As our governor has asked let's take a minute to reflect on why those good ole boys fought...
From the Confederate Constitution Article II Section 9, Line 4:"(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Now we can celebrate Independence Day earlier than July...
That is when the parades all flutter with Conferedate flags and bystanders parked in pick-up trucks get out of their lawnchairs clutching a beer salute those flags with patriotic pride of their heritage.
Since I know there is already an immense amount of historical fail on most of Dakka's perception of the Civil War, I will just say it was a tragedy and leave it at that....
JEB_Stuart wrote:Since I know there is already an immense amount of historical fail on most of Dakka's perception of the Civil War, I will just say it was a tragedy and leave it at that....
As the token black guy, The confederate flag, has ceaced to bother me year ago. What does bother me, is the fact that they took up arms againt thier fellow Americans and basicily ripped the country in half while costing hundreds of thousands of lives. America as we know it would not exist, Freedom for all would not exist. All the things that our founding fathers fought for, Peace, justice and all men being created equal would be a lie. They claim the Feds were trapling states rights, well what rights were thse states trampling? So if they want to remember and celebrate what the south stood for, more power to them. Using bloodshed to solve issues in a democratic country, making a mockery out of our founding ideals. wanting to up hold acts like murdering a man for learning out to read, if this is the history you wish to honor, fine, it's a free country. To me the Confederacy flies in the face of everything America stands for, and to some, keeps the dream of the south rising again alive. Even to this day, people claim to love America one moment, then wish to leave it if the wrong party wins.
Here's the story in a nutshell from someone who lives in the city where it's happening:
Governor McDonnell, like past Republican governors of Virginia, has proclaimed April Confederate History Month. He did so at the request of the organization called the Sons of the Confederacy, whose members trace their lineage to some Confederate soldier or another. They are not a racist group nor are they overtly political (but pretty clearly conservative asa demographic, I'd say). They spend their time and resources on reenactments and charities, especially focusing on teaching about the life of Confederate soldiers. McDonnell thought the proclamation would advance Virginia's tourist industry, a great deal of which focuses on Civil War battle grounds. Whether this proclamation has anything to do with Attorney General Cucinelli's case against the Federal Government concerning the constitutionality of HCR or the recent VA bill signed by McDonnell into law regarding that same issue is purely speculative. What is clear is the Governor did not mean to either overlook or aggrandize slavery. He immediately responded to criticisms and added a paragraph into his proclamation urging all Virginians not to forget the evil and inhumanity of slavery and its place in the Civil War. He made a silly mistake and that's that.
I should state that I do not agree with the Governor's politics in general but that I think this issue has been blown out of all proportion as the latest South-baiting. Now you know my personal spin as opposed to the objective facts.
I challenge Dakka to resist the smug one-liners when talking about this issue as well as the pickup truck and white sheet jokes. But I do reiterate my request that this thread be locked.
I understand trying to boost tourism to Virginia and I know a lot of people like to travel to the historic sights of the ACW. I think on one level there are good intentions to this.
However, naming it Confederate History Month instead of something more direct like Civil War History month is pretty odd, and that's before you consider the omission of any mention of slavery from the initial announcement. Sure, credit to the governor making a correction, but it's not something you just forget to mention.
So, like, you know, it's good to have a month focussing on the Civil War, but if anyone thinks there's nothing else going on they're kidding themselves.
What you do not understand, what you have no inkling of whatsoever, is what the War means to people living in this place and dealing with this context today. It really is not so simple as the politico-moral fable you and others have presented elsewhere.
Hey I truly believe that we need a full understanding of the Confederacy which is why I'm celebrating by quoting the CSA Constitution. Like say...
Article IV Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
All these Yankee revisionists wanna make the war about SLAVERY, instead of what it was really about - STATE'S RIGHTS!!!
...Specifically, the right to own other people. Erm...
If you ever wanna read what a colossal *%#$-up the CSA was, grab a hold of William Davis' political history of the CSA called "Look Away." A good reading of that book would cool the ardor of even the most hardcore "Lost Cause" partisan.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Hey I truly believe that we need a full understanding of the Confederacy which is why I'm celebrating by quoting the CSA Constitution. Like say...
Article IV Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Go! Go! Confederate History Month!
I thought July was Confederacy Month? Wasn't that when they won at Gettysburg, when Lee sent Longstreet deep right and encircled Meade, oh wait...
Celebrations of the Confederacy should be kept to slightly fat guys running around in blue, grey, and butternut uniforms to the sound of fake artillery and lots of smoke, to the cheers of bystanders eating burgers and kids with their hands to their ears. USA! USA! USA!
JEB_Stuart wrote:Since I know there is already an immense amount of historical fail on most of Dakka's perception of the Civil War, I will just say it was a tragedy and leave it at that....
So sez the poster named after one of the more flamboyant generals of the Confederate army, whose dash and bravery cost Lee the battle of Gettysburg in attempting a second ride around the Army of the Potomac and whose life was personally laid down riding to defend the Confederate capital in 1864 at the Battle of Yellow Tavern.
The Civil War, and the events leading up to it, are an important part of American history and shouldn't be forgotten. It doesn't cast the USA in the best light, but that doesn't matter, there's a lot of important lessons to learn from it. Same with the treatment of the Native Americans and their banishment to reservations.
So, I have no problem with the Virginia governor declaring April to be Confederate History Month. Now, if he's out there yelling, "The South will rise again!" that's a different matter.....
JEB_Stuart wrote:Since I know there is already an immense amount of historical fail on most of Dakka's perception of the Civil War, I will just say it was a tragedy and leave it at that....
So sez the poster named after one of the more flamboyant generals of the Confederate army, whose dash and bravery cost Lee the battle of Gettysburg in attempting a second ride around the Army of the Potomac and whose life was personally laid down riding to defend the Confederate capital in 1864 at the Battle of Yellow Tavern.
American Civil War History Buff yo!
Proving the lesson learned by Comanches everywhere. Personal skill and gallantry will never overcome repeating firearms.
"You just shot an unarmed man!"
"Well he should have armed himself."
-Jim Munney.
Well, the British Empire did a LOT of bad stuff - I still think we should acknowledge and celebrate our history regardless. If anything, it brings into sharper focus the bad things, lest we forget - and lets us celebrate the things which are worth celebrating. With that in mind, I see no problem at all in a celebration/remembrance of the Confederacy, as long as it isn't a revison. It's not like they were the Nazis.
Owain wrote:And let's not forget... it was the War of Northern Agression.
I know it's a stupid one-liner, but I can't sleep well when I know there's something wrong on the internet...
It's not the War of Northern Aggression because the CSA started it by seizing Fort Sumter which was a Federal military complex. Also, before you get to saying, "Well it was on CSA land!" no it actually wasn't. Fort Sumter was built on an island off the coast of South Carolina. The island was originally too small to support the fort, so soil was imported from MARYLAND. That means, both literally and metaphorically, that Fort Sumter was a Federal base on Federal land. When the CSA seized Fort Sumter, they committed an act of war. So no, the war can't be called the War of Northern Aggression.
I would like to say in passing that there's nothing in the Constitution that says states can't secede from the Union. So there was actually two cases of states' rights being trampled. But popular opinion in the North, until the capture of Fort Sumter, was firmly against war with the CSA. Most Americans wanted the South gone anyways. So yeah, the CSA screwed themselves, proceeded to fight stupidly, and lost the war. While I respect their valor and commitment to their ideals, I cannot abide stupidity. The CSA got what was coming to it.
And I think Southern Pride and Southern Heritage displays are ridiculous. 1) Why do you want to continually drudge up memories of America's worst hour? 2) You lost. Get over it. 3) I'm of German descent. How would it make people feel if there were Nazi pride parades? I mean, I'm only remembering my heritage, right? So that'd be cool. And yes, I just compared the CSA to the Nazis. On purpose.
Knute wrote:I would like to say in passing that there's nothing in the Constitution that says states can't secede from the Union.
Agreed with all points except this. I think the case of Grant vs. Lee following on the seminal case of Grant vs. Beauregard put that issue to rest.
Please, let's not get into a debate in the OT forum about whether the Constitution is a permissive or restrictive rules set.
There were a lot of issues that went into the Civil War. Saying the Civil War was just about slavery is like saying that WW I was due to the assassination of the Arch Duke.
Knute wrote:I would like to say in passing that there's nothing in the Constitution that says states can't secede from the Union.
Agreed with all points except this. I think the case of Grant vs. Lee following on the seminal case of Grant vs. Beauregard put that issue to rest.
Please, let's not get into a debate in the OT forum about whether the Constitution is a permissive or restrictive rules set.
There were a lot of issues that went into the Civil War. Saying the Civil War was just about slavery is like saying that WW I was due to the assassination of the Arch Duke.
Well like I said, 500,000 Billy Yanks from the firm of U,S, and Army were quite pursuasive that the Constitution was extremely restrictive, at least on this issue.
"Can't we all just get along?" William Tecumseh Sherman
"All we are saying, is give peace a chance." Don Carlos Buell
"We have secured peace, not only for ourselves, but for our time." Phillip Sheridan
"The CSA has serious and reasonable issues that need to be addressed." The George Armstrong Custer
I am sorry but I see nothing to celebrate. They may have tried to gussy it up with some "states rights" crap but in the end they were fighting to retain the right to keep slavery. Slavery in America was one of the worst, most dispicable things that man has done to man in its entire history and in my mind easily compares with the genocides and mass killings that we have seen and despise in other countries. Killing someone becuase of their race or religion is no worse than enslaving them, beating them, raping their wives, mothers and children, and then eventually killing them. In some ways it is even perhaps less humane. I feel the same way for this as I would feel if someone in Germany proposed 3rd Reich month. Most of the soldiers did not participate in the genocide but they still picked up a weapon to defend its right knowingly or unknowingly. It is not about political correctness it is about honoring someone who defended something abjectly dispicable. Learn from your history don't celebrate it.
Manchu wrote:What you do not understand, what you have no inkling of whatsoever, is what the War means to people living in this place and dealing with this context today.
We're a week or so away from celebrating Anzac day, a hugely important piece of Australian cultural history in which we pretend we and the New Zealanders were sent off to be slaughtered by the Turks. That the Turks lost more troops than anyone else, followed by the British, followed by the French, followed only then by the Anzac forces doesn't seem to matter, because that isn't the myth people want.
And when Confederate History month is announced with no mention of slavery... I know what kind of myth people are trying to create.
It really is not so simple as the politico-moral fable you and others have presented elsewhere.
No, it was a very complicated series of events and beliefs, and really very fascinating. But even complex things have some basic truths, and pretending that a fear that Northern abolitionists would stop slavery wasn't the primary cause of secession is simply wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Well, the British Empire did a LOT of bad stuff - I still think we should acknowledge and celebrate our history regardless. If anything, it brings into sharper focus the bad things, lest we forget - and lets us celebrate the things which are worth celebrating. With that in mind, I see no problem at all in a celebration/remembrance of the Confederacy, as long as it isn't a revison. It's not like they were the Nazis.
Just an outsider's opinion.
When there's no mention of slavery - do you think it's an honest appraisal of the history or a revision?
No, it was a very complicated series of events and beliefs, and really very fascinating. But even complex things have some basic truths, and pretending that a fear that Northern abolitionists would stop slavery wasn't the primary cause of secession is simply wrong.
I guess I should of further explained, that where I live, if you wear the confederate flag, your apparently racist. I know the civil war had very little to do with freeing slaves.
KingCracker wrote:I guess I should of further explained, that where I live, if you wear the confederate flag, your apparently racist. I know the civil war had very little to do with freeing slaves.
Ah heh. Well, depends on what nutjob professor you speak too.
A Lost Cause professor will gladly gloss over any mention of slavery, reminding people how noble and gallant those southern boys looked while bravely defending their right to marry their cousins.
A generally liberal professor will analyze the facets of what made slavery an issue in the war; granting that the war began not with slavery as the primary issue, but culminating in some left leaning argument about race, gender, equality, class, ect. being a factor in how the common people or Republicans made it an effort to abolish slavery.
A balanced and somewhat sane professor will accept slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War amongst a factor of other things, namedly the tension between the different regions of the country, states' rights and so forth.
No white history would be all the acomplishments of America, including the north. If you say this is white history, then it does become the race issue that it's not supposed to be about.
CSA Constitution Art 4, Sec 3:(3) "The Confederate States may acquire new territory...In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected..."
Shadowbrand wrote:K, so pardon my knowledge but is this like a white history month or something?
If so then sweet, I wanna go to the south if they will put up with my antics.
This is an attempt by one of several southern sates in the south east portion of the United States that attempts to remember the more nobler and romantic aspects of fighting for their independence during the American Civil War.
Southerners who were defeated by the Union attempted to justify their cause by painting a picture of a South that was benevolent and just in their right to secede from the United States. Slavery in this context often becomes ignored, or at best idealized as slave owners did when they did own slaves (i.e. opposite of Uncle Tom's Cabin). They seek to immortalize the leaders of the rebellion like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Thomas Stonewall Jackson for their brave efforts against a mighty enemy. They attempt to put on a pedestal the brave warriors who fell in defense of their states and their way of living. Think of it as a panacea for the ill effects they suffered after being utterly crushed in one of the first total wars of modern history.
As to any claims that the issues that sparked the War Between the States could have been resolved democratically, there was a congressional override due to an imbalance in the number of Northern and Southern representatives.
In short, just because the simple majority gets what it wants, it doesn't mean that those left over aren't sufficiently numerous to want to change that.
WarOne wrote:A balanced and somewhat sane professor will accept slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War amongst a factor of other things, namedly the tension between the different regions of the country, states' rights and so forth.
That wouldn't be a balanced view. While other issues mattered to the South, they were peripheral to the issue of slavery. It is also fair to argue that the North didn't fight the war to free the slaves, it fought to maintain the union, but that doesn't change the reason the South started the war.
sexiest_hero wrote:No white history would be all the acomplishments of America, including the north. If you say this is white history, then it does become the race issue that it's not supposed to be about.
Hmm, so White History Month would be considered racist by non-whites?
I'm sure BHM is considered racist by non-Negros but I, being Caucasian, don't see anything racist about BHM so I guess I don't see what would be racist about WHM or even Confederate History Month.
Guess I'm not the racist, nutjob right-winger I'm made out to be.
I hate everyone that isn't me so therefore I can't be racist.
sebster wrote:That wouldn't be a balanced view. While other issues mattered to the South, they were peripheral to the issue of slavery. It is also fair to argue that the North didn't fight the war to free the slaves, it fought to maintain the union, but that doesn't change the reason the South started the war.
Believe that if you want, but that isn't historically accurate. The problems behind the Civil War go much further back, and most of them don't involve slavery...
BHM is to showcase everything that African american have contributed to America. From seving in wars, to producing the first immortal human cells(that were used to cure polio, unlock the secret to artificial impregnating, and being the first human cells in place) as well as the thousands of other ways we have helped America grow. The shortest month of the year is set aside to show America that we are so much more than baggy pants and generic rap. Conederate month, in contrast remembers Leaders who wanted to rip America apart and cosed thousands of lives.
I don't think that a comparison between Black History Month and Confederate History Month is helpful. Black History Month is fine and good to have and we should keep celebrating it. Moreover, it should be celebrated in all the States because black Americans have contributed to our Republic everywhere. Confederate History Month, by contrast, is not about celebrating the accomplishments of Confederate soldiers but rather remembering their travails and sacrifice. It is not about celebrating the ideology of the CSA's leadership but rather trying to understand (rather than summarily dismiss) why they made the choices they did and what that tells about the political history of the United States. I'm not sure whether it should be celebrated by all States, however. On the one hand, States that were not a part of the Confederacy do not have the same kind of connection; it is not directly a part of their identity. But, on the other hand, if we are indeed part of one country, then everyone would benefit from remembering that this was not always the case and many, many American lives were lost in determining that.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, so White History Month would be considered racist by non-whites?
Whites have dominated US history, because they've been in the majority and because they're completely dominated the positions of power. As a result the history of the US is already dominated by white people. Black history month says 'here are some things done by non-whites'.
Basically, there's a big difference between a majority stepping aside to recognise the contributions of others for a moment, and the majority making a deliberate effort to talk only about themselves. The first is inclusion, the second is exclusion.
I'm sure BHM is considered racist by non-Negros but I, being Caucasian, don't see anything racist about BHM so I guess I don't see what would be racist about WHM or even Confederate History Month.
Again, it isn't simply the idea of a Confederate History Month, there are theoretical Confederate History Months that might not be racist at all. But a Confederate History Month that doesn't mention slavery - that's something very different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Believe that if you want, but that isn't historically accurate. The problems behind the Civil War go much further back, and most of them don't involve slavery...
We've done this before, best not to bother again, yeah?
sebster wrote:Again, it isn't simply the idea of a Confederate History Month, there are theoretical Confederate History Months that might not be racist at all. But a Confederate History Month that doesn't mention slavery - that's something very different.
Regardless of whatever we may disagree on, this--I think the main point of this thread--is absolutely correct.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, so White History Month would be considered racist by non-whites?
Whites have dominated US history, because they've been in the majority and because they're completely dominated the positions of power. As a result the history of the US is already dominated by white people. Black history month says 'here are some things done by non-whites'.
Basically, there's a big difference between a majority stepping aside to recognise the contributions of others for a moment, and the majority making a deliberate effort to talk only about themselves. The first is inclusion, the second is exclusion.
I'm sure BHM is considered racist by non-Negros but I, being Caucasian, don't see anything racist about BHM so I guess I don't see what would be racist about WHM or even Confederate History Month.
Again, it isn't simply the idea of a Confederate History Month, there are theoretical Confederate History Months that might not be racist at all. But a Confederate History Month that doesn't mention slavery - that's something very different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:Believe that if you want, but that isn't historically accurate. The problems behind the Civil War go much further back, and most of them don't involve slavery...
We've done this before, best not to bother again, yeah?
Gotcha. It still can be construed as racist and I know a few people who think it's utter crap that BHM exists but if someone wanted to make, say August, WHM they'd be shot down as racist. Whites might still be the majority in the majority of the US but that doesn't mean that BHM is accepted and recognized as a time to point out all the good Black people have done by everyone.
Me, I could care less. If the Latino's want to have a LHM more power to them. Me, I want a Gun History Month. A month to celebrate all the good that guns have done for our country.
isthatmycow wrote:Guns do no good. They just kill.
The only reason Fateweaver has not responded yet is that his head has just exploded at your stereotypically shallow insight. TBH, I am fighting hard to keep my own head from exploding. Thankfully, I am laughing hard enough to not be genuinely mad.
At first I was looking to see if your flag was the European variety. Then I noticed your from California. Its ok, someday your state will break off from America and you can join the others over there.
Taking guns away is so beyond stupid it hurts my brain
Kid_Kyoto wrote:As our governor has asked let's take a minute to reflect on why those good ole boys fought...
I'll never understand why people honor and glorify anything from the Confederacy, especially the average rebel soldier. These guys fought to keep in place an economic system(slavery) that ensured that they would remain poor. If anything could be learned from reflecting on the Confederacy, it would be a cautionary tale of how blind patriotism is completely slowed. "Hey guys, we're struggling to make ends meet, but lets fight,kill and die to make sure our rich leaders can stay rich by using free labor instead of us! Those yanks are tyrants! Oh and uh, States Rights!"
The modern day equivalent would be America's average 10% unemployed and even more underemployed rising up to defend businesses that use illegal immigrants for work, or corporations that outsource to developing nations for cheaper labor.
If my family had an ancestor who fought for the confederacy, I'd be ashamed that such epic idiocy was possible in my genes.
NELS1031, your opinion is the best argument in favor of Confederate History Month given that it reveals the paucity of accurate information concerning the average confederate soldier, his motivations and priorities, and the circumstances of his life.
It's probably a good thing that 2 of the 3 guns I own are locked in a safe. Would hate for them to kill me in the middle of the night.
The .45 on the other hand is kept either under my pillow or on the nightstand next to me. God help me if I ever piss it off. It might take it's own safety off and shoot me dead.
As to GHM what's wrong with the idea (well, unless you are a liberal)?
Some Mayor responded to questions about lack of police (the force was cut nearly in half due to budget cuts) with a reply "I strongly urge citizens to get training and arm themselves."
While there is some truth to your post NELS, you still only glean the surface of the reasoning and understanding of the CSA. It is hard for us to understand how much they loved their land back then. It wasn't just the idea they loved, they treasured the very soil itself, much like many Texans I know. To attach your love to the physical land itself and blend it with an idea is an extremely powerful motivator for the hearts of men...
Manchu wrote:NELS1031, your opinion is the best argument in favor of Confederate History Month given that it reveals the paucity of accurate information concerning the average confederate soldier, his motivations and priorities, and the circumstances of his life.
The winner writes the history books and thats where my opinion was informed
I'm an open minded dude, so if you have any info, or can point me in the right direction that may better inform my views, feel free to unload.
NELS1031 wrote:I'm an open minded dude, so if you have any info, or can point me in the right direction that may better inform my views, feel free to unload.
Although it is sometimes criticized for being biased toward the Union cause, this isn't a bad place to start learning about the Civil War.
JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is some truth to your post NELS, you still only glean the surface of the reasoning and understanding of the CSA. It is hard for us to understand how much they loved their land back then. It wasn't just the idea they loved, they treasured the very soil itself, much like many Texans I know. To attach your love to the physical land itself and blend it with an idea is an extremely powerful motivator for the hearts of men...
Just out of curiosity if we can overlook slavery (which the CSA chose to protect a half dozen times in their constitution) can't we overlook anything?
Are Nazis, Imperial Japanese, the Khemer Rouge, Red Guard, blah blah blah similarly worthy of respect and admiration? THey really, really (x2) loved their land too. Is there anyone NOT worthy so long as they loved their soil?
Love of Soil v. Love of Slavery is not the spectrum balanced in the heart of Confederate soldiers. K_K, you're asking questions about the present framed in questions about the past. Is it not enough to say that a Confederate History Month that does not exclude mention of slavery is good and acceptable? Or do you really believe that the Confederate cause is so exactly analogous to Nazi genocide? Seeing as how I have respect for you, I'm phrasing this as a question rather than some supposedly-witty barb.
@KK: Aren't you ignoring slavery in the Union? I haven't noticed your willingness to throw the Union under the bus, despite several of its states actively owning slaves, and them making no attempt to eliminate it until after the Civil War....
Of course it is, but I am merely noting his seeming obsession with reminding us all of the CSA's stance on slavery and ignoring anything else, and pointing out a casual dismissal of the Union's acceptance of slavery. Of course slavery is abhorrent, but people should take things in a more broad perspective, and not be so quick to absolve some people of sin while denouncing others as heretics...
I think what is important to remember is that the extreme minority that held the wealth and slaves in the South convinced the majority of poor, undereducated, white people to go die so they wouldn't have to be in a Democratic Republic where you don't always get your way. Of course this was all a plot by the lizard people to try and keep the Greys (which ironically resided in the North) from being able to gather intelligence on their plans for global dominance.
Fateweaver wrote:Gotcha. It still can be construed as racist and I know a few people who think it's utter crap that BHM exists but if someone wanted to make, say August, WHM they'd be shot down as racist. Whites might still be the majority in the majority of the US but that doesn't mean that BHM is accepted and recognized as a time to point out all the good Black people have done by everyone.
Sure, I don't really like the idea of Black History Month, it has a feel of tokenism to it. I think it would be better to review the teaching of normal history to include more stories from minorities.
I was just pointing out the significant difference between focussing on a minority for a short time and focussing on a majority for a short time, when that majority dominates history as taught already.
Me, I could care less. If the Latino's want to have a LHM more power to them. Me, I want a Gun History Month. A month to celebrate all the good that guns have done for our country.
I really like and really hate this idea all at once. I think it'd be an interesting view to look at the evolution of guns over time, it'd shine a light on technological progress, on lifestyles at different times, and finally on the changing face of war over time.
On the other hand I think we focus on the violence in history too much, causing people to lose track of how the majority have lived their lives. It doesn’t make sense as a national focus, but amongst a community that’s already pretty interested in guns it’d be a good way to get them looking at history in a different light.
JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is some truth to your post NELS, you still only glean the surface of the reasoning and understanding of the CSA. It is hard for us to understand how much they loved their land back then. It wasn't just the idea they loved, they treasured the very soil itself, much like many Texans I know. To attach your love to the physical land itself and blend it with an idea is an extremely powerful motivator for the hearts of men...
Sure, it should be pointed out that the greater political reasons for war do not translate down to the soldier on the ground. A whole lot of soldiers fought because their home state called on them to fight so they did. Loyalty to Virginia or whatever state a man called home was a really important thing.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Just out of curiosity if we can overlook slavery (which the CSA chose to protect a half dozen times in their constitution) can't we overlook anything?
Are Nazis, Imperial Japanese, the Khemer Rouge, Red Guard, blah blah blah similarly worthy of respect and admiration? THey really, really (x2) loved their land too. Is there anyone NOT worthy so long as they loved their soil?
I don’t think you have to ignore slavery in order to recognise that individual soldiers might have fought for other reasons. I think we can recognise, for instance, that the Nazis were genocidal nutters while recognising a lot of soldiers simply fought to defend Germany, or simply because they were drafted and they had to go.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@KK: Aren't you ignoring slavery in the Union? I haven't noticed your willingness to throw the Union under the bus, despite several of its states actively owning slaves, and them making no attempt to eliminate it until after the Civil War....
Again, one can recognise that the North was not that interested in slavery while realising that it was the primary political issue in the Confederacy’s decision to secede.
Abolition was a growing political force, primarily in the North. This caused a great deal of concern in the South and was used heavily in the presidential election as a reason to vote against that Northerner Lincoln. Lincoln won and the South wigged out. Precede that with some stuff about Buchanan being an incompetent git and you’ve just about covered a complete explanation as to how one part of a country can secede over something that wasn’t a priority to the whole.
Manchu wrote:Love of Soil v. Love of Slavery is not the spectrum balanced in the heart of Confederate soldiers. K_K, you're asking questions about the present framed in questions about the past. Is it not enough to say that a Confederate History Month that does not exclude mention of slavery is good and acceptable? Or do you really believe that the Confederate cause is so exactly analogous to Nazi genocide? Seeing as how I have respect for you, I'm phrasing this as a question rather than some supposedly-witty barb.
THe subject at hand is 2010's Confederate History Month, so I think presentism is justified. If someone declares 'Manifest Destiny Month' or 'Colonize the Philippines Month' or 'Transcontinental Railroad Month' discussion of the racism in each of those events would be appropriate even if people back in the day did not think in those terms. Deliberately omitting the issue and calling it insignificant would be deplored.
Godwin's Law really does not apply here. We had a group that took up arms against a democracy, launched unprovoked aggression against that democracy all to defend a race-based genocidal system. So yeah, comparing their cause to that of Nazi Germany is not inappropriate. Lots of German soldiers loved their country, there were lots of causes including the Versides Treaty and poorly drawn borders but y'know what the evil of their cause overshadows any attempt to remember them.
JEB_Stuart wrote:@KK: Aren't you ignoring slavery in the Union? I haven't noticed your willingness to throw the Union under the bus, despite several of its states actively owning slaves, and them making no attempt to eliminate it until after the Civil War....
Is this 'Slavery in the Union History Month'? Did the governor of Maryland call on us to remember the sacrifices of Maryland's sons to defend slavery in that state? I've been attacking slavery as a whole from the start. People point out that Lincoln's Emmancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the Union but conveniently forget that he had not authority to free the slaves in the Union. As commander-in-chief he could free them in lands occupied by Union troops but not in loyal states. And the Republicans did free slaves in the Union as soon as they could through the 13-15 ammendments. The almost 100 years of slavery in the union is an abomination in our history.
Which is why I am so irked at being asked to remember the sacrifices of those who fought to preserve it.
There's not much difference between the CSA and US constitutions, except that the CSA constitution had far more protections for slavery and even commanded it be maintained in its present form forever.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Godwin's Law really does not apply here. We had a group that took up arms against a democracy, launched unprovoked aggression against that democracy all to defend a race-based genocidal system.
I'm not seeing how southern slavery was genocidal. Nor would I think that defending their system of domestic racism was a significant reason for German aggression.
@KK: Have any of us defended slavery? Name one and I will concede the point. Not one person has ever said that it was a good thing, but I think it is unfair to lump all those brave men and women who fought for their homes in with the institution of slavery. Nearly half the CSA states only joined because Pres. Lincoln exhibited tyrannical power by creating an army to force the Southern states into submission and for suspending the Writ of Habaeus Corpus in Maryland. There were several Confederate generals who we should all be proud to call Americans, and should be honored, and equally there were horrible ones whose legacy should be remembered for their inhumanity. That is what you should take into consideration before reminding us, again and again and again of something we already know.
Mississippi's declaration of secession before the Civil War said: "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."
Leave the state then. I am actually enjoying the State of Va. thank you very much. I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite. Oh feth Black History month. I am tired of the bull gak.
To me, CHM reflects the political climate we have today. A country so divided that talks of secession are not unheard of.
On one side, we have an opportunity for change (abolitionists/socialized healthcare) and on the otherside we have those who wish to keep the status quo (slavery/capitalist healthcare).
Money, as always is the heart of the matter.
While I am a social liberal and a fiscal moderate, this seems to me to be a play for some political reason to make CHM again. Incite the hippy libs into fits of poofy rage? Give the gun blasting cons a reason for thoughts of secession? Whatever the reason, there seems to be a underlining reason for this, a political maneuver of some kind.
When liberal governors are in office there, CHM isnt recognized. When con governors are in office, its always recognized.
What good does it do for the cons to attempt to validate this without recognizing the reason why the confederacy was made in the first place? It always "slips their mind" when CHM is recognized. If anything is a historical rewrite, its the attempt by the cons to validate the confederate position without acknowledging their reasons for being.
ounumen wrote:I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite.
So, wait, are you trying to say that any historical event which is not commemorated via some sort of 'History Month' has been written out of history? I guess that doesn't bode well for the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Cold War, World War II, the Louisiana Purchase, and any number of other historical events.
You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.
On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).
Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.
On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).
Thats just because you're jealous of our lack 3 feet+ snowfalls...
ounumen wrote:I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite.
So, wait, are you trying to say that any historical event which is not commemorated via some sort of 'History Month' has been written out of history? I guess that doesn't bode well for the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Cold War, World War II, the Louisiana Purchase, and any number of other historical events.
I cant wait for McCarthy History Month. I shall point fingers. I shall report my parents social activities. I shall regard anythign different than me to be an anathematic abomination.
ounumen wrote:I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite.
So, wait, are you trying to say that any historical event which is not commemorated via some sort of 'History Month' has been written out of history? I guess that doesn't bode well for the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Cold War, World War II, the Louisiana Purchase, and any number of other historical events.
I cant wait for McCarthy History Month. I shall point fingers. I shall report my parents social activities. I shall regard anythign different than me to be an anathematic abomination.
Frazzled wrote:On the positive I am having fun arguing they were a bunch of no good traitors on another board. For some reason that means I am a communist...
That's my position on the CSA; you can imagine how popular it makes me here in good ole Tennessee...
Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.
On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).
Thats just because you're jealous of our lack 3 feet+ snowfalls...
But with summer coming we can relax in the mosquito filled humidity instead!
Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.
On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).
Thats just because you're jealous of our lack 3 feet+ snowfalls...
But with summer coming we can relax in the mosquito filled humidity instead!
Yeah. The days will soon be upon us where humidity is in triple digits and the mosquitoes so thick that even birds of prey are afraid to come out and hunt.
Fateweaver wrote:Yeah. The days will soon be upon us where humidity is in triple digits and the mosquitoes so thick that even birds of prey are afraid to come out and hunt.
Thats why Dragonflies (or moquito hogs as they say in Louisiana) are sacred.
I did only skimmed the Texas version because it would be depressing that our great state would do so, but the SC version mentions slavery 18 times. The bold sections are particularly telling.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume 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; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
As a current resident of south west Virginia, and a descendant of at least one confederate soldier who fought in the North Carolina Infantry, I would like to comment a little bit.
I grew up a huge civil war history buff, my parents even purchased for me the Time Life Civil war series and we almost started to get into reinacting.
I think a lot of people miss the point about why southerners would want to "celebrate" the heritage of the confederate soldiers. I believe the main reason why the average confederate soldier fought was out of a sense of duty. Duty to their families, friends, and home. It didn't necesarily matter that the rich plantation owners and politicians were spewing racist proslavery propaganda. I don't think they necesarily cared about all of that. They were just soldiers protecting their homeland from invaders.(In there eyes)
So while some people may look at it as "celebrating" slavery. I think what is being missed is that they are honoring the sacrifice that was made by the soldiers.
Now, this is coming from someone who thinks that the Civil War was one of the stupidest mistakes Americans made, I wish it never happened. But the fact is, that it did happen. It was a different time, and people thought differently back then.
The comparison of the nazis to the confederacy is way off IMO. The Confederacy didn't conquer entire nations, and haul people off to gas chambers. If you want to compare anything in American history to Nazis, I think a better comparison would be the doctrine of manifest destiny and how the native Americans land was stolen and were slaughtered. But not the confederacy, completly different IMO.
generalgrog wrote:Wow...how did I miss this thread!!
As a current resident of south west Virginia, and a descendant of at least one confederate soldier who fought in the North Carolina Infantry, I would like to comment a little bit.
I grew up a huge civil war history buff, my parents even purchased for me the Time Life Civil war series and we almost started to get into reinacting.
I think a lot of people miss the point about why southerners would want to "celebrate" the heritage of the confederate soldiers. I believe the main reason why the average confederate soldier fought was out of a sense of duty. Duty to their families, friends, and home. It didn't necesarily matter that the rich plantation owners and politicians were spewing racist proslavery propaganda. I don't think they necesarily cared about all of that. They were just soldiers protecting their homeland from invaders.(In there eyes)
So while some people may look at it as "celebrating" slavery. I think what is being missed is that they are honoring the sacrifice that was made by the soldiers.
Now, this is coming from someone who thinks that the Civil War was one of the stupidest mistakes Americans made, I wish it never happened. But the fact is, that it did happen. It was a different time, and people thought differently back then.
The comparison of the nazis to the confederacy is way off IMO. The Confederacy didn't conquer entire nations, and haul people off to gas chambers. If you want to compare anything in American history to Nazis, I think a better comparison would be the doctrine of manifest destiny and how the native Americans land was stolen and were slaughtered. But not the confederacy, completly different IMO.
GG
Well there were plans to conquer Cuba and potentially Mexico actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pretty good as in "we kicked your ass ha ha!"
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:If we won no one would be complaining now. Except any existing slaves. Even then, they were offered freedom towards the end if they joined the fight.
I would be skeptical of this promise, given that a slave can't actually bring someone to court. Also, if I recall there were many slaves offered freedom in exchange for fighting the Revolutionary War who never got it.
generalgrog wrote:The comparison of the nazis to the confederacy is way off IMO. The Confederacy didn't conquer entire nations, and haul people off to gas chambers. If you want to compare anything in American history to Nazis, I think a better comparison would be the doctrine of manifest destiny and how the native Americans land was stolen and were slaughtered. But not the confederacy, completly different IMO.
I think the ideologies of both could be said to be somewhat similar; their actions weren't though.
My Dad picked cotton as a kid. He didn't kill me when I complained about working at Target as a teen. He was a freeking saint. he didn't yell, just talked about going out with a sack at dawn and coming bad with bleeding hands at sunset. He was 8. I shut up after that.
Frazzled wrote:My Dad picked cotton as a kid. He didn't kill me when I complained about working at Target as a teen. He was a freeking saint. he didn't yell, just talked about going out with a sack at dawn and coming bad with bleeding hands at sunset. He was 8. I shut up after that.
Well parenting was different back in the 18th century.
theHandofGork wrote:If this is really about the civil war, then why not name it "American Civil War History Month?"
Word.
Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:My Dad picked cotton as a kid. He didn't kill me when I complained about working at Target as a teen. He was a freeking saint. he didn't yell, just talked about going out with a sack at dawn and coming bad with bleeding hands at sunset. He was 8. I shut up after that.
Well parenting was different back in the 18th century.
generalgrog wrote:Wow...how did I miss this thread!!
As a current resident of south west Virginia, and a descendant of at least one confederate soldier who fought in the North Carolina Infantry, I would like to comment a little bit.
I grew up a huge civil war history buff, my parents even purchased for me the Time Life Civil war series and we almost started to get into reinacting.
I think a lot of people miss the point about why southerners would want to "celebrate" the heritage of the confederate soldiers. I believe the main reason why the average confederate soldier fought was out of a sense of duty. Duty to their families, friends, and home. It didn't necesarily matter that the rich plantation owners and politicians were spewing racist proslavery propaganda. I don't think they necesarily cared about all of that. They were just soldiers protecting their homeland from invaders.(In there eyes)
So while some people may look at it as "celebrating" slavery. I think what is being missed is that they are honoring the sacrifice that was made by the soldiers.
Now, this is coming from someone who thinks that the Civil War was one of the stupidest mistakes Americans made, I wish it never happened. But the fact is, that it did happen. It was a different time, and people thought differently back then.
The comparison of the nazis to the confederacy is way off IMO. The Confederacy didn't conquer entire nations, and haul people off to gas chambers. If you want to compare anything in American history to Nazis, I think a better comparison would be the doctrine of manifest destiny and how the native Americans land was stolen and were slaughtered. But not the confederacy, completly different IMO.
GG
I agree with your point that the Confederacy was not as bad as the Nazis. While I think the reasons for secession were pretty nasty, there's a long way between slavery and carting trainloads of people to death camps.
And I agree that regardless of the Confederacy itself, the majority of soldiers were just regular folk fighting for their homelands - but that could also be said for most every army including Nazi Germany. The sad reality is that even when there's a clear good guy and a clear bad guy in a war, the people who end up dying on both sides are just ordinary people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
George Spiggott wrote:Black soldiers fought on both sides. When they fought for the south they were paid the same as whites and weren't segregated. Funny thing racism.
That's a really good point. Racism is weird, and it is dangerous to focus entirely on someone else's record while ignoring your own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
theHandofGork wrote:If this is really about the civil war, then why not name it "American Civil War History Month?"
Word. That I would be behind.
sebster on the first page of this thread/ wrote:However, naming it Confederate History Month instead of something more direct like Civil War History month is pretty odd, and that's before you consider the omission of any mention of slavery from the initial announcement.
richmond sentinel wrote:An official dispatch received yesterday, announces “on what seems good authority” that the enemy burned the buildings of the Virginia Military Institute at Lexington, on Sunday last. The Cadets are at present at Rope Ferry, Balcony Falls.
We are sorry to learn of the above destructions, but it is not much worse that we expected from our loving brethren, the Yankees.
This is a clipping from an old newspaper in the south.
The VMI cadets had participated in the battle of New Market and won against the US troops. In retaltiation the US burnt down all but two of the buildings, only because those buildings were being used as shelter for civilians and as a hospital.
The war itslef did not become about slavery until Lincoln ordered the Emancipation Proclamation which I believe he announced after the battle of Antietem. The only reason he announced it after a victory was so that it didn't seem like a desperate move on the US's part to gain support. Instead it made the US cause seem like a just crusade and ended most of England's support for the south.
I know an older man who has a musket engraved with his great-great grandfather's name and even states his enrollment in the Army of Richmond.
The war ended with both sides saluting each other and then later the revival of the south. However, Lincoln was killed and his Successor(a sourtherner) was hated by the mostly northern Congress and nothing got done.
This is the south's way of remembering the men and women who died and even the president has sent wreathes to confederate soldier memorials, these men were americans, just misguided ones who had been portrayed as evil by the north in such books as "Uncle Tom's Cabin".
So the war was about rascism, it just started with the North's rascism against the south.
halonachos wrote:The war itslef did not become about slavery until Lincoln ordered the Emancipation Proclamation which I believe he announced after the battle of Antietem.
That is a bit of an oversimplification of the history of the Slavery debate in the United States, and especially in regards to the War of Southern Regression (wink wink, nudge nudge). I can't tell if you are taking a devils advocate position with false info or if it is just something you were taught and don't realize it wasn't that simple. As has been stated multiple times that conflict wasn't as simple as just being about slavery but to believe that slavery question had no part in the origins of the conflict is just disingenuous.
halonachos wrote:So the war was about rascism, it just started with the North's rascism against the south.
richmond sentinel wrote:An official dispatch received yesterday, announces “on what seems good authority” that the enemy burned the buildings of the Virginia Military Institute at Lexington, on Sunday last. The Cadets are at present at Rope Ferry, Balcony Falls.
We are sorry to learn of the above destructions, but it is not much worse that we expected from our loving brethren, the Yankees.
This is a clipping from an old newspaper in the south.
The VMI cadets had participated in the battle of New Market and won against the US troops. In retaltiation the US burnt down all but two of the buildings, only because those buildings were being used as shelter for civilians and as a hospital.
The war itslef did not become about slavery until Lincoln ordered the Emancipation Proclamation which I believe he announced after the battle of Antietem. The only reason he announced it after a victory was so that it didn't seem like a desperate move on the US's part to gain support. Instead it made the US cause seem like a just crusade and ended most of England's support for the south.
I know an older man who has a musket engraved with his great-great grandfather's name and even states his enrollment in the Army of Richmond.
The war ended with both sides saluting each other and then later the revival of the south. However, Lincoln was killed and his Successor(a sourtherner) was hated by the mostly northern Congress and nothing got done.
This is the south's way of remembering the men and women who died and even the president has sent wreathes to confederate soldier memorials, these men were americans, just misguided ones who had been portrayed as evil by the north in such books as "Uncle Tom's Cabin".
So the war was about rascism, it just started with the North's rascism against the south.
Speak for yourself. Many Southerners view the Confederates as traitors. God bless that Lincoln didn't have me around as general of the Army of the Potomac. There would have been more Cherokees left alive than Confederate sympathizers. And by Confederate sympathizer I mean anyone who wasn't a slave freed from a plantation.
I don't know about you guys but when I went to school in the South they told me the Civil War was really about slavery. They said the Southern rights thing was a load of hooey to make ourselves feel better. They also told me that I said never tell damnyankees that otherwise they would get all insufferably smug and self righteous.
avantgarde wrote:I don't know about you guys but when I went to school in the South they told me the Civil War was really about slavery. They said the Southern rights thing was a load of hooey to make ourselves feel better.
halonachos wrote:The war itslef did not become about slavery until Lincoln ordered the Emancipation Proclamation which I believe he announced after the battle of Antietem. The only reason he announced it after a victory was so that it didn't seem like a desperate move on the US's part to gain support. Instead it made the US cause seem like a just crusade and ended most of England's support for the south.
Your history there is awful. Really, really awful.
There is a vague kernel of truth floating around the outside of your statement, in that the North was fighting to maintain the union but used slavery as an issue to assume the high moral ground and to discourage European powers from aiding the South.
But to think slavery just became an issue part way through the war is very, very wrong. Slavery was the dominant political issue for decades before the war, brought to a head with the Dred Scott case, and the failure of Buchanan to address the issue in any meaningful way. This came to a head with Lincoln’s election, whom many in the South believed would force the South to end slavery. Then you can read the declarations of independence of a variety of states with many references to slavery, and the Constitution of the Confederacy - which was basically a direct copy of the US constitution, plus a bit on term limits to appeal to Virginia, and a big change that explicitly stated the Confederate government had no right to stop the states from allowing slavery.
Slavery was a big, big thing. How could it not be?
Your comment that the war was caused by Northern ‘racism’ to the South is well… you know the South attacked the North, right?
From The Onions American Voices section on the announcement of Confederate History Month:
"Take that, big federal health care bill."
- Joe Cook Cage Clerk
"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Bin Laden’s Day."
- Keith Hill Instant Print Operator
"I can't think of a more beautiful time and place to revel in defeat than Virginia in April."
- Susan Pollit Systems Analyst
Frazzled wrote:Speak for yourself. Many Southerners view the Confederates as traitors. God bless that Lincoln didn't have me around as general of the Army of the Potomac. There would have been more Cherokees left alive than Confederate sympathizers. And by Confederate sympathizer I mean anyone who wasn't a slave freed from a plantation.
So you mean that you would advocate the genocide of an entire group of people?
See, most southerners didn't actually own slaves because back then a slave cost around $100, which was big money back then. Most of the generals also liked Lincoln, however, Lee had closer ties to his family than the country so he chose to fight for the south. That's like if I went up to Frazz and told him there was going to be a war againt the federal government and that Texas was one of the states fighting the federal government and that the federal government wanted him to lead the army attacking Texas on behalf of the federal government.
Now Frazz has two options, he could join the Federals or he could stay in Texas. The ramifications for both being great. If he stayed in Texas, he could stay with his family and friends and has the potential to stay where he lives.He would be a traitor to the government, but he could console himself on the fact that he's defending his home. Or he could side with the Federals and force his family to move from their house which may get destroyed, and away from his friends who may get killed. However, he would be the one leading the federal army that is destroying his old home, his friends, his past, and maybe his family if he is unable to get them to leave.
Most southerners were stuck, they couldn't afford to leave so they chose to defend their livelihoods and their family.
Uncle Tom's Cabin heavily portrayed the southern slave owners as brutal monsters incapable of human affection. The north regarded the south as hicks and unwashed, filthy creatures who didn't deserve to see the light of day. Also, let it be pointed out that while slaves were free in the north, many people were still bigoted towards them. A lot of the irish immigrants hated them because they competed for jobs that the irish felt that they needed.
Again Ahtman you show your curious gift to look past my writing and come up with delightful assumptions about me. You can't guess me because I contradict myself so many times it isn't even funny.
Saying that the war was about slavery from the very beginning is a gross oversimplification. I don't believe it was truly about slavery in the beginning because of the border states that fought for the U.S, but were promised to be allowed to keep slavery legal. If it was about slavery, then I doubt those states would've been promised to keep slavery at the start of the war. It started as a war for state's rights because Lincoln never ran on a platform saying he would abolish slavery, the south was just paranoid and thought he would. The republican party was a third party and very up-and-coming at that point so the southern conservatives were afraid.
To say that Uncle Tom's Cabin was the reason the war erupted is also a gross oversimplification, but I do believe that it was the final straw.
A great example about this argument is when Apu was trying to get naturalized in the Simpson's. He was asked "What was the cause of the Civil War?" and Apu went into a discussion about other reasons(states' rights, etc) and the examiner said "Just say slavery.".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Lincoln wanted to stop the expansion of slavery, not abolish it, there is a difference.
Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator
I am sure that Frazz would do the right thing. Just like if my family or half the black community declared ourselves russian communists, I would have to side with America. No matter if it's your own race or own family, wrong is wrong. His land is America's land, anf if he had to leave in order to fight for it he would. He wouldn't be fighting Texas, just the traitor scum who spit in the face of everything America stands for. And I'm sure he could lead his Army well enough to avoid killing his own family members. The man's been alive at least a million years.
Oh I'm sure there are people who don't realize 200<1,000,000. New math and all. Hell, they probably learn it in school. As fethed up as the school system is it wouldn't surprise me.
halonachos wrote:To say that Uncle Tom's Cabin was the reason the war erupted is also a gross oversimplification, but I do believe that it was the final straw.
Given that it was written about five years before the Dred Scott decision, I really doubt that.
Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator
Fixed?
You do realize that those are all fake quotes right?
Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator
Fixed?
You do realize that those are all fake quotes right?
And that there's a big difference between a failed assassination plot that got no-one but the plotters killed, that was hatched over a now irrelevant religious dispute, and a civil war that killed more than half a million soldiers and an unknown number of civilians, the political effects of which were felt by people still alive today.
Ahtman wrote:"Slavery shouldn't stop us from celebrating Confederate History Month anymore than terrorism stops us from celebrating Guy Fawkes Night." - Keith Hill Instant Print Operator
Fixed?
You do realize that those are all fake quotes right?
Earth to Ahtman, Yeah! (I don't really think you're in space). I really should have gone with the Orky question mark rather than a real one, a bit too subtle as written.
sebster wrote:And that there's a big difference between a failed assassination plot that got no-one but the plotters killed, that was hatched over a now irrelevant religious dispute, and a civil war that killed more than half a million soldiers and an unknown number of civilians, the political effects of which were felt by people still alive today.
Irrelevant? You've heard of Northern Ireland right?
The number of dead is precisely why you should be celebrating it, although with hindsight maybe 'celebrate' is perhaps a poor choice of word. Anything that does a little to wash off the moral whitewash surrounding the ACW gets my vote.
Now Frazz has two options, he could join the Federals or he could stay in Texas. The ramifications for both being great. If he stayed in Texas, he could stay with his family and friends and has the potential to stay where he lives.He would be a traitor to the government, but he could console himself on the fact that he's defending his home. Or he could side with the Federals and force his family to move from their house which may get destroyed, and away from his friends who may get killed. However, he would be the one leading the federal army that is destroying his old home, his friends, his past, and maybe his family if he is unable to get them to leave.
You forgot the third option. Join the loyalists. Exterminate the secessionsists utterly, their families, and all who support them. To quote the immortal bard. Death to Traitors.
(this is actually what occurred in the South during the Revolution FYI between rebels and loyalists).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sexiest_hero wrote:I am sure that Frazz would do the right thing. Just like if my family or half the black community declared ourselves russian communists, I would have to side with America. No matter if it's your own race or own family, wrong is wrong. His land is America's land, anf if he had to leave in order to fight for it he would. He wouldn't be fighting Texas, just the traitor scum who spit in the face of everything America stands for. And I'm sure he could lead his Army well enough to avoid killing his own family members. The man's been alive at least a million years.
Word.
theHandofGork wrote:You seem to have forgotten that Fraz was alive during the civil war.
Exactly. I'm the guy with the plate. There's Bob on top about to pull another one of his many pranks. it was shame what happened to Bob.
So Frazz, you would join the british during the Civil War? There were two sides in the war, the Federals (a.k.a the Yanks/U.S) and the Seccessionists(a.k.a Johnny Rebs/C.S).
You sound like you would just off and go put on a redcoat and drink some earl grey tea.
Also, apply what you're saying to the revolutionary war. You live in America and would rather join the english in their fight against the american colonists than help the colonists. Not only that, but you would advocate the death of every single supporter of the revolution.
halonachos wrote:So Frazz, you would join the british during the Civil War? There were two sides in the war, the Federals (a.k.a the Yanks/U.S) and the Seccessionists(a.k.a Johnny Rebs/C.S).
No first I would have wiped out a few villages. Were I General Sherman, there would not have been a Georgia left, just ashes. There would have been no one left to surrender.
Remember what Shaka Zulu said. "Never leave an enemy behind."
But last time I checked, William Wallace beat Shaka Zulu so I don't care about what Shaka Zulu has to say.
While you eliminate Georgia, and destroy their future as the producers of fine peaches, you would tick everyone else off. Lincoln didn't want to destroy the south, just beat it back into the union. The wholesale slaughter you would've wrought would be reason enough for Lincoln to deprive you of your general rank.
halonachos wrote:But last time I checked, William Wallace beat Shaka Zulu so I don't care about what Shaka Zulu has to say.
While you eliminate Georgia, and destroy their future as the producers of fine peaches, you would tick everyone else off. Lincoln didn't want to destroy the south, just beat it back into the union. The wholesale slaughter you would've wrought would be reason enough for Lincoln to deprive you of your general rank.
Strange they kicked the crap out of Tennessee pretty well that way and Grant got promoted. That whole starving a city thing did wonders for his career.
As noted there would be no one left to tick off. If a village town/surrenders, mercy is given. If not everything dies. It worked for the Romans, it worked for the Mongols, it worked for the Leichtensteinians. Curse you Leichtenstein!
That was different though. He starved them into submission, but he didn't burn them alive. So in essence he was promoted because he didn't wantonly destroy everything in his path, just allowed the city to sit there until they gave up.
And yes there would be people to tick off. Destroying the south meant that england would have no cotton for its textile industry. It would be similar to the first gulf war I believe.
If you threaten the well being of another country's industry and economy, they will go after you.
Also, that whole "kill every enemy" theory has only worked for Leichtenstein and that's because it's run by penguins. The immortal enemy of the weiner dog.
Seriously? You think that?
Thats what the Confederacy thought too. Didn't work out so well did it? Besides all the freed slaves now have 100-200 acres each, so cotton production is back up to full speed in a jiffy.
Britain enters the war there are a lot of dead British troops. The Union wasn't even trying hard and they stomped the South utterly. Lets get real here. The British weren't stupid and knew not to get involved in an internal matter.
The union was trying hard, actually the irish were, but that's another story.
Well, the british did give the south supplies, weapons, ships, encouraging words, etc. It was the whole reason the union had to set up a blockade around the south. Oh, and if the southern army had chased after the U.S army at the first Battle of Bull Run, the war would've been over much, much faster. However, the south wasn't the agressor. They blew up fort sumter because it was in the south, not because they wanted to kill all of the carpetbaggers. Gettysburg was a failed attempt to demoralize the union and an attempt to sweep through the north.
Also, I still believe you would've sided with the redcoats instead of the colonists. As you hate treason and traitors, the redcoats would've welcomed you in their part of the revolutionary war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will return to my original premise. The war was not completely about slavery, it was barely about slavery. It was about the rights of the slave states to keep their own laws. Lincoln was for the cease of expansion of slavery, but not the abolishment of it in the states that already had it. By issuing the emancipation proclomation, he didn't actually free slaves, but instead slit the throat of official british support for the south. England was officially anti-slavery, but could support the war because it wan't about slavery until Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclomation making it a war for slavery or freedom.
If you don't believe this, then you are a fool. As the proclamation only affected those states under union control, the states which had mostly abolished slavery already, it didn't do anything. The proclamation didn't even affect the border states which were allowed to keep slavery until the 13th and 14th amendments.
Even after the war, it took the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments to end slavery. After this, ex-slaves were still treated like third class people by northerners and southerners alike.
Furthermore, to say that the south was about slavery is another gross stereotype. Many stations of the underground railroad were in the south, mostly houses owned by quakers who didn't believe in slavery and would find ways to deny the fact that they were hiding slaves.
In effect the south wasn't fighting for slavery, just the right to control whether or not they did condone slavery. These may seem similar, but are different. While one is activity of keeping people as slaves the other is the right to choose a stance on the issue. In essence state sovereignty on the issue and not the issue itself.
halonachos wrote:The union was trying hard, actually the irish were, but that's another story.
Well, the british did give the south supplies, weapons, ships, encouraging words, etc. It was the whole reason the union had to set up a blockade around the south. Oh, and if the southern army had chased after the U.S army at the first Battle of Bull Run, the war would've been over much, much faster. However, the south wasn't the agressor. They blew up fort sumter because it was in the south, not because they wanted to kill all of the carpetbaggers. Gettysburg was a failed attempt to demoralize the union and an attempt to sweep through the north.
Get real the South never had a chance. They picked a fight with the one country that's lost one war...ever and had just come off not only wiping out Indians left and right, but also Mexico in record time. Freed slaves fighting for the Union alone outnumbered the Lee's army at its height, by multiples. They never even needed a full on draft, just draft LITE.
You can flip that around easily. If the Union had won at Bull Run, skipped down and burned Richmond, and hanged the entire Confederate Congress and generalship from sign posts, then the war would have been over as well.
Correction. The British SOLD items to the Confederates. Thats called making a profit.
Also, I still believe you would've sided with the redcoats instead of the colonists. As you hate treason and traitors, the redcoats would've welcomed you in their part of the revolutionary war.
However, the south actually won the first and second battle of bull run and not the north.
Hell, I'll use VMI again. At the battle of new market a group of teenagers charged and broke the union lines on their own. The north had weapon production capabilities while the south needed an outside supplier.
Not to mention the fact that many veterans of the Mexican-American War were also from the south along with some of the leaders.
The british traded goods and supplies for cotton that the south provided. The cost of textiles greatly increased in england as the supply of cotton dwindled so the brits were willing to trade for cotton lest the populace rebel due to $100 pairs of underwear.
While slaves and such outnumbered the south, southerners were used to using weapons to hunt and were veterans of the wars previously mentioned.
The north also had one thing the south did not, a navy. However, the south were the first to develope an ironhide ship mind you.
In the end it was the lack of military supplies that cost the south the war.
So, even though this has gone way offtopic, I support the confederate history month.
halonachos wrote:However, the south actually won the first and second battle of bull run and not the north.
Hell, I'll use VMI again. At the battle of new market a group of teenagers charged and broke the union lines on their own. The north had weapon production capabilities while the south needed an outside supplier.
Not to mention the fact that many veterans of the Mexican-American War were also from the south along with some of the leaders.
The british traded goods and supplies for cotton that the south provided. The cost of textiles greatly increased in england as the supply of cotton dwindled so the brits were willing to trade for cotton lest the populace rebel due to $100 pairs of underwear.
While slaves and such outnumbered the south, southerners were used to using weapons to hunt and were veterans of the wars previously mentioned.
The north also had one thing the south did not, a navy. However, the south were the first to develope an ironhide ship mind you.
In the end it was the lack of military supplies that cost the south the war.
And better generals. Like it or not Lee did not face generals of quality until the western generals were redeployed after leaving the Army of the Tennessee dead on the battlefield. You forget whuile lee did well in Virginia the Union was running amok in the heart of the Confederacy. By the end of 1862 Antietan had happened, Shiloh had happend, the rivers had opened. By 1863 the Confedeeracy was reduced to the East Coast and was set to be split in two by that lover of peace Sherman.
Grant only lost one major battle-Cold Harbor, and still kept right on coming. Lee understood battles and campaigns, but Grant understood strategy in a modern context.
You can say its only because they had more stuff. But thats what Germany said in WWII. At the end of the day the Union still had more stuff and stomped on the Confederacy. Its material dominance makes defeat that much more inevitable. Even with a brilliant general and brilliant victories the fact is the Confederacy as literally ground into dust.
The confederacy was starved, not cushed. Any army deprived of food, ammo, and equipment will lose. Also, I would say that virginia was the heart of the confederacy seeing as though it held the confederate and part of the union capitals.
I would credit the union blockade more than the generals. The generals were fighting starved men, which made fighting easy.
halonachos wrote:The confederacy was starved, not cushed. Any army deprived of food, ammo, and equipment will lose. Also, I would say that virginia was the heart of the confederacy seeing as though it held the confederate and part of the union capitals.
I would credit the union blockade more than the generals. The generals were fighting starved men, which made fighting easy.
Thats called strategy (even though you're wrong)
The South is a food producer not importer. Foodstuffs were low because: 1. all the men were dead and couldn't grow crops; and 2. the rail transportation system was purposefully wrecked by Union.
But thats my point. The South was fighting the Napoleonic Wars. The North was fighting modern warfare. Destroy their ability to wage war. Overwhelm them with superior technology, superior communication, superior logistics, and superior firepower. Try to have half decent generals once in a while.
its the same strategy the US Army has used ever since.
But yes, they needed supplies when they were cut off and the farms were destroyed and salted by the union. Europe was the only ally that could potentially send them something, but the union cut it off.
As a citizen of the state in which most of the battles of the civil war were fought, I do know something about the civil war. A majority of the cash crops were tobacco and cotton, both of which are largely inedible, so edible food was pushed down farther south. The railroads to these places were destroyed as you noted, but the farms were also destroyed as well as ill-equipped as the manufacturers of farm equipment were either turned into weapons factories or were located in the north.
So, the south lost because they only had food stuffs and a small railroad capability keeping their war effort running. Once the south lost most of its connections with manufacturing, it was only a matter of time before farm equipment became unusable and the army became ill equipped.
Couple that with the steady influx of irish immigrants into the union and you can see why the south lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000
So while the south had less numbers than the north, they suffered less casualties. You can say that this is because the union had more men so more could die. I see it at the Union had more men which should've inflicted many more casualties on the south.
I would not say that the union ground the C.S.A into the ground. I would rather say that the C.S.A realized that they could not replenish the amount of men lost in battle so they surrendered.
Dude by your own stat 34% of the total CSA armies were dead.
At the end of the War Lee's army almost literally starved to death. They were not getting food, material or trips. They were the only significant force left.
Yep, but while the U.S suffered only 13% casualties, most of its troops were ill-trained immigrants. The U.S knew this and had to cut the legs off of the C.S.A forces.
And wow, you actually used the phrase "dude". I can feel the earth beginning to tremble at this utterance.
Even worse frazzled halonachos missed some big issues with his numbers.
"So while the south had less numbers than the north, they suffered less casualties. You can say that this is because the union had more men so more could die. I see it at the Union had more men which should've inflicted many more casualties on the south"
The south had less numbers but were fighting on home turf, able to dig in for many fights. The south lost because they relied on slavery. They didn't really have roads or railways, and most whites were as poor and bad off as the slaves. In war numbers don't mean much when the other army is on it's own turf. The south pretty much had to win the war quick and failed.
34% death rate vs 13 is horrible. I'd had my generals hung, not martyred. The confederates pretty much lined thier proud sons to be slaughtered. Bad tactics are bad
Stop using new time language and slang frazzled, it's scaring me.
With the immigrant statement i'm saying that the north had more meat to throw into the grinder.
I think we can all agree that the south lost though and I don't think the C.S.A got off light.
If you think about it those slaves were property which people had payed for(now, I'm not advocating slavery, just stating what they were back then), and they were expensive. The south would not only lose their slaves (which would be like losing a huge part of your investments) and also lost their work force. The south was sent into economic disrepair as the rich southern families were now poor due to looting, loss of slaves, loss of land, etc. If Lincoln had not tried to rebuild the south, the remaining southerners would be destitute and literally have nothing to work for. Lincoln would've condemned half of the nation to death and chances are he still would've been shot, but so would any northern successors and congressmen.
halonachos wrote:Stop using new time language and slang frazzled, it's scaring me.
With the immigrant statement i'm saying that the north had more meat to throw into the grinder.
I think we can all agree that the south lost though and I don't think the C.S.A got off light.
If you think about it those slaves were property which people had payed for(now, I'm not advocating slavery, just stating what they were back then), and they were expensive. The south would not only lose their slaves (which would be like losing a huge part of your investments) and also lost their work force. The south was sent into economic disrepair as the rich southern families were now poor due to looting, loss of slaves, loss of land, etc. If Lincoln had not tried to rebuild the south, the remaining southerners would be destitute and literally have nothing to work for. Lincoln would've condemned half of the nation to death and chances are he still would've been shot, but so would any northern successors and congressmen.
1. Seriously? Seriously? (highschooler statements). Or as the boy would say to blow me "yea thanks for that." Or as we said back in my high school "OOG! OOG BATOOG WOOGA!"
2. yes they could and did. Time honored US army tradition good for rebels, Nazis, Spanish, or samurai wannabees.
3. Actually you just described Reconstruction and reasons underpinning growth in the West thereafter. As General Frazzled, however, I would have insurred future compliance for the survivors through additional motivational methods. Death to traitors. Its not just a job. Its a calling.
George Spiggott wrote:Irrelevant? You've heard of Northern Ireland right?
You really think there's that much of a connection between the Reformation and Irish Nationalism?
The number of dead is precisely why you should be celebrating it, although with hindsight maybe 'celebrate' is perhaps a poor choice of word. Anything that does a little to wash off the moral whitewash surrounding the ACW gets my vote.
It's why it should be commemorated, sure. Having a Guy Fawkes style celebration would be a bit out of place, which was all I was saying. Everyone getting together to light a bonfire representing Sherman's march to the sea?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I will return to my original premise.
Actually what you'll do is restate your original premise while ignoring the posts that showed your mistakes.
The war was not completely about slavery, it was barely about slavery. It was about the rights of the slave states to keep their own laws. Lincoln was for the cease of expansion of slavery, but not the abolishment of it in the states that already had it. By issuing the emancipation proclomation, he didn't actually free slaves, but instead slit the throat of official british support for the south. England was officially anti-slavery, but could support the war because it wan't about slavery until Lincoln released the Emancipation Proclomation making it a war for slavery or freedom.
Yes, the primary motivation for the North was to maintain the Union. The primary motivation for the South was to maintain their rights to slavery.
If you don't believe this, then you are a fool.
Your effort to contort an analysis of Union motivations into a summation of the causes for both sides isn't so much foolish as disingenuous. Your failure to address that simple point and instead continue repeating your opening argument is just lazy.
In effect the south wasn't fighting for slavery, just the right to control whether or not they did condone slavery. These may seem similar, but are different. While one is activity of keeping people as slaves the other is the right to choose a stance on the issue. In essence state sovereignty on the issue and not the issue itself.
The distinction is trivial and contrived, when you consider the issues of states right no part of the US has gone to war to protect. When the only set of state's rights that have ever led to secession anywhere was slavery, it's pretty fair to say it was about slavery.
Here in Western Australia we get hosed on Federal funding allocation, and whenever our share gets cut someone will make some noises about secession. But no-one has gone and blown up a military barracks yet, because while we'd like to control and keep revenue raised here more closely, it isn't an issue close enough to our hearts. The South and slavery in in the mid-19th C, though, was a very different matter.
I think people make a mistake in thinking you can have a society with legislated racism and it's just like any other, but with that one bad thing. That kind of thing is so pervasive, it gets into everything. I've read a lot of interesting parallels between the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa, the same crazy mindset, the same fantasies of self-importance... racism gets into everything and it makes you crazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:The confederacy was starved, not cushed. Any army deprived of food, ammo, and equipment will lose.
Yeah, when you have less stuff and that causes you to lose all your territory and surrender... that's called losing. That's exactly what losing is.
sebster wrote:I think people make a mistake in thinking you can have a society with legislated racism and it's just like any other, but with that one bad thing. That kind of thing is so pervasive, it gets into everything. I've read a lot of interesting parallels between the Confederacy and Apartheid South Africa, the same crazy mindset, the same fantasies of self-importance... racism gets into everything and it makes you crazy.
halonachos wrote:
I would not say that the union ground the C.S.A into the ground. I would rather say that the C.S.A realized that they could not replenish the amount of men lost in battle so they surrendered.
So, the CSA surrendered because they couldn't handle the attrition involved in a protracted conflict, but it had nothing to do with the fact that the USA was actively engaged in applying the pressure which created that attrition? That makes no sense whatsoever.
In effect the south wasn't fighting for slavery, just the right to control whether or not they did condone slavery. These may seem similar, but are different. While one is activity of keeping people as slaves the other is the right to choose a stance on the issue. In essence state sovereignty on the issue and not the issue itself.
The distinction is trivial and contrived, when you consider the issues of states right no part of the US has gone to war to protect. When the only set of state's rights that have ever led to secession anywhere was slavery, it's pretty fair to say it was about slavery.
Although I would guess that you have never heard of the articles of confederation, I may be wrong. It was the U.S's first attempt at government, but was extremely heavy on states rights and it was no easy task to remove the articles of confederation and lay the new government(that we still use today) down. A lot of southern states liked the Articles of Confederation due to the lack of a strong central government, however, it wasn't really good for trade among the states and John Hancock never showed up to work, even though he was the president, because he literally did nothing. The central government couldn't even raise an army, the only form of military were state militias.
Even though they did not go to war over this, it was threatened and the south didn't like the removal of the Articles, but allowed it to go through because they allowed the states some rights, such as the choice of slavery abolishment. It was a compromise similar to the one that established a House of Representatives and a Senate to be included in our congress.
Beerfart wrote:I missed it for a while too....I was out in the fields picking cotton....really. Wish I had someone to do it for me.
Beerfart wins the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Did you ever see the movie CSA?
No, but checking it on IMDB it looks pretty interesting. Would you recommend it?
It makes my posts look subtle and clever but it has its moments. I loved the ads.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since we're past the halfway point of Confederate History Month (All new! All different!) I want to throw something newish into the discussion.
While to many of us the CSA is dead history, about as meaningful as the Qin Dynasty or the Ottoman Empire (both of which fell long after the CSA) to some it is a living, meaningful institution.
To the people who see the CSA as the fulfilment of their racist dreams things like Confederate History Month (New and Improved!) is a coded message from politicians that we're with you. No politician will ever say he wants to roll back civil rights, and I'd bet damn few them even want to in their darkest dreams, but they're politicians in a democracy and a vote is a vote, even from a Klansman.
In the US these winks and nods to our most hateful elements have been going on for decades. Nixon is the most famous user of it with his 'southern strategy' to cast the Republicans as the party of 'States Rights' (meaning no civil rights for 'those people') but the game is even older.
So that's why we're celebrating Conferderate History Month and not Civil War History Month. That's why the governor opps! Forgot about slavery in his proclamation. He was sending a clear message. And I bet the right people got it.
halonachos wrote:Even though they did not go to war over this, it was threatened and the south didn't like the removal of the Articles, but allowed it to go through because they allowed the states some rights, such as the choice of slavery abolishment. It was a compromise similar to the one that established a House of Representatives and a Senate to be included in our congress.
It’s been recognised about a dozen times in this thread by myself and others that several issues were relevant to the decision to secede. But it has then been pointed out each and every time that the one really big issue was slavery, which is why the only big changes between the US and Confederate constitution was the absolute right of states to have slavery if they want. You can have points of dispute on term limits and the like, but you don’t go to war and get a few hundred thousand people killed over them. But economics and (probably most importantly) social structure enabled by slavery – that’s something people go to war over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So that's why we're celebrating Conferderate History Month and not Civil War History Month. That's why the governor opps! Forgot about slavery in his proclamation. He was sending a clear message. And I bet the right people got it.
Oh yeah, it was dog whistle politics, which has been a lynchpin on the GOP strategy in the South since the Civil Rights bill.
