Georgia voters narrowly approve outcome of the Civil War

State offices are closed today in observance of Confederate Memorial Day.

According to a three-state survey by Public Policy Polling, Georgia voters – by a slim margin – have come to approve of the way the Civil War turned out. North Carolinians are slightly less satisfied. But Mississippi – here we must invoke that famous Nina Simone tune.

The largest portion of Mississippi voters remain undecided when it comes to the outcome.

From PPP, an N.C. firm:

Except in Mississippi, most voters in these states are glad the Union won the “War Between the States” instead of the South. 53% say that in Georgia, 48% in North Carolina, and 34% in Mississippi. But still fewer in Mississippi (27%) would prefer that General Lee’s troops had prevailed; a 39% plurality are not sure. Similarly, only 21% in North Carolina and 23% in Georgia wish the South had won.

When hostilities broke out, Republicans were the party of Abraham Lincoln and unionism, and Democrats, by and large, were not. But things have changed, according to PPP:

In Georgia 47% of Republicans are content with the Union victory, while 31% wish the South had won. Democrats (58/17) and independents (54/19) are both strongly supportive of the North, making the overall numbers 53/23.

Educators interested in explaining one of the great flip-flops of American history can click here for more details.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

104 comments Add your comment

Really?

April 25th, 2011
2:48 pm

Wow. 31% of the Georgia GOP wishes the South had won the Civil War and as a result there would still be slaver. Wow. Just…wow.

Really?

April 25th, 2011
2:50 pm

Ga Values

April 25th, 2011
2:55 pm

wish we had won the war.. but would not own a slave.

Re:Really

April 25th, 2011
2:55 pm

That is an incredibly ignorant statement. The United States is the only country in the world that had to eradicate slavery violently. Britain, France, Mexico, etc. didn’t seem to have problems with ending the institution. Slavery was no longer needed with industrialization. If the South held onto slavery for later than the 1870s, they would have been left in the dust.

Keith

April 25th, 2011
2:56 pm

Really, slavery was wrong and would have disappeared without the war within a few years. However the price we paid by having the War Of Yankee Aggression was the complete turning upside down of the constitutional framework of this nation and we all, north and south, are still suffering today because of that.

Epicuris

April 25th, 2011
3:06 pm

Anyone who believes that the Civil War was fought over slavery alone and that the Northern States never traded in slaves clearly doesn’t know a thing about their history. Why the Civil War was ever fought depends on who you ask and where there from. Shelby Foote would be embarrassed by the few comments here. Don’t witness with your mouth that which you clearly know little about.

atlpaddy

April 25th, 2011
3:08 pm

Those who wish the South had won are seditious anti-Americans. If they enjoy saluting the flag of a sworn enemy of the United States so much, why don’t they run they run the banners of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Soviet Russia up the flagpole as well?

atlpaddy

April 25th, 2011
3:11 pm

Hey Re:Really, Keith, and Epicuris, what do Robert E. Lee, Ho Chi Minh, King George III, and Osama Bin Ladin have in common? They all willfully killed American soliders and citizens.

Epicuris

April 25th, 2011
3:13 pm

Hey atlpaddy, Have a clue the origins of Arlington National Cemetery? Hint, it has to do with Robert E. Lee and his Rose garden. What a simpleton…

SBtGoG

April 25th, 2011
3:16 pm

Really? Obviously you don’t know history very well. The Confederate states never re-instituted the slave trade and because the importing of slaves had stopped slavery would have ended by early 1900 at the absolute latest. Also the reason it was still so big in the United States and not in Britain and France etc was because we were still primarily an agricultural society and the farm equipment had not been industrialized like factory work had, so labor was needed.

Coastal Cavalier

April 25th, 2011
3:17 pm

Slaves were used in the south for agriculture production. But lets not forget that many of the people who imported the slaves were from these same European nations that abolished slavery. Much of it was also financed by northern bankers. So the small percentage of southern farmers who used slaves are not the only ones with blood on their hands.

Bobby

April 25th, 2011
3:19 pm

I’m a liberal Democrat but I wish the South had won the War Between the States. I think we would better off as an independent Nation. Then, UGA and Georgia Tech bands wouldn’t have banned the song “Dixie”.

Cut Em Loose

April 25th, 2011
3:19 pm

Well the Tea Partiers should be all for letting the parasitic southern states seceed again. Mississippi, Lousiana, Alabama, Kentucky, and Virginia all rank in the top 10 for federal spending vs. tax money paid in. Looks like we could easily deal with the federal deficit by cutting the southern leeches, and watch them flounder.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

SBtGoG

April 25th, 2011
3:20 pm

atlpaddy The southern states did not aggressively attack the Union troops after the Union troops left the succeeded states. The only thing the Confederate troops did was defend the land for which they believed was theirs.

Bobby

April 25th, 2011
3:21 pm

@atlpaddy. No slaves ever came to the U.S. under the Confederate Flag. All of them came here under the U.S. flag.

Your words, not mine....

April 25th, 2011
3:31 pm

Not about slavery? This is from the Texas secession declaration:

‘We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Really

April 25th, 2011
3:36 pm

If y’all don’t think the Civil War as at its heart about slavery, you’re a pretty clear revisionist.

Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens: Stephens said slavery was “the immediate cause of the late rupture and the present revolution.” Say it’s all about states rights if you want if it makes you able to look in the mirror, but that “right” the states were fighting for? Slavery. Get real folks. No wonder our state’s education system is at the bottom of national rankings.

Your words, not mine....

April 25th, 2011
3:36 pm

The opening lines of the Georgia seccession declaration:

“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.”

It wasn’t about slavery??? Give me a break.

Hey Epicuris - read some history here

April 25th, 2011
3:37 pm

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

From what was written by the South Carolinians back in december 1860 – the only example of states rights which were being trampled pertained to slavery.

So you can say that it’s about states rights. but the only states’ right that was mentioned in writing in the official secession documents were about slavery. Slavery is mentioned numerous times in the writings – not taxation, not voting, not congressional representation – but slavery.

the civil war was about economics and power. the south derived it’s agricultural industry from slave labor, plain and simple. when that was threatened, they declared war to protect this cheap labor source. thank god they (we) didn’t win!

John K

April 25th, 2011
3:37 pm

Don’t make Lee noble about Arlington. He did not give it up willfully.

Legend of Len Barker

April 25th, 2011
3:39 pm

Government in the south during the Civil War was beyond corrupt. Robert Toombs and other major political figures were more than willing to sell southern plebes up the river and have them killed in masses for a “cause” that affected few of them. Most southern folks were too po’ to own slaves, but yet a lot volunteered. Many, many, many, many more were conscripted. Like Vietnam, rich folks didn’t go.

In the post-war, the south tried to hang to slavery through any means possible, be it Jim Crow laws, the fun of oppressive sharecropping, Black Codes, lynching and/or other vigilante committees. Wasn’t until the 1920s that Hugh Dorsey even got embarrassed by it and sent a big ol’ list to the New York Times of how bad we were.

Hey SBtGoG

April 25th, 2011
3:40 pm

gettysburg is in PA

Ha Ha

April 25th, 2011
3:40 pm

The only way the Lee came to own Arlington was by marrying his cousin…..

Epicuris

April 25th, 2011
3:42 pm

Remember, I prefaced my first comments with, it depends on who you ask and where they’re from. So Your words, not mine….Texas was a slave State. What did you expect them to say during that time?

Marcus

April 25th, 2011
3:43 pm

@SBtGoG “the Union troops left the [SECEDED] states”??? If that makes any sense to you, I suggest going back to school.

S.C.’s secession address:
“Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery;”

GA’s:
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic….”

Mississippi’s:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

I know that those passages are quite a bit to read, but I felt they were necessary to educate the delusional masses about what that war was REALLY about. Don’t kid yourself or make up any excuses; it was about slavery. I get disgusted with certain comments, being an educated African-American attending college in this city. Some of you may have a point, had the South won, slavery MAY have ended soon. Yes it was agriculturally driven, but no one can say for SURE. An extra twenty or thirty years of slavery means it would take that much longer for Blacks to get their civil rights, meaning I may not have this opportunity I have now. The North winning was the best. I’m done.

BPJ

April 25th, 2011
3:47 pm

Slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Of course the north had traded in slaves, and many Union supporters didn’t care about slavery, and many were racists. But none of that changes the fundamental issue. The great, “hot” political issue of the 1840s and 1850s was whether slavery would be extended into the new territories. Everyone understood that if the new states were “free” states, then at some point the U.S. Senate would have a working (filibuster-proof) majority of senators from free states. That would allow for the growing abolitionist movement to abolish slavery.
The abolitionist movement was the “political base” (to use today’s terminology) of the Republican party. That’s why the election of Lincoln prompted southern states to secede. Anyone doubting that slavery’s future was the big issue should read the speeches by southern senators at the time of secession; Alexander Stephens, the vice-president of the Confederacy, was quite explicit in saying that slavery was the rock upon which the Confederacy was built.
Whenever this topic comes up, we always hear the argument that the war was really about something else, such as tariffs. So I have to ask: what was the difference between the Whig Party and the Republican Party on tariffs? The answer: none. Yet this country had several Whig presidents (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor) without prompting southern states to secede. The big difference between the Whig Party and the Republican Party which replaced it (in the northern states) was slavery; the Republican Party was firmly opposed to its extension, and Republican candidates advocated slavery’s eventual extinction.

Yes, there were other “sectional tensions”, but none which would lead to disunion. Yes, some unionists didn’t care about slavery, and some northerners were willing, in the postwar era, to allow black political rights to be trampled (as happened especially after the shameful 1876 election). But to deny that the antislavery movement was essential to Lincoln’s victory, or that southern states seceded because of Lincoln’s antislavery stance, or that the Civil War was primarily caused by disagreement over slavery’s role in America, is to be either ignorant, willfully ignorant, or dishonest.

Your words, not mine...

April 25th, 2011
3:47 pm

The opening lines of the Mississippi secession declaration:

“In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”

Epicuris

April 25th, 2011
3:47 pm

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp makes a good point but a better read is Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative. Remember, it all depends on who you ask and where they’re from.

Your words, not mine...

April 25th, 2011
3:48 pm

Epi – Don’t witness with your mouth that which you clearly know little about.

Red

April 25th, 2011
3:51 pm

Read all of the secession declarations. It seems the rich, slave owning politicians were all focused on protecting their 3/5 humans and seceded. But most of those who actually fought and died had no interest in slaves.

And give me a break about the slave traders being Northern bankers. Stop passing the buck. Slave traders never forced anyone to buy slaves. Plantation owners were greedy and stupidly invested everything in human beings. If the slave system was doomed to fail, then all of these slave owners doomed their own families to poverty when that day arrived. If they were smart they would have moved out of a slave economy early on.

Also note the Constitution of the CSA. They made sure that slavery was etched into the constitution far beyond a mention of a 3/5 person. Note that solidifying slavery was probably the greatest change to the CSA constitution. For slavery not being a part, it surely got a lot of mention in secession articles and a binding governmental document.

Epicuris

April 25th, 2011
3:54 pm

Interesting, how even after 150 years we still don’t all agree on exactly why the Civil War was ever fought. Still makes for interesting and spirited debate..

JF McNamara

April 25th, 2011
4:00 pm

Is there anything else that happened 150 years ago that I have to hear about every day? Let’s move on and stop giving this type of stuff a place in the media.

SBtGoG

April 25th, 2011
4:05 pm

@Hey SBtGoG Yes you got me, two major battles took place north of Virginia, and both were in the last few months of the war after more than three years of the south defending their home. So please give me a break, if someone attacked your home for over three years you would attack them. Also if the Southern Armies would have attacked immediately after the First Battle of Bull Run then they would have conquered D.C. What would Lincoln have done then. But like I said the south wanted to just have what was theirs not take what wasn’t theirs.

@Marcus Really your going to hound me about a typo. And yes Union troops were in the seceded states. Hence the first shots of the civil war being in SC at Fort Sumter. You go back to school.

Jack

April 25th, 2011
4:05 pm

I too do not feel that the United States would have been a great power if the Union had not prevailed. We are obviously better off as one nation. However, the reason so many Southerners feel so strongly about the South and its traditions comes not from the defeat of the Confederate army but from the oppression visited upon it by Reconstruction. Additionally those of us that recognize the wrongs of slavery feel that the total abolition of all that our ancestors fought for and held dear beyond the cause of slavery should not continue to be ground into the dirt. Furthermore it was not an honorable time for the Union army either. A pretty good case could be made under current standards (seeing as how we are applying today’s standards to everything else) for Sherman being charged as a war criminal for the actions of his troops in the treatment of the civilian population of Georgia. Just as it is easy for us today to view the wars overseas from afar it was the Northern population that largely viewed the reports at a distance and did not have to live with the burning, looting, and other things committed by the Union troops.

Freedom lover

April 25th, 2011
4:06 pm

Keith – Well said. Anyone who actually thinks that slavery would still exist is a complete idiot. Well, slavery does exist in the form of the income tax (an Abraham Lincoln creation that was ruled unconstitutional at the time), but that is a slightly different issue.

The union was too large to function at the time, merchantilism in the form of government favoring northern business interests was destroying the country at the time and things are even worse today. Had the confederacy been allowed to simply secceed from the north at the time, there might actually be something of a free nation or even multiple free nations on the american continent today. Instead we have a monster empire that seeks to rule the world while business interests run foreign policy to the detriment and bankruptcy of the people.

E equals MC Hammered

April 25th, 2011
4:08 pm

The Civil War was fought over the fact that the North couldn’t afford for the South to secede thus depriving it of low cost goods due to their favorable labor costs. It wasn’t because of their moral high horse.

Billy bob from Cobb

April 25th, 2011
4:10 pm

Wish we would have won. Now I am a tax slave so we can keep all those entitlements for the freed slaves descendants

wht

April 25th, 2011
4:25 pm

oh, dear jack, jacka**! war crimes, yeah, whatever…go to ANDERSONVILLE, then we can talk war crimes…everyone is guilty in war….don’t be an idiot.

Monroe Burbank

April 25th, 2011
4:26 pm

Well, folks from Mississippi and Georgia aren’t exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, anyway. The fact that both MS and GA remain, year in and year out, near the bottom of the list among all states in the Best Educated Index speaks volumes about their proud ignorance.

Quite honestly, I wish Lincoln would have told the secessionist states – “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.’

cind

April 25th, 2011
4:36 pm

omg, somebody better find a way to tie delta air lines into this story…and fast!! everytime there’s an ajc discussion, it has to come up!! delta started the war!! they did it!! guilty!! run them out…..here it comes

Double Whammy

April 25th, 2011
4:37 pm

It was bad enough to lose the War of Northern Aggression but the immigration of yankees to the Atlanta Metro area(and elsewhere in the South) is comparable to receiving the Double Whammy.
Think about it–in another 30 or so years, if not sooner, how many people in the South will say y”all, over yonder and other such Southern expressions. God forbid, we will be talking like yankees. The yankee is not our only foe. How ’bout political correctness. Dixie is a bad word. No more playing the song Dixie at college football games(except Ole Miss), no more UGA Dixie Redcoat band, no more Atlanta Journal “Covers Dixie like the Dew”, no more Dixie Living section in the Journal. I really don’t know who will kill the South first–the yankee or P.C. but believe me folks, our demise is coming.

Mike

April 25th, 2011
4:37 pm

If the South won the rest of the country would be fat and uneducated. Transplants are still trying to help you poor southerners out. Slowly but surely we are making the South healthier and smarter. Thank God the Confederates lost!

cs

April 25th, 2011
4:38 pm

i am surprised at the numbers considering the northern propaganda push as victors and the public indoctrination centers called public schools. clearly, even after 150 years or so, some still know and have been taught the REAL TRUTH!

the original and still the best John Galt

April 25th, 2011
4:39 pm

Nothing like mentioning the War to Prevent Southern Independence AKA Abraham Lincoln’s War for bringing out the ignorance.

Gary

April 25th, 2011
4:40 pm

@your words,not mind, altpaddy, and Really…..Slavery was legal under the United States Constitution until Dec 1865. I, like the vast majority, abhor slavery today. Unlike you three, I have donated money to free slaves in our time. People that complain so bitterly about slavery in the 1800’s do almost nothing for those held in slavery today….I hear the word hypocrite wafting on the breeze.
If freeing the slaves was the complete reason of the war, then the southern states could have agreed to ratify the Originial 13th Amendment (the Corwin Amendment) that was supported by US Pres. Lincoln to permentally secure slavery in the states that it existed forever. Indeed, the lower south left due to the belief that the Lincoln Administration would interfer with their personal property (read slaves) yet Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina left when US Pres. Lincoln unconstitutionally called for 75,000 troops to put down the ‘rebellion’. Even US Supreme Court Chief Justice Tanney was placed under house arrest by Lincoln becaused he dared to state that Lincoln actions were unconstitutional.
The three of you are judging 19th century culture with 21st century morals. This is historically and intellectually dishonest but I guess emotions rule your days.
General Robert E. Lee was an outstanding man and gentleman. If you wish not to honor Gen. Lee, that is your right, but for you to claim what you claim is absurd. You claim he purposely killed Americans, but I can lay claim to the same by US Pres. Lincoln, General Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, etc. for they killed American, too. Yep, that is right, southerners are Americans too, you bigotted people.

4 Jacks

April 25th, 2011
4:44 pm

Do not beleive in slavery and my great grandfather that fought with Philips Legion from west Georgia never owned a slave, however, slavery was a core reason for the War between the States. Also, state rights was a main consideration of this war. Being a born and bred southerner with family that fought for the confederacy it is hard to say I am happy the north won, but in actuality getting rid of slavery was the best and right thing to do. My problem is the federal government was put in place in order to call all the states to war if we were ever threatened or invaded by another country. Look at the effing mess our central government is now in, and tell me that states could not better run their states as opposed to having the federal government run everything. Also, why should I have to sacrifice my complete heritage, because it might offend a black person that in this day and time has as much opportunity to succeed in life as I do? My gosh folks we have a black president, why should I feel guilty any more? Of course this president is doing absolutely nothing to turn the economy around and to lead this country through some tough times. However, he does give pretty speaches and it seems the American public is to stupid to figure it out, as it wasn’t just the black vote that put him in office. So yes, I am sorry the south lost the war, and not over slavery, but I have more faith in the leaders of this state to better take care of me and my family than any central or federal government.

cs

April 25th, 2011
4:49 pm

if the war was over slavery, then all the southern states had to do was jump back into the union in 1861 and pass the Corwin Amendment with northern state and abe lincoln support which would have guaranteed slavery existance.

also, the emancipation proclamation freed not the first slave. slaves in the north held regions remained slaves and declared slaves in regions they didnt control as free. that’s as stupid as would be obama saying 15 year olds can vote in cuba but not in america. i say its so.

Double Whammy

April 25th, 2011
4:55 pm

Mike, are you trying to tell me there are no fat and uneducated people in the North? We don”t need you or any other yankee to help us poor southerners out. You sir, are a typical arrogant yankee and you didn’t move here to help anyone except yourself i.e. to live in a better climate.

concerned

April 25th, 2011
4:59 pm

It’s a shame so many of you making comments are so ignorant of the war between the states and the history surrounding it. You should study the history before making your ill-informed comments.