption that I usually see in arguing the point you make. It’s that all conservatives are the same. If Stenner is right that conservatives are not a homogeneous group, proving that many conservatives are comfortable with change doesn’t mean that they all are. The second issue is treating it as less of a distribution and not wanting any change. Being open to some smaller and more deliberate change doesn’t mean being comfortable with big and fast changes. Swinging back to the civil war the theory presents an interesting take. Those who didn’t want big changes in the North and South didn’t necessarily want the same things. They both would be predisposed to trying to limit changes to the culture they lived in. Since those cultures were different those types of conservatives would take different positions. Northern change averse conservatives and Southern change averse conservatives were not necessarily political allies. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/57 "2019-03-07T14:38:11Z")
I know this thread isn’t yet another thread about the gold standard :smack: but a remark may be in order for those following along at home. In 1816 President Madison chartered a public-private Second Bank of the United States which became “the largest monied corporation in the world.” President Andrew Jackson came to power as a populist demagogue in 1833 and waged a vendetta against the bank, partly based on the perennial idea that only gold is real money. The destruction of that bank and the resultant financial crises led directly to the Depression of 1836-1843 (coincident with Lincoln’s terms in the Illinois legislature), perhaps the worst depression in American history. Henry Clay’s Whig Party, and later the Republican Party, were founded in large part in reaction to Jackson’s financial follies. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > … Lincoln threatened “blood” in his first inaugural address in order to collect duties and imposts. His politics were “short and sweet like the fat man’s dance”, he favored high protective tariffs, a national bank, and an American System of “internal improvements”. IOW he was a runof the mill mid-19th century corporate crony who was going to build railroads for his buddies. This required tariffs such as those collected at Ft Sumter. This is what authoritarianism looks like. Yes, Abraham Lincoln, like Henry Clay, had learned from Jackson’s mistake and advocated a national (central) bank to mitigate the chaotic financial roller-coasters associated with a pure gold standard. For some, this is unforgivable. Compared with advocating a central bank, the whole moral issue of slavery pales into insignificance. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540/58 "2019-03-07T23:30:49Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Generally, right wing is considered to be synonymous with conservative, . Actually, there is a separate word for conservative: they are called ‘conservatives’. That’s because right wing / left wing doesn’t map very well to concepts like ‘radical / conservative’. The term "radical right wing’ is well known, and if party like the Democrats can get people like Obama elected then they can’t be very radical. I could explain what I think that right-wing and left-wing _could usefully mean_, but I’m unlikely to get any more agreement on the terms than there is now. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-confederacy-a-right-wing-institution/830540.md?page=2)