Group wins case to sell Confederate license plates in Texas
/The Associated Press Texas could request a hearing before the full appeals court or take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. 1 of 2
By MARISSA BARNETT
MARISSA BARNETT The Dallas Morning News
Austin Bureau
mbarnett@dallasnews.com Published: 14 July 2014 11:08 PM
Updated: 15 July 2014 09:33 AM AUSTIN — A Southern heritage group defeated Texas on Monday, celebrating a court decision expected to force Texas to issue license plates adorned with the Confederate battle flag.
A federal appeals panel ruled 2-1 that the Department of Motor Vehicles had violated the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ free speech rights and engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” when it rejected its specialty plate in 2011.
The judgment rekindled a loud debate among those who say the symbol honors Confederate heritage and others who see it as racially offensive and hurtful.
An attorney for the Texas chapter, John McConnell, said the ruling reaffirms that “the government cannot step into an issue and silence one side while endorsing the viewpoint of the other side.”
Opponents said they were dismayed by the ruling of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That’s where the heritage group took its fight after an Austin federal judge rejected its lawsuit against the DMV and upheld the state’s ban on the plate.
“This is a sad day for African-Americans and others victimized by hate groups in this state,” said Gary Bledsoe, president of the NAACP in Texas. He said such a Confederate-inspired plate “marginalizes American citizens” and is akin to memorializing slavery.
The state attorney general’s office, which represented the DMV, said it is reviewing its options, such as requesting a hearing before the full appeals court or taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Although the next steps were not fully clear, Texas would become the largest state to sell the plates, which feature the words “Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896” and the red Confederate “battle flag” with blue bars and white stars.
Nine other states have them, including Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina, which permitted the tags only after the Tennessee-based group sued and won.
It has been a marquee legal showdown between a state government that says it has authority to outlaw derogatory symbols vs. flag advocates who say displaying it is protected free speech.
The group pushed to get approval to sell the plates in Texas as a way to raise funds for its projects. But the DMV board twice denied it, calling it objectionable.
The group sued and lost the first round when U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin said the state didn’t have to release a tag that it deemed derogatory or inflammatory.
The group appealed, arguing that Texas officials shouldn’t stamp out a point of view simply because people may not like it. Doing so amounts to “government censorship” and “arbitrary discrimination,” it said.
Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who helped sponsor the group’s proposal before the DMV, said Monday that the Civil War-era flag has been misconstrued. The plate is meant to honor Confederate soldiers, not cause controversy, he said.
“It’s a victory for free speech and for those who are sick and tired of folks being offended at the slightest drop of a hat,” said Patterson, who lost a GOP bid for lieutenant governor this year.
Gov. Rick Perry’s office did not immediately return a call for comment, but he came out against it in 2011, when he was running for president. “We don’t need to be scraping old wounds,” he said then.
In its argument to the appeals court, the attorney general’s office said the DMV has “complete editorial control” over plate designs.
Freedom of speech, it said, does “not give anyone a right to commandeer the machinery of government to support their desired message.”
But the federal panel said the tags should be considered private speech and protected by the First Amendment. The court also said the board’s standard for what qualifies as offensive was too vague.
“The tortured procedural history that eventually led to the denial of Texas SCV’s plate demonstrates that the subjective standard of offensiveness led to viewpoint discrimination,” the court said.
Judges Edward Prado and Jennifer Elrod, who upheld the group’s suit, said that under a “reasonable observer” test, others would see the plate as a statement of the driver and not of the state issuing it. Jerry Smith, the dissenting judge, said he found no precedent in the law to support such a test.
Staff writer David Barer contributed to this report.
This is indeed a fair point. I don't like it on the plate though. Dern fereners (aka Yankees) might misperceive that this is actually a state of Texas thing. If it were we'd have to put six flags on it (and a roller coaster ride!)
Texas should seriously just put out a PSA, stating that they provide this service so other states can easily recognise the scum of Texas and thus ask them not to think all Texans are like that.
I support the crazy people in this court case. They do have the right to be obnoxious donkey-caves. And I have the right to say that they're obnoxious donkey-caves. That's the great thing about freedom of speech.
The plate is meant to honor Confederate soldiers, not cause controversy, he said.
"Stars and Bars" would have made a more meaningful tribute....
George William Bagby praised the flag, referring to the saltire in the flag's canton as the "Southern Cross", as did others at the time, and stating that it embodied "the destiny of the Southern master and his African slave", pointing them southward to "the banks of the Amazon", expressing the desire many Confederates held of expanding slavery southward into Latin America.
Yeah, the Southern Cross has no redeeming value as a southern heritage symbol. Stars and bars would have been more appropriate... especially since the southern cross was not widely used and was only a battle standard of some companies. Most people didn't even remember what it was until it became used during the civil rights as an opposition to integration.
As to the license plates, I am pretty sure I have seen even worse slogans and ideas on a plate. Pretty much anyone can get a custom plate logo.
At least we know who are horrible people by seeing their plates... enjoy police profiling!
The only reason the southern cross was used, was because "stars and bars" was too hard to distinguish from "Stars and Stripes" on the battlefield. And it was only used by a limited number of groups as a battle standard.
If people want to fly it, so be it, protected speech... but to try to promote it is a symbol of 'southern heritage' is bull and wrong. That is a lie promoted to cover up racism and racist agendas. Those who actually believe it actually stands for southern heritage it are ignorant pawns because it doesn't never did.
Stars and Bars to represent...traitors. No thanks.
Frazzled's family goes back to then. I've visiting the grave of at last one Frazzled who died in the war at Shiloh. Yet, this Frazzled would have shot that Frazzled in the face for treason, potentially with his own freaking cap n ball pistol. Bitch.
Death to traitors. Death to those who worship traitors. Sorry but you know, suck it. The Great Wienie does not suffer the traitor to live.
Right, because the Confederates were ONLY about slavery, right? No, seperating from the Union was a move made because the Government forced a large, country-wide ban on something, and likely many somethings, that were incredibly important to the stability of businesses and lifestyles in places very far away from where the law was created.
Slavery was awful and forced servitude is something I can not understand because I was born in this time where values are very different. People that still have intense racial hatred are very antiquated and too often the Confederate flag is associated with these racists, but that wasn't the main focus. It was about the political moves of what was essentially another world in the North changing the South that they knew nothing about.
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists. It's about the Independence of social, political and cultural views from a country too large to actually care about the 5% when it has to think of the whole.
It's a shame that people think all Southerners or Confederate Flag fliers are racists. It's even more of a shame that the people that do it can't recognize that they're being just as stereotypical as any racist in the world saying that a person is a certain way because of a flag they fly for reasons they only assume to be true.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Right, because the Confederates were ONLY about slavery, right? No, seperating from the Union was a move made because the Government forced a large, country-wide ban on something, and likely many somethings, that were incredibly important to the stability of businesses and lifestyles in places very far away from where the law was created.
Slavery was awful and forced servitude is something I can not understand because I was born in this time where values are very different. People that still have intense racial hatred are very antiquated and too often the Confederate flag is associated with these racists, but that wasn't the main focus. It was about the political moves of what was essentially another world in the North changing the South that they knew nothing about.
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists. It's about the Independence of social, political and cultural views from a country too large to actually care about the 5% when it has to think of the whole.
It's a shame that people think all Southerners or Confederate Flag fliers are racists. It's even more of a shame that the people that do it can't recognize that they're being just as stereotypical as any racist in the world saying that a person is a certain way because of a flag they fly for reasons they only assume to be true.
Yes, Yes it is. the Flaq has been used by the KKK. it is very much a racist symbol
SharkoutofWata wrote: Right, because the Confederates were ONLY about slavery, right? No, seperating from the Union was a move made because the Government forced a large, country-wide ban on something, and likely many somethings, that were incredibly important to the stability of businesses and lifestyles in places very far away from where the law was created.
Slavery was awful and forced servitude is something I can not understand because I was born in this time where values are very different. People that still have intense racial hatred are very antiquated and too often the Confederate flag is associated with these racists, but that wasn't the main focus. It was about the political moves of what was essentially another world in the North changing the South that they knew nothing about.
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists. It's about the Independence of social, political and cultural views from a country too large to actually care about the 5% when it has to think of the whole.
It's a shame that people think all Southerners or Confederate Flag fliers are racists. It's even more of a shame that the people that do it can't recognize that they're being just as stereotypical as any racist in the world saying that a person is a certain way because of a flag they fly for reasons they only assume to be true.
Oh. That's so interesting. I'd really never looked that way. You've really presented a new argument I haven't heard before. It's like all intelligent and stuff, and you should totally continue with this line of thinking and elaborate. I really think it's really going to make you look like wicked smart and everybody's going to jealous of brain-powers of brainy brain brain and I think you'll change their minds too. So yeah, I think we need more of this of this.. gotta.. yeah please more. Please.
Please remember Dakka rule #1: Be Polite. You can make this same argument without being rude - RiTides
SharkoutofWata wrote: Right, because the Confederates were ONLY about slavery, right? No, seperating from the Union was a move made because the Government forced a large, country-wide ban on something, and likely many somethings, that were incredibly important to the stability of businesses and lifestyles in places very far away from where the law was created.
Slavery was awful and forced servitude is something I can not understand because I was born in this time where values are very different. People that still have intense racial hatred are very antiquated and too often the Confederate flag is associated with these racists, but that wasn't the main focus. It was about the political moves of what was essentially another world in the North changing the South that they knew nothing about.
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists. It's about the Independence of social, political and cultural views from a country too large to actually care about the 5% when it has to think of the whole.
It's a shame that people think all Southerners or Confederate Flag fliers are racists. It's even more of a shame that the people that do it can't recognize that they're being just as stereotypical as any racist in the world saying that a person is a certain way because of a flag they fly for reasons they only assume to be true.
Yes, Yes it is. the Flaq has been used by the KKK. it is very much a racist symbol
Whoa now. I've Waffen SS pennants on my Devilfish's and Hammerheads along with unit symbols. I am not a Nazi though. I've a Confederate flag on my jeep and I'm half Asian. Remember the Senator(?) who was a re-enactor of the Waffen SS? Have to remember what the flag stood for before it was used by hate/extremist groups
SharkoutofWata wrote: Right, because the Confederates were ONLY about slavery, right? No, seperating from the Union was a move made because the Government forced a large, country-wide ban on something, and likely many somethings, that were incredibly important to the stability of businesses and lifestyles in places very far away from where the law was created.
Slavery was awful and forced servitude is something I can not understand because I was born in this time where values are very different. People that still have intense racial hatred are very antiquated and too often the Confederate flag is associated with these racists, but that wasn't the main focus. It was about the political moves of what was essentially another world in the North changing the South that they knew nothing about.
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists. It's about the Independence of social, political and cultural views from a country too large to actually care about the 5% when it has to think of the whole.
It's a shame that people think all Southerners or Confederate Flag fliers are racists. It's even more of a shame that the people that do it can't recognize that they're being just as stereotypical as any racist in the world saying that a person is a certain way because of a flag they fly for reasons they only assume to be true.
Yes, Yes it is. the Flaq has been used by the KKK. it is very much a racist symbol
Whoa now. I've Waffen SS pennants on my Devilfish's and Hammerheads along with unit symbols. I am not a Nazi though. I've a Confederate flag on my jeep and I'm half Asian. Remember the Senator(?) who was a re-enactor of the Waffen SS? Have to remember what the flag stood for before it was used by hate/extremist groups
Just because it once stood for something doenst mean it isnt a hate symbol Quite frankly those who fly the confeerate flag are ignorant of what it once was.
Jihadin wrote: Whoa now. I've Waffen SS pennants on my Devilfish's and Hammerheads along with unit symbols. I am not a Nazi though. I've a Confederate flag on my jeep and I'm half Asian. Remember the Senator(?) who was a re-enactor of the Waffen SS? Have to remember what the flag stood for before it was used by hate/extremist groups
I think we can draw a clear distinction between a reenactor who wears a flag, and someone who wears a swastika and proclaims it a symbol of their virtuous heritage.
A swastika was also a peaceful symbol used in eastern countries before the nazis began to use it. The symbol itself isn't evil, same with the Confederate flag. Nazis and racists are groups of people that are evil or foolish but the symbol itself doesn't mean only what certain groups use it for. I can claim some warhammer symbol and fly it on a flag and do unspeakable evils under that banner but that doesn't make the symbol suddenly evil and everyone with a Blood Angel army agrees with whatever terrible things I suddenly do. Don't be so quick to stereotype.
In an interview with ABC News this weekend, Holder was asked about how he and President Obama have been treated, and Holder said, without mentioning race, “There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me, directed at the president. You know, people talking about taking their country back.”
Only then does ABC’s Pierre Thomas ask Holder if he thinks this is due to race, to which Holder replied, “There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.
"Take back our country" it seems comes from a racist individuals so eventually its might turn into a racist term. Someone else mention "Monarch" to. People in powerful position can influence the general public perception over time.
StarTrotter wrote: I remember a japanese pokemon card had it but an english one didn't actually.
Thats because as I said, meaning changes. What something means in 1920 Europe isn't really relevant to what it means in Europe today. What it means in Korea, Japan, or India, isn't really relevant to what it means to us either. For over 100 years the Confederate flag has been flown by racist organizations and used to symbolized a spirit of rebellion that was heavily driven by the desire to protect slavery.
If people want it on their license plates, they can have it. I don't have an issue with that, but the heritage it supposedly supports is a rather nebulous one, so don't be shocked when you get called a racist.
StarTrotter wrote: I remember a japanese pokemon card had it but an english one didn't actually.
Thats because as I said, meaning changes. What something means in 1920 Europe isn't really relevant to what it means in Europe today. What it means in Korea, Japan, or India, isn't really relevant to what it means to us either. For over 100 years the Confederate flag has been flown by racist organizations and used to symbolized a spirit of rebellion that was heavily driven by the desire to protect slavery.
If people want it on their license plates, they can have it. I don't have an issue with that, but the heritage it supposedly supports is a rather nebulous one, so don't be shocked when you get called a racist.
Meanings don't change. People associate things with what they think the meaning is but ignorance and closed-mindedness does not mean the meaning changes. All it means is that an individual only sees one thing and it's is on them that the misunderstood without taking the time to look it up or even bother asking the people themselves. If someone calls me a racist for flying a Confederate flag, I'll call them a stereotypical bigot right back for assuming something about me when they judge me on my appearance or association.
StarTrotter wrote: I remember a japanese pokemon card had it but an english one didn't actually.
Thats because as I said, meaning changes. What something means in 1920 Europe isn't really relevant to what it means in Europe today. What it means in Korea, Japan, or India, isn't really relevant to what it means to us either. For over 100 years the Confederate flag has been flown by racist organizations and used to symbolized a spirit of rebellion that was heavily driven by the desire to protect slavery.
If people want it on their license plates, they can have it. I don't have an issue with that, but the heritage it supposedly supports is a rather nebulous one, so don't be shocked when you get called a racist.
Meanings don't change. People associate things with what they think the meaning is but ignorance and closed-mindedness does not mean the meaning changes. All it means is that an individual only sees one thing and it's is on them that the misunderstood without taking the time to look it up or even bother asking the people themselves. If someone calls me a racist for flying a Confederate flag, I'll call them a stereotypical bigot right back for assuming something about me when they judge me on my appearance or association.
Your confirming their view of individuals who fly the Confederate Flag if you reply like that to them. Granted they do not sign your paycheck and/or impact you in anyway.
SharkoutofWata wrote: People associate things with what they think the meaning is but ignorance and closed-mindedness does not mean the meaning changes.
The sheer fact people think that the Confederate flag can symbolize something other than slavery and racism, is a rather glaring example that meanings change.
I'm an Army Brat, but if I'm from anywhere specific its the South. I lived at Bragg for 8 years. I've seen people flying the flag and I don't assume they're racist (though on more than a few occasions it wasn't surprising that they were). But you can't take a symbol that's been used like this;
And then whine and moan when people seeing you for the first time draw an assumption based on their previous experience. People do judge the book by its cover. Always have always will. That's not going to change.
I remember US Military one can be a passive extremist member. Then we had the racial killing on Yadkin Rd mid 90's. Freaking asshats in 505 I think. Nazi tattoo's and all
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I remember US Military one can be a passive extremist member. Then we had the racial killing on Yadkin Rd mid 90's. Freaking asshats in 505 I think. Nazi tattoo's and all
Edit
"Gecko" at that time was a extremist symbol for a Hawaiian Separatists
Just because you can pull an image of a symbol being used the wrong way does not mean that it's the only use. Again, just because a bad group takes a symbol doesn't mean that the symbol only means that now. You talk about 'judging a book by it's cover' but please, tell me what the difference between that and racism is. Judging a person by their appearance. What isn't going to change is that people are bigoted against things and while you try to defend racial equality, you stereotype against other things that don't agree with your way of thinking. That's not how it works. That's a double standard. Bigotry is bigotry whether you look at a black man and have racist thoughts or look at a flag and have 'all those people are racists'. It's is still hate being put on someone you know nothing about based on a single and possibly innocent visual cue. And before you say 'it's assumed the people in that picture are racists because of visual cues,' yes, they showing allegiance to a racist group, but if they flew american flags, would the flag be a racial symbol now? If they flew the flag of the UK or the flag of any other nation past or present, would that be a racist flag now? No. The Confederate flag was the flag of a nation, no matter how people use it now.
Just because you can pull an image of a symbol being used the wrong way does not mean that it's the only use. Again, just because a bad group takes a symbol doesn't mean that the symbol only means that now. You talk about 'judging a book by it's cover' but please, tell me what the difference between that and racism is. Judging a person by their appearance. What isn't going to change is that people are bigoted against things and while you try to defend racial equality, you stereotype against other things that don't agree with your way of thinking. That's not how it works. That's a double standard. Bigotry is bigotry whether you look at a black man and have racist thoughts or look at a flag and have 'all those people are racists'. It's is still hate being put on someone you know nothing about based on a single and possibly innocent visual cue. And before you say 'it's assumed the people in that picture are racists because of visual cues,' yes, they showing allegiance to a racist group, but if they flew american flags, would the flag be a racial symbol now? If they flew the flag of the UK or the flag of any other nation past or present, would that be a racist flag now? No. The Confederate flag was the flag of a nation, no matter how people use it now.
Seeing an Confederate flag and immediately thinking "racist redneck" is, indeed, bigotry.
Bigotry and inducing stereotypes is also Human nature, so too bad. Whether you like it or not, the confederate flag represents a pseudo-country who went to war to defend their ignorant, slaver ways of life. They made that design their mascot- it is now ingrained in Society that the flag represents ignorance, racism and a dislike for the rest of America.
You can be upset by that, but expecting otherwise is to to simply not understand people.
edit- Also, the idea that "meanings don't change" is ridiculous. 100 years ago, "gay" meant happy. No one uses the word to describe joyousness now- because the meaning of the word has changed. Meanings change all the time.
Just because you can pull an image of a symbol being used the wrong way does not mean that it's the only use. Again, just because a bad group takes a symbol doesn't mean that the symbol only means that now. You talk about 'judging a book by it's cover' but please, tell me what the difference between that and racism is. Judging a person by their appearance. What isn't going to change is that people are bigoted against things and while you try to defend racial equality, you stereotype against other things that don't agree with your way of thinking. That's not how it works. That's a double standard. Bigotry is bigotry whether you look at a black man and have racist thoughts or look at a flag and have 'all those people are racists'. It's is still hate being put on someone you know nothing about based on a single and possibly innocent visual cue. And before you say 'it's assumed the people in that picture are racists because of visual cues,' yes, they showing allegiance to a racist group, but if they flew american flags, would the flag be a racial symbol now? If they flew the flag of the UK or the flag of any other nation past or present, would that be a racist flag now? No. The Confederate flag was the flag of a nation, no matter how people use it now.
Dude, when I was playing Chromehounds, I had a tactical command Mech painted orange with a Confederate flag decal on the added armor shields. The sad part was that no one in Chromehounds had apparently ever heard of the Dukes of Hazard.
Seeing an Confederate flag and immediately thinking "racist redneck" is, indeed, bigotry.
Bigotry and inducing stereotypes is also Human nature, so too bad. Whether you like it or not, the confederate flag represents a pseudo-country who went to war to defend their ignorant, slaver ways of life. They made that design their mascot- it is now ingrained in Society that the flag represents ignorance, racism and a dislike for the rest of America.
You can be upset by that, but expecting otherwise is to to simply not understand people.
edit- Also, the idea that "meanings don't change" is ridiculous. 100 years ago, "gay" meant happy. No one uses the word to describe joyousness now- because the meaning of the word has changed. Meanings change all the time.
I don't agree with your statement at all. Bigotry happens, but that doesn't mean that it's okay to just let it happen. That's why racism itself was so common. 'Everyone else hates black people so it must be okay.' Don't just accept the issue and shrug it off. Make the effort to change something or at the very least make effort to change yourself if you recognize yourself as being bigoted.
To counter your edit point, a cigarette (wow, Dakka changes that to cigarette immediately in anticipation. I'm impressed) is a cigarette in certain places. Just because it means something else to other people doesn't mean that's the only meaning. Common use doesn't make it correct. 'I could care less' is still the wrong way to use the expression no matter how many people say it.
On an unrelated note, you wouldn't believe how difficult it was to find a decent General Lee picture with the flag in view. Something like three pages of images seem a little silly before one shows the car off properly. There were so many modern versions, even a modern Mustang.... So sad.
Dude, when I was playing Chromehounds, I had a tactical command Mech painted orange with a Confederate flag decal on the added armor shields. The sad part was that no one in Chromehounds had apparently ever heard of the Dukes of Hazard.
What? Was everyone you played with from Russia or China
Dude, when I was playing Chromehounds, I had a tactical command Mech painted orange with a Confederate flag decal on the added armor shields. The sad part was that no one in Chromehounds had apparently ever heard of the Dukes of Hazard.
What? Was everyone you played with from Russia or China
idk. The weird part was that the movie from a couple years ago had just come out so it's not like I'm referencing something no one has seen in 20 years XD
SharkoutofWata wrote: If they flew the flag of the UK or the flag of any other nation past or present, would that be a racist flag now? No.
Actually the flag of England, St. George's Cross, is commonly associated with far right nationalists and flying it will make people think you are a racist. There is an exception around sporting events though.
The only people in Germany flying the flag of the German Empire and the North German Confederation...this one...
...are NPD party members and other more-or-less closeted Nazis. You COULD argue that this flag was used pre-WW-I around a time where Germany was not yet associated with Nazism, the Holocaust and a wish of global domination and refer back to the famous Otto von Bismarck and some other "heritage" mumbo jumbo...but, yeah, people here are still going to think you're a Nazi.
It's similiar with many ancient flags and symbols around the world, I think. If you are flying a historic flag with dubious, perhaps multiple meanings and ideologies behind it, it's safe to assume that most people will go with the worse assumption - because, quite often, they'll find they are right, in my experience.
So, maybe it is time to pull your foot out of your mouth?
How is what he said contradictory? Symbols can be adopted by new groups as time goes on.
That the swastica (for example) was co-opted by the National Socialists didn't mean people using it as a symbol of luck could no longer use it as such.
If tomorrow the platypus became a symbol for the adult babies community, would that make you an adult baby?
How is what he said contradictory? Symbols can be adopted by new groups as time goes on.
Which indicates that meanings change. A thing he specifically said does not happen while also stating that meanings can vary between groups; something which also indicates the presence of change regarding meanings.
Frazzled wrote: Stars and Bars to represent...traitors. No thanks.
Frazzled's family goes back to then. I've visiting the grave of at last one Frazzled who died in the war at Shiloh. Yet, this Frazzled would have shot that Frazzled in the face for treason, potentially with his own freaking cap n ball pistol. Bitch.
Death to traitors. Death to those who worship traitors. Sorry but you know, suck it. The Great Wienie does not suffer the traitor to live.
I know I shouldn't, seeing who posted this, but I find this post to be incredibly offensive. I had a few relatives that fought for North Carolina in the Civil war. While they are a few generations removed, they were all young men when they fought, one was only 19 years old in 1861. Most of the people that fought for the south were fighting to protect their homes and family from invasion. Regardless of the politics of the Ante Bellum movement, and/or the Confederacy. They most certainly were not traitors.
You need to be more sensitive about these kind of things before you post, sir.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Right, because the Confederates were ONLY about slavery, right? No, seperating from the Union was a move made because the Government forced a large, country-wide ban on something, and likely many somethings, that were incredibly important to the stability of businesses and lifestyles in places very far away from where the law was created.
Slavery was awful and forced servitude is something I can not understand because I was born in this time where values are very different. People that still have intense racial hatred are very antiquated and too often the Confederate flag is associated with these racists, but that wasn't the main focus. It was about the political moves of what was essentially another world in the North changing the South that they knew nothing about.
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists. It's about the Independence of social, political and cultural views from a country too large to actually care about the 5% when it has to think of the whole.
It's a shame that people think all Southerners or Confederate Flag fliers are racists. It's even more of a shame that the people that do it can't recognize that they're being just as stereotypical as any racist in the world saying that a person is a certain way because of a flag they fly for reasons they only assume to be true.
Oh. That's so interesting. I'd really never looked that way. You've really presented a new argument I haven't heard before. It's like all intelligent and stuff, and you should totally continue with this line of thinking and elaborate. I really think it's really going to make you look like wicked smart and everybody's going to jealous of brain-powers of brainy brain brain and I think you'll change their minds too. So yeah, I think we need more of this of this.. gotta.. yeah please more. Please.
I'm torn. This is the first time I've ever agreed with Chongara, but at the same time Chongara's being a meanie again. What to do, what to do.
Frazzled wrote: Stars and Bars to represent...traitors. No thanks.
Frazzled's family goes back to then. I've visiting the grave of at last one Frazzled who died in the war at Shiloh. Yet, this Frazzled would have shot that Frazzled in the face for treason, potentially with his own freaking cap n ball pistol. Bitch.
Death to traitors. Death to those who worship traitors. Sorry but you know, suck it. The Great Wienie does not suffer the traitor to live.
I know I shouldn't, seeing who posted this, but I find this post to be incredibly offensive. I had a few relatives that fought for North Carolina in the Civil war. While they are a few generations removed, they were all young men when they fought, one was only 19 years old in 1861. Most of the people that fought for the south were fighting to protect their homes and family from invasion. Regardless of the politics of the Ante Bellum movement, and/or the Confederacy. They most certainly were not traitors.
You need to be more sensitive about these kind of things before you post, sir.
GG
I had relatives fight for Texas and Louisiana in the war. They were traitors. If you don't like traitors, don't hang around traitors. What you should find offensive is half assed rednecks who cling to war they lost AND SHOULD HAVE LOST because they were on the side trying to keep fellow humans in cruel bondage.
You may as well call George Washington and Thomas Jefferson traitors,both rebelled against their country(England). Both of them slave holders until they died.
The point.. is you use your rhetoric as a sledge hammer, and you should tone it down.
My great great great great great grandfather was a 19 year old young person caught up in the unfortunate politics of the time. Do you really think that most southerners would just pack up and leave their farms, families and all of their generational ties over political decisions that their state politicians made. Regardless of whether or not they agreed with the basis of the confederacy, they were not traitors. And stop trying to be dakkas "shock jock" with your Howard stern tendency to insult people.
generalgrog wrote: You may as well call George Washington and Thomas Jefferson traitors,both rebelled against their country(England). Both of them slave holders until they died.
The point.. is you use your rhetoric as a sledge hammer, and you should tone it down.
My great great great great great grandfather was a 19 year old young person caught up in the unfortunate politics of the time. Do you really think that most southerners would just pack up and leave their farms, families and all of their generational ties over political decisions that their state politicians made. Regardless of whether or not they agreed with the basis of the confederacy, they were not traitors. And stop trying to be dakkas "shock jock" with your Howard stern tendency to insult people.
GG
They were traitors, but they won.
They weren't defending slavery. Thats what the Confederacy was about. If you can't reconcile that, its your problem not mine.
My great great great great great grandfather was a 19 year old young person caught up in the unfortunate politics of the time. Do you really think that most southerners would just pack up and leave their farms, families and all of their generational ties over political decisions that their state politicians made. Regardless of whether or not they agreed with the basis of the confederacy, they were not traitors. And stop trying to be dakkas "shock jock" with your Howard stern tendency to insult people.
The answer is a resounding yes.
Slavery was a big part of the Confederacy and by extension the whole war, but the vast majority of citizens of the CSA were not slaveowners.
The Confederate army had between 500,000- 1,500,000 enlisted (numbers fudged as many records at the time were either poorly kept as mechanisms of government eroded, destroyed against advancing armies, or double and even triple enlistments). The total white population of the Confederacy was between 5.5 and 6 million, halve that for population distribution divided almost evenly between men and women, and then chop that by about 30 percent to account for children who will never serve in the war (assume 4 years of growing up, some children do enlist in the war when they become young adults).
Out of 2 million potential white male adults, even if we go with the lower end number of 500,000 enlisted, 25% of the Confederate males served in the armed forces (of which 3/5 would be dead by the end of the war one way or another).
Many Southerners relished a fight with the Yankees in more ways then one. You can attribute it to a superiority/inferiority complex, defense of the home, defense of state's rights (a more popular political decision than a practical one), friction between different ways of living, change, ect. The social pressure to contribute to the cause in areas of the South that were pro-Confederate made it dangerous to be a supporter of the Union. Conversely, the encouragement to fight was acute for most people. You only look towards the social expectations of race and see that the nightmare of many Confederates was a Haitian style revolution or mingling of the freed slaves with the white population as considered at the time.
Mind you, there were people lukewarm to the Confederacy or outright hostile. West Virgina, East Tennessee, certain elements of Texas (Sam Houston would oppose secession, arguing for independence instead) all had parts of the state that opposed the separation of the USA.
I think you misunderstood my point. Of course they would pack up and fight to defend their homes. But Frazzled is implying that doing so makes them traitors. So in order to satisfy his narrow view of patriotism, all southerners should have left families, property, generational ties and joined the union.
Any rational person knows that would happen quite rarely.
By the way frazzled makes the term traitor meaningless the way he is using it.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were patriots not traitors. Much like Robert e lee.
MrDwhitey wrote: I find it amusing that the idea is all traitors are automatically bad.
Benedict Arnold was a pretty decent bloke. Not his fault everyone in the Continental Army treated him like gak. I'd switch sides too if I saved America a few times and didn't get a single thank you.
YOU sir, are a Benedict Arnold!
Damn you you magnificent bastard. You ninja'd me!
EDIT:
Oh him, that guy who was a really good General for the rebels, got shat on repeatedly by the rebels, and so decided feth it going back to Britain?
Aw come on XD Why you guys gotta steal my smarty pants moment from me twice!
Yes it's a good thing Slavery was abolished, but that flag is not a symbol of Slavery or slave owners or even racists.
Yes it is... When it was designed, it was designed to embody "the destiny of the Southern master and his African slave". If you want to have a symbol of the all encompassing issues of the south at the time... the actual flag which was used for a majority of the civil war would be "Stars and Bars". So if you want to express southern pride, not slavery... then using the Southern cross is the wrong thing to use because it means slavery and only slavery and was not primarily used in the civil war as the unified flag of the confederacy.
Also, the only reason anyone uses the 'battle standard' as a representation of the confederate flag is because when forced integration of schools happened, they took down the american flag and put up the battle standard as a message of refusal to integrate.
So to say the southern cross has any other origins or meanings than oppression and racism, you are 100% wrong on every step and are re-inventing history to allow you to display your racism in public but pretend you are not. *wink*
MrDwhitey wrote: Oh him, that guy who was a really good General for the rebels, got shat on repeatedly by the rebels, and so decided feth it going back to Britain?
generalgrog wrote: I think you misunderstood my point. Of course they would pack up and fight to defend their homes. But Frazzled is implying that doing so makes them traitors. So in order to satisfy his narrow view of patriotism, all southerners should have left families, property, generational ties and joined the union.
Any rational person knows that would happen quite rarely.
By the way frazzled makes the term traitor meaningless the way he is using it.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were patriots not traitors. Much like Robert e lee.
They didn't have to leave, they just didn't have to fight for the rebels.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: I find it amusing that the idea is all traitors are automatically bad.
Frankly if someone betrayed Hitler, they would be a traitor. Wouldn't make them a bad person in my eyes.
In the instance we're discussing though, these traitors were defending a system thats just this side of Hitler.
@Sharkoutofwata; the Civil War was about slavery 100% of the time. Not every Confederate soldier owned slaves (most did not) and many thought they were fighting for whatever reasons they had come up with to give them the excuse, but ALL of the political and economic motivations behind the war can be directly traced back to slavery. ALL of them. 100% of the time. Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery and the symbols of the Confederacy are symbols of the support of slavery. One hundred and fifty years later, those symbols are still symbols of the support of slavery. If you fly the Confederate flag you either actively support slavery, or you are ignorant and uneducated about the Civil War, in which case you probably shouldn't leave the house. Sorry.
@ EveryonewhowastalkingaboutSwatstikas...
The Swatstika used by the Nazis is a different symbol than the Buddhist symbol that comes from Asia (that is known in Japan as the 'Manji'). The Nazi symbol is oriented counter-clockwise and is slanted. The manji is oriented clockwise and is not slanted. To the average person, they look the same, but they are not. The swatstika is not a case of "one symbol; two meanings" its a case of "two similar but different symbols with two totally different meanings".
@Sharkoutofwata; the Civil War was about slavery 100% of the time. Not every Confederate soldier owned slaves (most did not) and many thought they were fighting for whatever reasons they had come up with to give them the excuse, but ALL of the political and economic motivations behind the war can be directly traced back to slavery. ALL of them. 100% of the time. Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery and the symbols of the Confederacy are symbols of the support of slavery. One hundred and fifty years later, those symbols are still symbols of the support of slavery. If you fly the Confederate flag you either actively support slavery, or you are ignorant and uneducated about the Civil War, in which case you probably shouldn't leave the house. Sorry.
@ EveryonewhowastalkingaboutSwatstikas...
The Swatstika used by the Nazis is a different symbol than the Buddhist symbol that comes from Asia (that is known in Japan as the 'Manji'). The Nazi symbol is oriented counter-clockwise and is slanted. The manji is oriented clockwise and is not slanted. To the average person, they look the same, but they are not. The swatstika is not a case of "one symbol; two meanings" its a case of "two similar but different symbols with two totally different meanings".
::::::::::::::The More You Know!
Right, it would be as if the flag of a horrible war was a 'cross' flag LIKE the confederate flag but not the same and people get too confused so people stopped using it. In this case, the actual flag was designed to articulate slavery in the design, over a war about slavery and still is used in modern times as a symbol of discrimination and hate.
I wonder how it would go over if germans used the swastika as a symbol of 'german pride' and 'german history'? Not well.
I wonder how it would go over if germans used the swastika as a symbol of 'german pride' and 'german history'? Not well.
They can't, its against German law to display the swastika or any other Nazi symbol AFAIK. That is why the extremist groups in Germany have adopted the German Empire flag as their symbol, like Witzkatz said.
I wonder how it would go over if germans used the swastika as a symbol of 'german pride' and 'german history'? Not well.
They can't, its against German law to display the swastika or any other Nazi symbol AFAIK. That is why the extremist groups in Germany have adopted the German Empire flag as their symbol, like Witzkatz said.
Aye, it is actually forbidden by law to use or display the Swastika, or "Hakenkreuz" as it is called here. Officially, it's also forbidden to shout "Heil Hitler" in public, too, basically. The law is roughly called "Use of markings of unconstitutional organizations" and strictly enforced, there can be jail time for displaying Swastikas in public.
I think we had a discussion about freedom of speech concerning these circumstances and the pros and cons of forbidding things like this, but that's how Germany dealt with the situation.
That flag is a symbol of rebels, separatists, and traitors who turned against this nation and its union. For that reason alone it should not be displayed in any official capacity by any loyal US government body or organization, regardless of status as Federal, State, or Local entity. If a private entity or organization wants to display it, then by all means they are free to do so, but if they regard it as a symbol of 'southern pride', then clearly their definition of 'southern pride' correlates with secession, and I will judge them as such. End of story.
Frazzled wrote: Hakenkreuz, sounds like something you do when you have the flu.
Oh, you need the Fussbodenschleifmaschinenverleih for a proper flu!
(translates to "shop that lends out floor sanding machines" but counts as one word here. Bonus points if you manage to get that together in scrabble. )
generalgrog wrote: I think you misunderstood my point. Of course they would pack up and fight to defend their homes. But Frazzled is implying that doing so makes them traitors. So in order to satisfy his narrow view of patriotism, all southerners should have left families, property, generational ties and joined the union.
Any rational person knows that would happen quite rarely.
By the way frazzled makes the term traitor meaningless the way he is using it.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were patriots not traitors. Much like Robert e lee.
They didn't have to leave, they just didn't have to fight for the rebels.
Mark your calenders, I agree with Frazzled.
Also, GW and TJ fought for being free from tyranny. Lee fought so he didnt have to pay people to do work for them
Lee wasn't a slaveowner... caveat: he was from 1857-1862 when he inherited his father-in-laws property, the slaves were emancipated by him in 1862. He also supported emancipation as a military measure to provide additional bodies for the Confederate war effort.
generalgrog wrote: I think you misunderstood my point. Of course they would pack up and fight to defend their homes. But Frazzled is implying that doing so makes them traitors. So in order to satisfy his narrow view of patriotism, all southerners should have left families, property, generational ties and joined the union.
Any rational person knows that would happen quite rarely.
By the way frazzled makes the term traitor meaningless the way he is using it.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were patriots not traitors. Much like Robert e lee.
They didn't have to leave, they just didn't have to fight for the rebels.
Mark your calenders, I agree with Frazzled.
Also, GW and TJ fought for being free from tyranny. Lee fought so he didnt have to pay people to do work for them
Ask these guys about Nathan Bedford Forrest. They'll tell you how brilliant he was, but usually leave the part about murdering union soldiers and that whole starting the Klan thing...
Guess what is suspiciously missing on the new "Dukes of Hazard" commercial?
How do you shoot an entire car chase from angles that block the view of the 'roof' of the car to either not show the confederate flag or to see it is obviously missing? Bravo!
chaos0xomega wrote: Lee wasn't a slaveowner... caveat: he was from 1857-1862 when he inherited his father-in-laws property, the slaves were emancipated by him in 1862. He also supported emancipation as a military measure to provide additional bodies for the Confederate war effort.
Still, he faught for the rights of people to own slaves
chaos0xomega wrote: Lee wasn't a slaveowner... caveat: he was from 1857-1862 when he inherited his father-in-laws property, the slaves were emancipated by him in 1862. He also supported emancipation as a military measure to provide additional bodies for the Confederate war effort.
Still, he faught for the rights of people to own slaves
Exactly. That's what all the revisionists and apologists forget. The reasons behind the war were all about slavery. Even if you didn't own slaves, if you joined the Confederacy and shot at Union soldiers, you were fighting for slavery. It doesn't matter what idiotic excuse you came up with to let you sleep at night; you were trying to kill other people so that a man with a lot more money than you would ever see didn't have to pay the people who worked for him.
They didn't have to leave, they just didn't have to fight for the rebels.
I bet that would do wonders when General Shermans March to Sea burned down everything in its path.
If fewer people had supported the Confederacy, Sherman wouldn't have been forced to set everything on fire.
It was his original plan to start burning and looting, he didn't exactly try anything else beyond 'murder the hell out of the south'
Allow me to clarify: If fewer people had supported the Confederacy, the war would have been over before Sherman got the opportunity to set everything on fire.
They didn't have to leave, they just didn't have to fight for the rebels.
I bet that would do wonders when General Shermans March to Sea burned down everything in its path.
If fewer people had supported the Confederacy, Sherman wouldn't have been forced to set everything on fire.
It was his original plan to start burning and looting, he didn't exactly try anything else beyond 'murder the hell out of the south'
Allow me to clarify: If fewer people had supported the Confederacy, the war would have been over before Sherman got the opportunity to set everything on fire.
Considering how many people were also fighting for the rights of the state's over the governments issues within the south and north, which was generally benefitting the north in most cases when it came down to economic policies, many people wouldn't have ended up fighting for the Confederacy when many's livelyhoods were being broken by the Tariffs.
They didn't have to leave, they just didn't have to fight for the rebels.
I bet that would do wonders when General Shermans March to Sea burned down everything in its path.
If fewer people had supported the Confederacy, Sherman wouldn't have been forced to set everything on fire.
It was his original plan to start burning and looting, he didn't exactly try anything else beyond 'murder the hell out of the south'
No murder the hell out of the South is killing everything living within reach. Sherman was a lightweight.* *For reference see destruction of the Plains Indians for how the Union Army really practiced "murder the hell out of" an enemy.
If no one joined the Confederate Army it would never have been an issue.
That's just the northerner revisionism right there.
News flash, Sparky... I'm a Southerner. In a related story, all of the economic reasons for the war were tied to slavery. Is the South poorer than the North? That's because of your agrarian economy. Why is it agrarian? Slavery. The North has a stronger industrial base. Why? Because industrial labor forces require a higher degree of education than agrarian ones. Historically, educating slaves leads to revolts and unrest (one of the reasons England outlawed education in Ireland for a while) so the South can't switch to an industrial economy without educating their labor force... the slaves. Hmmm... there's that slavery thing again. The South has limited political representation? Maybe if they didn't own slaves then they could count the entirety of their population for purposes of determining seats in the House, instead of only using 3/5 of a black person. Slavery was too low-cost to give up, because white workers cost more? Baloney. The lifetime costs of housing and feeding a slave were almost exactly the same as the average wages for a white worker in the pre-war period. The war was about slavery, no matter how you cut it. Pretending otherwise is revisionist.
MrDwhitey wrote: Looks like we got some Southern revisionism going on!
States rights. Rights to own slaves. Np.
You mean like how if that was the case, the north would have instantly just passed the anti-slavery bill instead of waiting till more then halfway into the war to do so? Considering they still owned slaves up there and all too.
News flash, Sparky... I'm a Southerner. In a related story, all of the economic reasons for the war were tied to slavery. Is the South poorer than the North? That's because of your agrarian economy. Why is it agrarian? Slavery. The North has a stronger industrial base.
Aside from the constant agrarian tariffs upon the south forcing them to sell cheaply to the north, the constant benefits of the northern economic base when it came to government policies.
Even if I really didn't support the split in the country of it, much of the issue with being poorer aside from an economic base was because the government was more supportive of north policies.
It was a bad war, much of it tied to slavery, but to say the entire thing was when a few states of the south didn't have their economic base tied to slavery yet they still joined in regardless is rather interesting
We should note, most did not fight FOR slavery. They either fought because their states were invaded, or more commonly, they were drafted (don't worry. like the North, the rich could legally buy their way out).
But the system, the underlying reasons, and the reasons the legislators voted to secede, were for the state right - the right to own slaves.
Aside from the constant agrarian tariffs upon the south forcing them to sell cheaply to the north, the constant benefits of the northern economic base when it came to government policies.
The only reason those policies were enacted is because the South lacked the political clout to block them. Why? Uneven representation in the government. Why? Well, their actual population wasn't being used in calculating how many seats they were entitled to in the House of Representatives. Why? 3/5ths compromise because of... y'know... slavery.
You mean like how if that was the case, the north would have instantly just passed the anti-slavery bill instead of waiting till more then halfway into the war to do so? Considering they still owned slaves up there and all too.
Man, it's like it wasn't an issue that had to be approached with care so as not to alienate entirely states that were on the fence.
Aside from the constant agrarian tariffs upon the south forcing them to sell cheaply to the north, the constant benefits of the northern economic base when it came to government policies.
The only reason those policies were enacted is because the South lacked the political clout to block them. Why? Uneven representation in the government. Why? Well, their actual population wasn't being used in calculating how many seats they were entitled to in the House of Representatives. Why? 3/5ths compromise because of... y'know... slavery.
Which was also caused by a change in governmental policies in how the states were represented in the government to begin with.
Man, it's like it wasn't an issue that had to be approached with care so as not to alienate entirely states that were on the fence.
So if it was entirely about the slavery, why would they care otherwise if not to abolish it? Or was it just another political tool to be used at the time.
Aside from the constant agrarian tariffs upon the south forcing them to sell cheaply to the north, the constant benefits of the northern economic base when it came to government policies.
The only reason those policies were enacted is because the South lacked the political clout to block them. Why? Uneven representation in the government. Why? Well, their actual population wasn't being used in calculating how many seats they were entitled to in the House of Representatives. Why? 3/5ths compromise because of... y'know... slavery.
Which was also caused by a change in governmental policies in how the states were represented in the government to begin with.
The 3/5ths compromise was the reason the free states agreed to join the slave states in this whole "America" thing. If they couldn't do the math in 1776, they probably deserved what they got.
Aside from the constant agrarian tariffs upon the south forcing them to sell cheaply to the north, the constant benefits of the northern economic base when it came to government policies.
The only reason those policies were enacted is because the South lacked the political clout to block them. Why? Uneven representation in the government. Why? Well, their actual population wasn't being used in calculating how many seats they were entitled to in the House of Representatives. Why? 3/5ths compromise because of... y'know... slavery.
Which was also caused by a change in governmental policies in how the states were represented in the government to begin with.
The 3/5ths compromise was the reason the free states agreed to join the slave states in this whole "America" thing. If they couldn't do the math in 1776, they probably deserved what they got.
Oh, because I dunno, causing several more states to declare secession and join in the war against the Union and potentially cause a victory for a Confederacy in the long run, might be a fething issue.
War Democrats and border States, as well as moderate Republicans delayed the emancipation.
MrDwhitey wrote: Oh, because I dunno, causing several more states to declare secession and join in the war against the Union and potentially cause a victory for a Confederacy in the long run, might be a fething issue.
War Democrats and border States, as well as moderate Republicans delayed the emancipation.
There's also the fact that they timed it when the Confederacy was seeking aid from Britain, who didn't want to be involved in a war after that point for something they had abolished a while ago.
But lets be honest, the states that would have joined the Confederacy would not have helped, the north still had far more manpower in it's key states, industry, and factories for munitions equipment. The south literally had one to two factories that could produce artillery. It was not a war that was going to be won in a straight out fight even with the border states.
They couldn't even FEED themselves after a while, and was scrounging supplies from anywhere they had, it was not a winnable war to begin with.
It certainly did help that the evil practices that one side wanted to continue indefinitely whilst the other wished to phase it out, did persuade people not to help them.
I've no doubt that the proclamation was also used as a political tool, what isn't?
You all guessing what moved an individual to fight for the Confederate States. State Rights, Slavery, whatever.
”Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.
Jihadin wrote: You all guessing what moved an individual to fight for the Confederate States. State Rights, Slavery, whatever.
”Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.
Jihadin wrote: You all guessing what moved an individual to fight for the Confederate States. State Rights, Slavery, whatever.
”Some historians emphasize that Civil War soldiers were driven by political ideology, holding firm beliefs about the importance of liberty, Union, or state rights, or about the need to protect or to destroy slavery. Others point to less overtly political reasons to fight, such as the defense of one's home and family, or the honor and brotherhood to be preserved when fighting alongside other men. Most historians agree that, no matter what he thought about when he went into the war, the experience of combat affected him profoundly and sometimes affected his reasons for continuing to fight.
I'm not. They was drafted...
And many joined regardless of the draft.
Considering things like Sherman's acts of war, which took till WW2 before things were fully fixed, I'm pretty sure they understood why they had to fight regardless.
No murder the hell out of the South is killing everything living within reach. Sherman was a lightweight.*
*For reference see destruction of the Plains Indians for how the Union Army really practiced "murder the hell out of" an enemy.
No murder the hell out of the South is killing everything living within reach. Sherman was a lightweight.*
*For reference see destruction of the Plains Indians for how the Union Army really practiced "murder the hell out of" an enemy.
The Swatstika used by the Nazis is a different symbol than the Buddhist symbol that comes from Asia (that is known in Japan as the 'Manji'). The Nazi symbol is oriented counter-clockwise and is slanted. The manji is oriented clockwise and is not slanted. To the average person, they look the same, but they are not. The swatstika is not a case of "one symbol; two meanings" its a case of "two similar but different symbols with two totally different meanings".
::::::::::::::The More You Know!
Actually, the counter clockwise Swatstika is also used in Hinduism to symbolise Empowerment. You can google image search on 'hindu swastika' and see all those Hindu neo-nazis
That's just the northerner revisionism right there.
News flash, Sparky... I'm a Southerner. In a related story, all of the economic reasons for the war were tied to slavery. Is the South poorer than the North? That's because of your agrarian economy. Why is it agrarian? Slavery. The North has a stronger industrial base. Why? Because industrial labor forces require a higher degree of education than agrarian ones.
Actually, the south was less industrialized primarily due to geography. The northeastern US has more rivers rivers than the south, rivers were (at the time) essential to industry as they were both a means of transporting goods and powering machinery. In addition to that, the countries primary mining operations were all in the north, primarily because coal and iron ore were more abundant there, as well as various other natural resources needed to fuel industry. On top of that, most of the countries major ports were in the northeast, owing to deeper coastal waters, aforementioned navigable rivers, and more accessible intertidal/litoral zone (turns out theirs this massive reef off the east coast of several southern states that makes them kinda inaccessible and treacherous, and most of the remaining coastline is too swampy or shallow to build a port) as well as their initial proximity to the European ports of embarkation for the initial colonists, as well as successive waves of immigrants post-independence, etc.
Beyond that, early industrial labor didn't require a higher degree of education than agrarian labor. Hell, most industrial laborers lacked any education at all until very late 19th/early 20th century. In any case, you're basically ascribing cause to the effect, in other words, you're basically wrong.
Historically, educating slaves leads to revolts and unrest (one of the reasons England outlawed education in Ireland for a while) so the South can't switch to an industrial economy without educating their labor force... the slaves.
Or, yknow, developing a means to power industrial machinery and processes without a system of fast-flowing rivers to turn mills, or navigable waters through which they could ship goods, or finding largely non-existent coal/iron ore/other deposits nearby, or developing an effective and cost-efficient means of transporting said natural resources south from the northern states where they were mostly concentrated...
You mean like how if that was the case, the north would have instantly just passed the anti-slavery bill instead of waiting till more then halfway into the war to do so? Considering they still owned slaves up there and all too.
Yep, fun fact, the state of New Jersey still had 16 slaves as of 1865, at which point they were emancipated following ratification of the 13th Amendment the following year (and technically one slave remained in bondage to the family that owned him by his own free will until his death in the 1870s).
Why? Uneven representation in the government. Why? Well, their actual population wasn't being used in calculating how many seats they were entitled to in the House of Representatives. Why? 3/5ths compromise because of... y'know... slavery.
Talk about revisionism. The southern states still had 2 Senators a piece in Congress, just like the North. By the way, the 3/5 compromise actually gave the South a disproportionately LARGE amount of representation in Congress relative to the voter base. Its also important to remember that even factoring in slaves as whole persons, the north would still have had more than twice the population of the south (and thus twice the number of representatives in the House).
Man, it's like it wasn't an issue that had to be approached with care so as not to alienate entirely states that were on the fence.
New Jersey definitely wasn't 'on the fence' in that one. Technically they had ended the practice a couple decades before but due to the wording of the law slavery was still functionally in place for a segment of the enslaved population.
But lets be honest, the states that would have joined the Confederacy would not have helped, the north still had far more manpower in it's key states, industry, and factories for munitions equipment. The south literally had one to two factories that could produce artillery. It was not a war that was going to be won in a straight out fight even with the border states.
Well, Kentucky was regarded as the key state that could tip the balance, and Maryland was essential to the Union, as to lose Maryland would provide the South with an important naval base and deepwater port, as well as completely cutting off Washington DC from the rest of the Union.
Beyond that, early industrial labor didn't require a higher degree of education than agrarian labor. Hell, most industrial laborers lacked any education at all until very late 19th/early 20th century. In any case, you're basically ascribing cause to the effect, in other words, you're basically wrong.
Heck, it was work that was being done by 10 year olds!
Considering things like Sherman's acts of war, which took till WW2 before things were fully fixed, I'm pretty sure they understood why they had to fight regardless.
Sherman's March to the Sea wasn't until 1864, three years after the war began. I get that you don't like him, but you can't claim that the Southerners were right to take up armed resistance in 1861 because of something that happened in 1864.
Considering things like Sherman's acts of war, which took till WW2 before things were fully fixed, I'm pretty sure they understood why they had to fight regardless.
Sherman's March to the Sea wasn't until 1864, three years after the war began. I get that you don't like him, but you can't claim that the Southerners were right to take up armed resistance in 1861 because of something that happened in 1864.
Or, yknow, developing a means to power industrial machinery and processes without a system of fast-flowing rivers to turn mills, or navigable waters through which they could ship goods, or finding largely non-existent coal/iron ore/other deposits nearby, or developing an effective and cost-efficient means of transporting said natural resources south from the northern states where they were mostly concentrated...
The westernmost portions of Virginia had abundant coal, which could be used for industrial power and other applications. The South had resources apart from slaves and cotton, they just weren't interested in utilizing them effectively. They had no standardized guage for railway tracks in the South, which made it a bear to transport anything via any means that werent the Mississippi or a horse cart. That's not the North's fault. The South could have industrialized. It chose not to, for economic reasons. Industrialization would have cost money and the money the South had was tied up in agrarian pursuits. It is telling that, when Virginia secceeded in favor of slavery, the portion of the state that had nothing at all to do with slavery decided to secceed from Virginia and stay with the Union.
Talk about revisionism. The southern states still had 2 Senators a piece in Congress, just like the North. By the way, the 3/5 compromise actually gave the South a disproportionately LARGE amount of representation in Congress relative to the voter base. Its also important to remember that even factoring in slaves as whole persons, the north would still have had more than twice the population of the south (and thus twice the number of representatives in the House).
In 1861 it wouldn't have mattered. In 1820, it would have. If the South hadn't been so focused on expanding slavery, it could've worked to stymie the legislation that would have impacted it economically and prevented the North from abusing its power. They also could have tried to industrialize more, since not being married to slavery would have allowed some of the money in the economy to go to pursuits that weren't strictly agrarian in nature. As for 2 Senators per state... that's exactly how many each state has now, and nothing gets done at all in Congress. I'm sure the South could've found a way to gridlock Congress as effectively as the political parties have today.
Crap. You sure? I don't think they tattoo their familiars. No confirm death of Lestate. Edward would have blind.....WAIT!!! Jaspar Hale is up and about somewhere in Washington state...and a Confederate Major to boot and from TEXAS!!
I'm sure my kids will have something else stupid to waste their time on other than Twilight. One hopes it is no longer a thing by the time they roll around.
Even better, it'll be one of the stupid things their parents generation was into and thus they'll want none of it.
The Swatstika used by the Nazis is a different symbol than the Buddhist symbol that comes from Asia (that is known in Japan as the 'Manji'). The Nazi symbol is oriented counter-clockwise and is slanted. The manji is oriented clockwise and is not slanted. To the average person, they look the same, but they are not. The swatstika is not a case of "one symbol; two meanings" its a case of "two similar but different symbols with two totally different meanings".
::::::::::::::The More You Know!
Actually, the counter clockwise Swatstika is also used in Hinduism to symbolise Empowerment. You can google image search on 'hindu swastika' and see all those Hindu neo-nazis
Further the Swastika is also a common symbol in Nordic Pagan Religions prior to the coming of Christianity and was used as a charm for protection in battle by invoking Thor.
Further the Swastika is also a common symbol in Nordic Pagan Religions prior to the coming of Christianity and was used as a charm for protection in battle by invoking Thor.
Yep, it is also occasionally rounded a bit, and is also known as a "sun cross"
There is a lot of hypocrisy going around in this thread. Casting stones at the southerners who fought for what they thought was their country, no matter what the rich politicians caused it. I certainly will stipulate that many poor southerners were pro slavery, but many were pro state rights, and pro "protect my farm and family" from northern aggression.
Regardless... the smug way you people talk about the confederate battle flag, is soooo hypocritical because you probably wave the Stars and Stripes, not realizing that for almost the first 100 years that flag represented legal slavery, and even after emancipation, it also represented the massacre of the Native American, and the oppression of the African American.
Regardless... the smug way you people talk about the confederate battle flag, is soooo hypocritical because you probably wave the Stars and Stripes, not realizing that for almost the first 100 years that flag represented legal slavery, and even after emancipation, it also represented the massacre of the Native American, and the oppression of the African American.
Hypocrites!!
GG
The US Flag gets waved by racists and bigots plenty and Americans like to ignore the darker side of US history, but acting like that makes people hypocrites is a little bent. The Stars and Stripes is used to invoke a unifying national spirit of equality, liberty, and democracy. What that means specifically will vary, but it's a much broader symbol in America than the Confefdrate battle flag, which for over a century was consistently used to invoke a South culture and pride that was profoundly racist. So profoundly racist, that when people say 'southern culture' racism is one of the first things that will pop to mind. The flag is inextricably tied to that culture. So much so we can honestly point to it can call racism and racial supremacy the core value the flag was used to symbolize.
Then when racism went out of style, Southerns kept flying the flag and insisting it's not racist while citing an ambiguous and ill defined cultural heritage it's supposed to represent while not being racist. While America as a whole has a long racist history, the South in particular is special in this regard and part of that special history of racism is the Confederate flag.
Regardless... the smug way you people talk about the confederate battle flag, is soooo hypocritical because you probably wave the Stars and Stripes, not realizing that for almost the first 100 years that flag represented legal slavery, and even after emancipation, it also represented the massacre of the Native American, and the oppression of the African American.
Hypocrites!!
GG
The US Flag gets waved by racists and bigots plenty and Americans like to ignore the darker side of US history, but acting like that makes people hypocrites is a little bent. The Stars and Stripes is used to invoke a unifying national spirit of equality, liberty, and democracy. What that means specifically will vary, but it's a much broader symbol in America than the Confefdrate battle flag, which for over a century was consistently used to invoke a South culture and pride that was profoundly racist. So profoundly racist, that when people say 'southern culture' racism is one of the first things that will pop to mind. The flag is inextricably tied to that culture. So much so we can honestly point to it can call racism and racial supremacy the core value the flag was used to symbolize.
Then when racism went out of style, Southerns kept flying the flag and insisting it's not racist while citing an ambiguous and ill defined cultural heritage it's supposed to represent while not being racist. While America as a whole has a long racist history, the South in particular is special in this regard and part of that special history of racism is the Confederate flag.
Its not the same thing.
Again..thats quite hypocritical to judge peoples intent as to why they fly a flag. Maybe I want to celebrate my Ancestor who fought to defend his homeland..you have no right to judge someone, when you might fly the stars and stripes knowing the oppression that that flag represents to much of the world.
generalgrog wrote: Maybe I want to celebrate my Ancestor who fought to defend his homeland..
Yeah... And as a byproduct he was fighting to defend slavery. After the civil war it was flown by racists and in support of racism. You can plead ignorance to that and try to change historical fact, but it's the truth. People will judge you by what they see.
You have a right to fly the flag as much as others have the right to question why you would chose to.
Stars and Stripes is the flag of a nation that did bad gak but tries to better itself and make up for it.
The Southern Cross was literally a flag used for the cause to keep slavery, it had no other things to add to it. It didn't have the time to mature into a symbol like the Stars and Stripes before it was taken out. And then it couldn't mature because the people that kept using it were mostly evil, forever keeping it a tarnished symbol.
Frazzled wrote: The Stars and Stripes also was the banner of men that bled and died to free the tyranny of an entire people, so I call bs.
They did it again in WWI
and WWII.
And Korea.
Yes and many of those soldiers were descendents of southerners, who you decry as traitors, so in your eyes they are the sons and grandsons of traitors.
generalgrog wrote: Slavery probably wouldn't have lasted much longer in the south, certainly not past the 19th century.
Yeah, which isn't really relevant to what people thought in 1860.
My point...don't judge someone when you have your own issues.
No, you're point is that you want to act with disregard to any thoughts other than your own and never be called to task on it.
Hint; if your so upset that other people might assume you're a racist, then maybe flying the Confederate Flag isn't the thing you should be doing. If you decide it has special meaning to you and you want to fly it anyway, go ahead that's your right. It's everyone else right to have their opinion on that action.
Further the Swastika is also a common symbol in Nordic Pagan Religions prior to the coming of Christianity and was used as a charm for protection in battle by invoking Thor.
The swastika was a common symbol, with various meanings, in many cultures. That's why it became so popular as a charm in the years leading up to WWII, and why Hitler decided to feature it in Nazi regalia.
Jihadin wrote: Anyone object to the Confederate Battle Standard used by Confederate Civil War Reenacter's?
Someone would need to be pretty dense to associate someone reenacting events as supporting those events. When someone is a reenactor, we associate the symbols they wear as something done to maintain their authenticity, not something they do because they automatically agree with what those symbols mean.
There were some SS reenactors at AHEC for Memorial Day and they had a sweet program, not just because they talked about their guns and gear but because they talked about what the SS did in WWII. They didn't hide from who they were acting out.
The swastika was a common symbol, with various meanings, in many cultures. That's why it became so popular as a charm in the years leading up to WWII, and why Hitler decided to feature it in Nazi regalia.
Yes this is so true. One of the heroes of WWI Raul Lufberry who was a member of the Lafayette Escadrille, and eventually the 94th Aero squadron, decorated his Spad VII aircraft with a personalized swastika. He did this because before the war, he had traveled extensively throughout the world and was intrigued by the Hindu symbol for Luck. This was before the NAZIS, and Lufberry was an American.
If some uninformed hyper sensitive person saw that plane today an saw the swastikas they might think it was some tribute to the NAZIS when it had nothing to do with it.
Point being that just because someone uses a symbol for personal reasons, doesn't mean that they attribute the same symbology that you might.
For the record, I don't own a confederate battle flag, and never have. I also flew the stars and stripes proudly to support the world cup team, when I was in Canada a few weeks ago.
The political correctness craze is out of control.
The swastika was a common symbol, with various meanings, in many cultures. That's why it became so popular as a charm in the years leading up to WWII, and why Hitler decided to feature it in Nazi regalia.
Yes this is so true. One of the heroes of WWI Raul Lufberry who was a member of the Lafayette Escadrille, and eventually the 94th Aero squadron, decorated his Spad VII aircraft with a personalized swastika. He did this because before the war, he had traveled extensively throughout the world and was intrigued by the Hindu symbol for Luck. This was before the NAZIS, and Lufberry was an American.
If some uninformed hyper sensitive person saw that plane today an saw the swastikas they might think it was some tribute to the NAZIS when it had nothing to do with it.
Point being that just because someone uses a symbol for personal reasons, doesn't mean that they attribute the same symbology that you might.
No, the point is that when he did that the symbol didn't have the connotations that it latter acquired when the Nazis adopted it. If he had painted a swastika on his plane during or after WWII he would probably face a court martial!
You have a right to fly the flag as much as others have the right to question why you would chose to.
Agreed. This is the US. He has theat right. He wouldn't have been able to had the CSA won...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Anyone object to the Confederate Battle Standard used by Confederate Civil War Reenacter's?
Nope not at all. I only object when the re-enactors are so fat they look like they are about to have a heart attack.
Thats a historical context.
I don't have a problem with people taking pride in their family, or their state, or having an interest in the ACW because we often seem fascinated by old wars, or even having an IG list modeled all in butternut... Further, no one alive has anything to do with the actual CSA or slavery. But this War of Northern Aggression crap is just that, crap.
Point being that just because someone uses a symbol for personal reasons, doesn't mean that they attribute the same symbology that you might.
If it was a symbol with another meaning which was taken and repurposed later, you might have a point... but you don't.
*It was explicitly designed as symbolism of the "white masters" dominion over his slaves and pushing south to expand slavery into south america.
*It was not used prominently in the civil war which means a large number of people who are honoring their ancestors for 'southern pride' probably means their ancestors never even fought for or even *SAW* that flag during their heroic soldier career and probably fought and died for "stars and Bars".
*The only reason it even *exists* in today's modern world is because racists used it to opposed integration of schools by taking down the american flag and replacing it with the southern cross...
It never represented the confederate south as a whole, it never represented southern heritage, your ancestors never fought and died for that particular flag because people don't fight for battle standards. They fought for 'Stars and Bars'. It has no other meaning. It never did. To attribute other meaning to it afterwards is ignorance, and you get to be judged on your free speech. Prepare to be seen either as an ignorant person who knows nothing about history or their own family or a raging racist bigot, or both if you claim to think it can possibly mean 'southern pride'.
Or, yknow, developing a means to power industrial machinery and processes without a system of fast-flowing rivers to turn mills, or navigable waters through which they could ship goods, or finding largely non-existent coal/iron ore/other deposits nearby, or developing an effective and cost-efficient means of transporting said natural resources south from the northern states where they were mostly concentrated...
The westernmost portions of Virginia had abundant coal, which could be used for industrial power and other applications. The South had resources apart from slaves and cotton, they just weren't interested in utilizing them effectively. They had no standardized guage for railway tracks in the South, which made it a bear to transport anything via any means that werent the Mississippi or a horse cart. That's not the North's fault. The South could have industrialized. It chose not to, for economic reasons. Industrialization would have cost money and the money the South had was tied up in agrarian pursuits. It is telling that, when Virginia secceeded in favor of slavery, the portion of the state that had nothing at all to do with slavery decided to secceed from Virginia and stay with the Union.
The westernmost portions of Virginia... as in West Virginia? The section of the state that seceded from Virginia to form a new state? Aside from oil fields in Texas (a technology that wasn't really developed yet mind you), in general the South didn't have significant deposits of anything that could be used at the time, either due to being inaccessible or not yet having been developed.
In 1861 it wouldn't have mattered. In 1820, it would have. If the South hadn't been so focused on expanding slavery, it could've worked to stymie the legislation that would have impacted it economically and prevented the North from abusing its power. They also could have tried to industrialize more, since not being married to slavery would have allowed some of the money in the economy to go to pursuits that weren't strictly agrarian in nature. As for 2 Senators per state... that's exactly how many each state has now, and nothing gets done at all in Congress. I'm sure the South could've found a way to gridlock Congress as effectively as the political parties have today.
As a matter of fact there was a lot of gridlock in Congress at the time, but politicians back then at least had more honor than they do now and were above intentionally sandbagging to screw over the opposition. Also, the South was actually more politically influential than the North until somewhere around the 1830s or 40s. Up until Lincoln American Presidents were predominantly Southern (primarily from Virginia), as were many of the politicians sitting in the topmost offices of the federal government. It wasn't until the 30s or the 40s that you started to see increasing numbers of northerners becoming President/occupying those higher postings.
There is a lot of hypocrisy going around in this thread. Casting stones at the southerners who fought for what they thought was their country, no matter what the rich politicians caused it. I certainly will stipulate that many poor southerners were pro slavery, but many were pro state rights, and pro "protect my farm and family" from northern aggression.
Regardless... the smug way you people talk about the confederate battle flag, is soooo hypocritical because you probably wave the Stars and Stripes, not realizing that for almost the first 100 years that flag represented legal slavery, and even after emancipation, it also represented the massacre of the Native American, and the oppression of the African American.
Hypocrites!!
GG
You're right, but that doesn't really bother me, especially since I'm first generation American and my ancestors weren't involved in any of that ;P
The US Flag gets waved by racists and bigots plenty and Americans like to ignore the darker side of US history, but acting like that makes people hypocrites is a little bent. The Stars and Stripes is used to invoke a unifying national spirit of equality, liberty, and democracy. What that means specifically will vary, but it's a much broader symbol in America than the Confefdrate battle flag, which for over a century was consistently used to invoke a South culture and pride that was profoundly racist. So profoundly racist, that when people say 'southern culture' racism is one of the first things that will pop to mind. The flag is inextricably tied to that culture. So much so we can honestly point to it can call racism and racial supremacy the core value the flag was used to symbolize.
Then when racism went out of style, Southerns kept flying the flag and insisting it's not racist while citing an ambiguous and ill defined cultural heritage it's supposed to represent while not being racist. While America as a whole has a long racist history, the South in particular is special in this regard and part of that special history of racism is the Confederate flag.
Its not the same thing.
Also pretty much this. For the most part, even after the fall of 'ol Dixie, it was southerners and southern politicians that propagated a culture of hate in this country. The norths hands aren't clean in the matter by any means, but the South is where it was most prominent.
Again..thats quite hypocritical to judge peoples intent as to why they fly a flag. Maybe I want to celebrate my Ancestor who fought to defend his homeland..you have no right to judge someone, when you might fly the stars and stripes knowing the oppression that that flag represents to much of the world.
GG
His 'homeland'? Excuse me, but unless your ancestor was born between 1861 and 1865 (in which case he would have been too young to fight), or prior to 1787 (in which case he would havea been too old) your ancestors homeland was the United States of America and the appropriate flag to fly is the Stars and Stripes. Also your ancestor didn't fight to defend his homeland, he turned against it and fought to separate from it. Of course you could take a more technically correct view and say that his homeland was whichever one of the southern states he was born/lived in (as at the time state governments were more relevant and the US was more a union of nations than it was a single nation), in which case the appropriate flag to fly would be the relevant state flag, not the Stars & Bars. Of course you could argue that some of the state flags are Confederate designs... except they weren't at the time your ancestor was likely born.
The Southern Cross was literally a flag used for the cause to keep slavery, it had no other things to add to it. It didn't have the time to mature into a symbol like the Stars and Stripes before it was taken out. And then it couldn't mature because the people that kept using it were mostly evil, forever keeping it a tarnished symbol.
Thats slightly unfair, I think the Confederates had a worthwhile argument in regards to the whole 'States Rights' thing, something that is still an issue in this country to this day. That being said, slavery was most definitely not an issue of states rights.
If it was a symbol with another meaning which was taken and repurposed later, you might have a point... but you don't.
*It was explicitly designed as symbolism of the "white masters" dominion over his slaves and pushing south to expand slavery into south america.
*It was not used prominently in the civil war which means a large number of people who are honoring their ancestors for 'southern pride' probably means their ancestors never even fought for or even *SAW* that flag during their heroic soldier career and probably fought and died for "stars and Bars".
*The only reason it even *exists* in today's modern world is because racists used it to opposed integration of schools by taking down the american flag and replacing it with the southern cross...
It never represented the confederate south as a whole, it never represented southern heritage, your ancestors never fought and died for that particular flag because people don't fight for battle standards. They fought for 'Stars and Bars'. It has no other meaning. It never did. To attribute other meaning to it afterwards is ignorance, and you get to be judged on your free speech. Prepare to be seen either as an ignorant person who knows nothing about history or their own family or a raging racist bigot, or both if you claim to think it can possibly mean 'southern pride'.
All of this is accurate. The Southern Cross was used specifically because standards were a means of command and control in battle and it looked sufficiently different from Union Standards so as to not become confusing. The actual flags (Stars and Bars, Stainless Banner, and Blood Stained Banner) used by the Confederate States as 'symbols' weren't really widely adopted, aren't really used today by anyone, and in some instances had specific racist connotations inherent to their design (specifically the stainless and blood stained banners).
That being said, slavery was most definitely not an issue of states rights.
The problem with the State's Rights argument isn't that slavery wasn't a state right, but rather that the state right debate as the South and the North saw it was one that heavily revolved around the institution. The South supported the right of a state to decide if it was slave or free but so did the North. The silly thing in it all is that that the debate over the territories was one where the states were arguing over some really stupid things.
Does a slave stay a slave if their owner moves themselves and the slaves to a non-slave state? This question is supposedly answered by the Constitution and common practice that the answer was yes, but Free Soilers in the North were always afraid that the super rich plantation owners (who weren't really that rich) were going to move into the territories, buy all the land, and work it with slaves. So they tried to make it so that non-slave states wouldn't allow any slaves at all. To an extent this made a bit of sense as if a state was a non-slave state, then it violated the State's right to be free of slaves if slave owners could just move in and have a bunch of slaves. On the other hand it was stupid, because the chances of that actually happening were pretty low. The South viewed the issue differently. They thought that by not allowing slaves the non-slave states were violating the rights of those who lived in the slave states. You could say the North defined a 'collectivist' states right while the South defined an 'individualist' states right.
This fueled the Southern fear that abolition was right around the corner. It wasn't. But the South had built up a very irrational mindset about Abolition and the Federal Government. They'd convinced themselves that if the Democratic Party lost its key hold on Federal power that the North would eventually free all the slaves (really, this was probably true, but it wasn't going to happen in 1860 or any time immediately afterwards). Anti-slavery and Free Soilers were key to the Republican coalition that was swept into the Federal Government in 1860, and the South had always mistakenly associated that Free Soilers were Abolitionists who wanted to ban slaves from new states and territories and that if anyone entered said states and territories that their slaves would be taken away without compensation, something no one anywhere intended to do.
The Southern and Slave leaning Democratic party throughout the 20's, 30's, and 40's pushed a lot of violations of States Rights to ensure the security of the Curious Institution. The Fugitive Slave Act was a major factor in said debate and one that made the South's later crying about the big mean federal government infringing on state's rights rather comical. The Southern States from 1820 to 1850 spent a lot of their time expanding Federal power, trying to use their dominance in Federal politics to protect slavery. They then threw a temper tantrum when all that Federal Power they built ended up in someone elses hands.
So was the Civil War about State's Rights? Yeah sort of, but those States Rights were very heavily about Slavery. The commonly sited tariffs debate had long been settled in favor of the South when they repealed the 1832 Tariffs piece by piece over the next decade (and even then, most people in US government include Andrew Jackson recognized the Tariff debate as only pretext for conflict rooted in the larger slavery debate).
The westernmost portions of Virginia... as in West Virginia? The section of the state that seceded from Virginia to form a new state? Aside from oil fields in Texas (a technology that wasn't really developed yet mind you), in general the South didn't have significant deposits of anything that could be used at the time, either due to being inaccessible or not yet having been developed.
Yes, West By God Virginia. It had coal. Lots of it. The South, in general, hadn't exploited or developed it enough to industrialize itself prior to the war. My point is that they could have done so, if they weren't married to an agrarian economy because of the institution of slavery. Could the South have used the coal in WV to industrialize in 1861? Of course not. Could they have done it in 1830? Yeah, there's no real reason why they couldn't. But they chose not to. One theory for why that was that I've heard is that the plantation owners saw themselves as directly mirroring a romanticized image of the old European feudal estates, and that they felt better than the North becuase they were a sort of American "aristocracy". Mining and factory building were not "aristocratic" pursuits, so industrialization was not a priority for the South. I'm not sure I totally agree with that theory, but it does explain some of the characatures of pre-war Southerners I've seen.
As a matter of fact there was a lot of gridlock in Congress at the time, but politicians back then at least had more honor than they do now and were above intentionally sandbagging to screw over the opposition. Also, the South was actually more politically influential than the North until somewhere around the 1830s or 40s. Up until Lincoln American Presidents were predominantly Southern (primarily from Virginia), as were many of the politicians sitting in the topmost offices of the federal government. It wasn't until the 30s or the 40s that you started to see increasing numbers of northerners becoming President/occupying those higher postings.
So if the South had so much power in government, then how did the North get all these evil, oppressive policies through that hurt the South? Was it because they were so "honorable" that they couldn't bear to stop the North from oppressing them, or were they just bad at their jobs?
Yes, West By God Virginia. It had coal. Lots of it. The South, in general, hadn't exploited or developed it enough to industrialize itself prior to the war. My point is that they could have done so, if they weren't married to an agrarian economy because of the institution of slavery. Could the South have used the coal in WV to industrialize in 1861? Of course not. Could they have done it in 1830? Yeah, there's no real reason why they couldn't. But they chose not to. One theory for why that was that I've heard is that the plantation owners saw themselves as directly mirroring a romanticized image of the old European feudal estates, and that they felt better than the North becuase they were a sort of American "aristocracy". Mining and factory building were not "aristocratic" pursuits, so industrialization was not a priority for the South. I'm not sure I totally agree with that theory, but it does explain some of the characatures of pre-war Southerners I've seen.
Another reason the Southern coal resources weren't as developed is because coal in PA was sooooo much easier to get. The Susquehanna River valley offers a very geologically advantageous network for transporting resources, and the coal there was easier to access (and thus discovered sooner, coal in WV wasn't known till after the war, and in Alabama and Arkansas unknown till the 1840's). When railroads came in, it became simple for industrialists to focus on the PA coal resources and improve that industry, meaning that the bulk of US coal production ended up happening in the North, not the South.
I would also not agree with that theory (it's been patently disproven). The real issue is the availability of capital. Did Southerners have a lot of wealth? Hell yeah. They had a lot of wealth. Problem? That wealth was mostly tied up in land and slaves. The vast majority of southern plantations were not the spanning luxury mansions we think of today (many of those were really built after the Civil War). Southerns had little spendable cash, and thus could not invest in industry as easily as Northerners could. There were attempts of course. In the 1840's Georgia enjoyed a boom in textile production but a cotton crash later in the decade destroyed it all.
So if the South had so much power in government, then how did the North get all these evil, oppressive policies through that hurt the South?
They didn't. The idea that the South was being oppressed by the North and driven to rebellion is a nice piece of historical fiction produced in more modern times. If anything, the South was using government power to protect slavery and expanded the Federal government towards that end, most policies favoring them over the North.
EDIT: To expand on this, when the Civil Rights debate was reaching a head during the 40's and 50's, the US encountered... a rather heavy period of historical revisionism, including that of the Civil War. This revisionism presented the South in more sympathetic terms, positing that the Southern states were being oppressed by Northern political coalitions. This remained a dominant view among many historians till the Social History movement of the 1960's and 1970's. However much of the US education system is still teaching a very 1950's history of the world.
Our text books kind of lag behind the latest research... by a lot.
generalgrog wrote: There is a lot of hypocrisy going around in this thread. Casting stones at the southerners who fought for what they thought was their country, no matter what the rich politicians caused it. I certainly will stipulate that many poor southerners were pro slavery, but many were pro state rights, and pro "protect my farm and family" from northern aggression.
GG
"Northern Agression"? Northern aggression?
I get so sick of having to tell people this. The. South. Fired. First.
The South.
Fired.
FIRST!
It is not a war of Northern agression when you start it by firing on a Northern militiary installation. The fact of the matter is that the South wanted that war a lot more than the North. Probably because people in the North realized that if they won the war, they would have to end slavery as a byproduct (the war was about slavery, everyone then knew it and most admitted it). There's no point in fighting a war caused by the argument over slavery if you aren't going to settle the argument once the war is over. The North knew that victory meant emancipation long before Lincoln did. And the Abolitionist movement was not as powerful in the North as a lot of people like to think. Pleanty of Northerners did not want to end slavery, because they feared social changes if that should happen (basically, they were afraid of a mass-migration of freed blacks into the North). The South wanted to fight the North so that they could prove their superiority (and, by extension, the superiority of slavery). Nobody who joined the Confederate army after the shelling of Fort Sumter was in the right. You can argue that those who joined prior to the shelling we doing so to defend against potential Northern aggression, but anyone who signed up after wasn't going to be defending against Northern aggression, they would be defending against Yankee retribution for the South's act of war.
The South started it. They picked a fight they couldn't win and got the tar beat out of them for it. Then they spent the next 100+ years blaming the North for starting it. They aren't just racists, they are also sore losers.
Another reason the Southern coal resources weren't as developed is because coal in PA was sooooo much easier to get. The Susquehanna River valley offers a very geologically advantageous network for transporting resources, and the coal there was easier to access (and thus discovered sooner, coal in WV wasn't known till after the war, and in Alabama and Arkansas unknown till the 1840's). When railroads came in, it became simple for industrialists to focus on the PA coal resources and improve that industry, meaning that the bulk of US coal production ended up happening in the North, not the South.
I would also not agree with that theory (it's been patently disproven). The real issue is the availability of capital. Did Southerners have a lot of wealth? Hell yeah. They had a lot of wealth. Problem? That wealth was mostly tied up in land and slaves. The vast majority of southern plantations were not the spanning luxury mansions we think of today (many of those were really built after the Civil War). Southerns had little spendable cash, and thus could not invest in industry as easily as Northerners could. There were attempts of course. In the 1840's Georgia enjoyed a boom in textile production but a cotton crash later in the decade destroyed it all.
Ok, that fills in some gaps in my knowledge. I knew PA was big in coal and I knew WV was, too. I didn't realize that WV wasn't very big until the post-war period. I also didn't know AL and AK coal was pre-war (I thought it was more post-war). The information about money being tied up in property goes a long way to explain the lack of industrialization, especially if AL and AK had coal pre-war.
He wasn't terrible, he was just susceptible to ego-driven battlefield descisions. Like at Gettysburg, where the smart thing to do would be to disengage and fight the North on more favorable ground. He was a good general for the era, but the era was ending. Longstreet, Sherman, and Grant were generals for the new era of warfare.
He did well when he had Jackson telling him to stop being a small girl, and he was a fool to never give the same respect and courtesy to Longstreet. When Jackson was killed, with him refusing to heed Longstreet you have events like Pickett's charge.
He wasn't terrible, he was just susceptible to ego-driven battlefield descisions. Like at Gettysburg, where the smart thing to do would be to disengage and fight the North on more favorable ground. He was a good general for the era, but the era was ending. Longstreet, Sherman, and Grant were generals for the new era of warfare.
This. I call him terrible mainly due to the sad idolisation of him. Hell, there was even a movement to discredit Longstreet to prop up Lee's image. That's just pathetic.
There's also John T. Wilder, aka "omg guys I think I just discovered combined arms warfare!"
I think Lee was a capable general, but he operated (like most US generals at the time) on Jominian Theory. Grant quickly found that being at the bottom of his class at West Point had serious advantages, namely that he didn't actually understand Jominian theory, didn't try to apply it, and ended up kicking ass XD
Also combined arms was a lot older, even in the 17th century Gustavus of Sweden practised it with commanded shot alongside cavalry, and even light cannon.
There are examples of it much longer ago than that, but it was more isolated. The idea of mounted infantry wasn't new, but I think what made it so much more effective in the Civil War was the advent of rapid firing weapons that allowed smaller groups of infantry that had the speed of cavalry, to rival the fire-power of much larger formations. It was exemplified in the Civil War.
Had a quick read on Wilder, I love how he shamed the US Government to pay for repeating rifles. Brilliant!
Also pretty much this. For the most part, even after the fall of 'ol Dixie, it was southerners and southern politicians that propagated a culture of hate in this country. The norths hands aren't clean in the matter by any means, but the South is where it was most prominent.
Considering the harsh measures of the reformation, the fact that much of the usable land, homes, farms, and much was looted by Union Soldiers, there wasn't exactly much "love" to be had when everything you had was torn from you, Infrastructure that in some cases wouldn't be fixed up till near World War 2, and then you even had Northerners coming to the South in order to exploit said issues that was to be had during that period of time...
Did anyone really expect anything but hatred after all that?
But yeah, even most people down here know that Northern Aggression thing is bs, unless one thinks an economic sort but then shots were fired first and it's ehhhhh yeah that doesn't matter when you fire on them....
Every war has its redeemed hero. Rommel. Lee. Yamato. After a war the side that lost always looks for someone to look to and say "some of us were swell guys" as a means of recovering from the shock of defeat. Sometimes the process involves flowery depictions and some bent truth
Also combined arms was a lot older, even in the 17th century Gustavus of Sweden practised it with commanded shot alongside cavalry, and even light cannon.
There are examples of it much longer ago than that, but it was more isolated.
To be fair, it was exemplified in the Civil War.
Like most things, yeah 'discovered' is a strong word when applied to one person. Combined arms was a process and the Civil War is the period where we start to see it realized as a practice but it really came to it's fruition in the Franco-Prussian war. Gustavus contribution to the process however was not a combined arms attack but combined arms unit organization (the integration of cavalry, artillery, and infantry into a single regiment).
Throughout the civil war, battles were mostly small. Infantry v infantry, artillery v artillery, and cavalry v cavalry engagements. Even in larger battles for the most part a battle line wasn't about the elements of the force overlapping to complement one another (combined arms) as all of them shooting in unison at a single target which is more akin to focus fire. The innovation of the Civil War with respect to the development of combined arms was maneuver battle.
The brief exception was John T Wilder. During the Battle of Chattanooga, for a very brief moment, he'd issued a serious of commands that ended up producing a picture perfect realization of combined arms warfare that wouldn't be seen again until 1870. Keeping it short, it at got mess up. The Artillery started firing before they were supposed to, and ended up firing short and needed to readjust several times. The infantry had gotten their orders early, while the artillery got them late and had already started advancing. They ended up being really, really close, to where their own shells were hitting, but advanced anyway. The product was an inadvertent creeping barrage covering the Union advance.
When the artillery finally got their target right, the Confederates found themselves taking very close fire from infantry and artillery at once. Then the commander of the cavalry, after he got lost for a little bit, showed up catching that section of the confederate line from behind. All of this ended up happening at exactly the same moment and shattered the right side of the Confederate battle line. The section of the line got hammered from three different angles by 3 different weapon system that were moving complimentary (if accidentally) which each other.
This was the first time this application of arms can be definitively identified in warfare and typically regarded as the first true instance of a combined arms attack (also called an all arms battle using WWI lingo) . Not that Wilder was a genius exactly, his orders just ended up getting muddled in such a way it produced the result
Had a quick read on Wilder, I love how he shamed the US Government to pay for repeating rifles. Brilliant!
Venture industrialists don't let a little war get in the way of getting the US government to pay for the military industrial complex
generalgrog wrote: Maybe I want to celebrate my Ancestor who fought to defend his homeland..
Yeah... And as a byproduct he was fighting to defend slavery. After the civil war it was flown by racists and in support of racism. You can plead ignorance to that and try to change historical fact, but it's the truth. People will judge you by what they see.
You have a right to fly the flag as much as others have the right to question why you would chose to.
Surprisingly, I'm with LordofHats here... There is (sadly) a whole branch of "historical study" of the ACW called "Lost Causers" and the exact sentiment that they project is what GG keeps talking about. They're the idiots who claim the ACW was about "states rights over federal rights" when it was, and always will be about the "right" to own people.
The thing with the Confederate flag that gets flown outside of the South that always gets me, is that, up here in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, etc) all these idiots think that flying the flag means they are "rebels" and staying true to their roots, when none of them have any Southern heritage... But, they also think that wearing camo to Thanksgiving dinner is the cool thing to do, and that hunting is some form of rebellion against "the Man"
I mean, here's really how it boils down... hunting =cool.... flying the confederate flag because you hunt = not cool.
Fredericksburg, the battle where the Union obligingly tried to cross a river under heavy fire from entrenched positions. Also, Longstreet and Jackson.
Chancellorsville, again, Jackson, though it was also where he was lost. Also, just because the opposing commander was gak, doesn't make Lee good.
Cold Harbor, idiotic Union frontal assaults on fortified positions.
These aren't examples of great generalship on Lee's behalf, they're examples of fething stupidity on the Union. Being taller than a midget doesn't make you "tall". Of those examples only Chancellorsville even approaches being a good manoeuvre, and only if he knew how bad Hooker was. If he didn't, then what he did was one of the stupidest things he could've, but he got so overwhelming lucky it's unbelievable.
The westernmost portions of Virginia... as in West Virginia? The section of the state that seceded from Virginia to form a new state? Aside from oil fields in Texas (a technology that wasn't really developed yet mind you), in general the South didn't have significant deposits of anything that could be used at the time, either due to being inaccessible or not yet having been developed.
Yes, West By God Virginia. It had coal. Lots of it. The South, in general, hadn't exploited or developed it enough to industrialize itself prior to the war. My point is that they could have done so, if they weren't married to an agrarian economy because of the institution of slavery. Could the South have used the coal in WV to industrialize in 1861? Of course not. Could they have done it in 1830? Yeah, there's no real reason why they couldn't. But they chose not to. One theory for why that was that I've heard is that the plantation owners saw themselves as directly mirroring a romanticized image of the old European feudal estates, and that they felt better than the North becuase they were a sort of American "aristocracy". Mining and factory building were not "aristocratic" pursuits, so industrialization was not a priority for the South. I'm not sure I totally agree with that theory, but it does explain some of the characatures of pre-war Southerners I've seen.
Again, geography. West Virginia is bordered to the west by? The Ohio River. What major American steel city is just to the north of West Virginia right ON the Ohio River? Pittsburgh. Shipping mined coal from WV to Pittsburgh was easier than transporting it to Richmond or Atlanta, was more immediately profitable, and was a long established marketplace that could (and did) compete for natural resources with other areas, as did most major northern industrial center. Additionally, after West Virginia the countries most significant coal deposits are in Pennsylvania IIRC, which was pretty solidly in the north. Beyond that, of the Southern States, the most industrialized was Virginia, which was easily on par with New York or Pennsylvania in terms of Industrial capacity (but any advantage to be gained from Virginia was rendered irrelevant given the fact that a Union army spent five years besieging and/or occupying the most industrialized areas, and any remaining industrial capacity was largely rendered irrelevant by Union blockade). The remaining states lacked the population, resources, means and willpower to follow suit. The South just wasn't conducive to industrial production, hell a good chunk of the South was considered practically unlivable prior to the invention of Air Conditioning. Of course, as LordofHats pointed out, nobody even knew about coal in WV until after the war, and that was true for many of the other southern mineral deposits as well (which for the most part aren't all that significant by way of comparison to the deposits the north had).
So if the South had so much power in government, then how did the North get all these evil, oppressive policies through that hurt the South? Was it because they were so "honorable" that they couldn't bear to stop the North from oppressing them, or were they just bad at their jobs?
The balance of power shifted in the 1850s, even then the Southern states managed to push through most of their policies. You really should fact check your history, there were few if any 'evil, oppressive policies that hurt the South' prior to Lincoln, and even then they weren't all that evil or oppressive, unless you equate being evil and oppressive with freeing those oppressed by evil.
I wouldn't disagree. Well, terrible is probably going too far (though the events at Cheat Mountain might say otherwise), but he is certainly overrated. He was in fact very capable, perhaps even borderline brilliant, but one of the hallmarks of a good leader is trusting your people, something which he failed to do repeatedly (unless your name was Stonewall Jackson) and it cost him dearly. If anything, Lees success was because of Stonewall, certainly so considering that Lee's orders were frequently unclear and incomplete, meaning that the recipient of said orders had to determine what it was that was being asked of them. If I had to put my money on a Confederate General, it would probably be Longstreet. While Stonewall was probably the best field commander on either side of the war, he (IMO) wasn't very forward thinking or creative, very much a traditionalist and established in his methodology . Longstreet on the other hand was a man who saw the writing on the wall, he pretty much predicted the fighting of World War 1, and if he had had his way, the war probably would have been a lot longer and bloodier, and certainly far more costly for the Union.
There's also John T. Wilder, aka "omg guys I think I just discovered combined arms warfare!"
Dragoons were a thing before Wilder mounted his infantry and handed them repeaters and hatchets, they just didn't have semi-automatic rifles and brutal native american weaponry at their disposal
I think Lee was a capable general, but he operated (like most US generals at the time) on Jominian Theory. Grant quickly found that being at the bottom of his class at West Point had serious advantages, namely that he didn't actually understand Jominian theory, didn't try to apply it, and ended up kicking ass XD
Jominian theory isn't hard to understand, what is hard to understand is why anyone would think it a good idea.
Every war has its redeemed hero. Rommel. Lee. Yamato. After a war the side that lost always looks for someone to look to and say "some of us were swell guys" as a means of recovering from the shock of defeat. Sometimes the process involves flowery depictions and some bent truth
Understatement.
Throughout the civil war, battles were mostly small. Infantry v infantry, artillery v artillery, and cavalry v cavalry engagements. Even in larger battles for the most part a battle line wasn't about the elements of the force overlapping to complement one another (combined arms) as all of them shooting in unison at a single target which is more akin to focus fire. The innovation of the Civil War with respect to the development of combined arms was maneuver battle.
The brief exception was John T Wilder. During the Battle of Chattanooga, for a very brief moment, he'd issued a serious of commands that ended up producing a picture perfect realization of combined arms warfare that wouldn't be seen again until 1870. Keeping it short, it at got mess up. The Artillery started firing before they were supposed to, and ended up firing short and needed to readjust several times. The infantry had gotten their orders early, while the artillery got them late and had already started advancing. They ended up being really, really close, to where their own shells were hitting, but advanced anyway. The product was an inadvertent creeping barrage covering the Union advance.
When the artillery finally got their target right, the Confederates found themselves taking very close fire from infantry and artillery at once. Then the commander of the cavalry, after he got lost for a little bit, showed up catching that section of the confederate line from behind. All of this ended up happening at exactly the same moment and shattered the right side of the Confederate battle line. The section of the line got hammered from three different angles by 3 different weapon system that were moving complimentary (if accidentally) which each other.
This was the first time this application of arms can be definitively identified in warfare and typically regarded as the first true instance of a combined arms attack (also called an all arms battle using WWI lingo) . Not that Wilder was a genius exactly, his orders just ended up getting muddled in such a way it produced the result
The first part (artillery vs artillery, cavalry vs cavalry, etc. is incorrect, especially as the New Model Army did *not* function in such a manner, nor did Napoleons army.
The second part is also a bit of a headscratcher for me, as the creeping barrage isn't credited as having been invented until the Second Boer War about 20-30 years later... also the Second Battle of Chattanooga was a protracted multi-day artillery bombardment used as a diversionary tactic to allow Rosecrans to cross the Tennessee river undisturbed, which he did successfully, and which resulted in Bragg abandoning Chattanooga instead... so unless we're talking about different battles, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong (I assume you mean the whole "Rommel wasn't a Nazi" thing, otherwise as a military mind he was probably one of the best, though he wasn't without serious flaws, such as his impetuous nature and tendency to overextend himself).
Fredericksburg, the battle where the Union obligingly tried to cross a river under heavy fire from entrenched positions. Also, Longstreet and Jackson.
Chancellorsville, again, Jackson, though it was also where he was lost. Also, just because the opposing commander was gak, doesn't make Lee good.
Cold Harbor, idiotic Union frontal assaults on fortified positions.
These aren't examples of great generalship on Lee's behalf, they're examples of fething stupidity on the Union. Being taller than a midget doesn't make you "tall". Of those examples only Chancellorsville even approaches being a good manoeuvre, and only if he knew how bad Hooker was. If he didn't, then what he did was one of the stupidest things he could've, but he got so overwhelming lucky it's unbelievable.
If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong.
He's really not wrong here... Certainly Rommel had one glaring weakness, but he was an outstanding field commander within his time and day. There's a reason why some of the greatest military minds (Montgomery and Patton) went head to head with this guy and some some other "slouch" of an officer.
The first part (artillery vs artillery, cavalry vs cavalry, etc. is incorrect, especially as the New Model Army did *not* function in such a manner, nor did Napoleons army.
On paper no. In practice its what the war became however. On paper everyone was expecting big battles like Gettysburg to be the norm, when in reality they became the exception. The bulk of the fighting in the Civil War was a series of long sieges and small unit actions. The new model army was built for a conflict that didn't actually materialize, though everyone until Grant kept trying to fight it.
Lee was always looking for that decisive victory, irony being that when he finally got his big decisive battle, not only did he lose but regardless of the outcome Gettysbury was never going to matter
The second part is also a bit of a headscratcher for me, as the creeping barrage isn't credited as having been invented until the Second Boer War about 20-30 years later... also the
The British developed the practice of barrage during the Second Boer War yes. The events I describe above were not a purposeful series of actions but rather the result of orders arriving early, late, and a commander getting lost. All completely accidental but producing the result of a combined arms attack.
Second Battle of Chattanooga was a protracted multi-day artillery bombardment used as a diversionary tactic to allow Rosecrans to cross the Tennessee river undisturbed, which he did successfully, and which resulted in Bragg abandoning Chattanooga instead... so unless we're talking about different battles, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
My bad here. I'm referring to the protracted series of battles around Chattanooga, where the Chattanooga Campaign and the Second Battle of Chattanooga have been at times used interchangeably. Actually upon inspection I've committed two errors
The battle in question specifically is the Battle of Lookout Mountain, and it was not John Wilder but Joseph Hooker that the events concern.
If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong.
He's really not wrong here... Certainly Rommel had one glaring weakness, but he was an outstanding field commander within his time and day. There's a reason why some of the greatest military minds (Montgomery and Patton) went head to head with this guy and some some other "slouch" of an officer.
I edited my post right after posting it to clarify what I meant.
The battle in question specifically is the Battle of Lookout Mountain, and it was not John Wilder but Joseph Hooker that the events concern.
I had a feeling it wasn't Wilder @ Chattanooga, seemed odd that he would have been responsible (even by accident) for all that given that the artillery he did have under his command was very light and limited.
If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong (I assume you mean the whole "Rommel wasn't a Nazi" thing, otherwise as a military mind he was probably one of the best, though he wasn't without serious flaws, such as his impetuous nature and tendency to overextend himself).
Well, in the sense that he wasn't a party member, no Rommel wasn't a Nazi, but indeed his 'redeemed' image overlooks his very proactive support for Hitler. Rommel was sidelined after WWI because he was kind of a jerk to his fellow officers, and only got his command of 7th Panzer because he and Hitler were good buddies.
There's also always been the overstating of his supposedly roll in the July 20 Plot, a plot that at most he only knew about and did nothing to aid or hinder.
Have to remember. Guderian, a logistical officer, came up with this crazy idea about introducing cavalry tactics to a mechanized force. Afterwards it was nothing but refinements and experience. Work really well against other military forces thinking "old school"
Rommel made huge errors in judgement in his Defense of France. The Atlantic wall was a farce, the idea that you could defend against sea based landing support was foolish. Trying to send tanks to the front, when you have naval vessels firing at you doesn't work well.
I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant in Africa, but he wasn't all that and a bag of chips.
So if the South had so much power in government, then how did the North get all these evil, oppressive policies through that hurt the South? Was it because they were so "honorable" that they couldn't bear to stop the North from oppressing them, or were they just bad at their jobs?
The balance of power shifted in the 1850s, even then the Southern states managed to push through most of their policies. You really should fact check your history, there were few if any 'evil, oppressive policies that hurt the South' prior to Lincoln, and even then they weren't all that evil or oppressive, unless you equate being evil and oppressive with freeing those oppressed by evil.
I was being facetious. Other posters have come here and claimed that the South was justified in rebelling because of all of the mean political things the North did to them prior to the war. they claim that was the real reason behind the war and not slavery. You pointed out that the South had a lot of political power prior to the war, and I used that to point out the fallacy in claiming that the North politically bullied the South. And Lordof Hats already 411'd me on the pre-war Southern coal situation (you grow up as close to WV as I do, you think all coal in the world comes from there) but I appreciate the extra info.
If you want to believe that, go ahead, but you're wrong (I assume you mean the whole "Rommel wasn't a Nazi" thing, otherwise as a military mind he was probably one of the best, though he wasn't without serious flaws, such as his impetuous nature and tendency to overextend himself).
I was talking entirely about his abilities as a commander.
generalgrog wrote: Rommel made huge errors in judgement in his Defense of France. The Atlantic wall was a farce, the idea that you could defend against sea based landing support was foolish. Trying to send tanks to the front, when you have naval vessels firing at you doesn't work well.
I'm not saying he wasn't brilliant in Africa, but he wasn't all that and a bag of chips.
GG
Rommel was right though, defeating the allied invasion on the beach would have been the only real way for Germany to ensure a victory against the Western Allies, Rommel was put in a gakky situation and did pretty well for it. Also keep in mind that the defenses were never finished, not that I think it would have made too great a difference.
Even as a commander its hard to tell just how much was Rommel being good and how much was Rommel being a gloriously lucky bastard. They pop up from time to time. Those people who make decisions that seem like they just shouldn't work but who just make it out alive.
A lot of German commanders used Rommel's style; bold, insanely reckless, possibly suicidal, and disjointed. Rommel's just one of the few who not only lived (its ridiculous how many times he almost died in the war) but one of the few to have successive success.
I'd argue Rommel was good at what he did but overall a commander with serious weakness. What saved him were his men. The Afrika Korps had some of the best officers in the German Army. Men who had enough talent and ability to take the running insanity that was Rommel and make it work. Johann von Ravenstein is almost undisputedly the best Division commander in Germany in 1942. I'd have to look up the name, but the Afrika Korps also benefited from the one of the best staff officers as well along with a host of other very talented and capable men who could take action themselves and win.
Being a great general is half skill and half being a lucky bastard.
Lee was a lucky bastard in that until Grant came on the scene Lincoln had terrible taste in CGs. George B. "Fights Like A Quaker" McCLellan in particular prolonged the war a good year at least by his failure to fething DO anything.
Also the argument that the part of being a good leader is have good people to help you get the job done. A good example is Hannibal. Everyone remembers his name and his victory at Cannae, but almost no one remembers his brother, Margo, who bears the bulk of the weight for making that victory happen.
For the record Rommel was a brilliant son of a bitch. If he'd been able to have his panzers forward the Allied invasion of Europe would have died on the beaches.
Also I've read that magnificent bastard's book, and it's absolutely stunning the tactics he was up to as an infantry commander in the first world war. His Ghost Division during the Blitzkrieg (the first time had commanded tanks) and his skill during the Desert War similarly marks Rommel as a truly great general.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record Rommel was a brilliant son of a bitch. If he'd been able to have his panzers forward the Allied invasion of Europe would have died on the beaches.
Also I've read that magnificent bastard's book, and it's absolutely stunning the tactics he was up to as an infantry commander in the first world war. His Ghost Division during the Blitzkrieg (the first time had commanded tanks) and his skill during the Desert War similarly marks Rommel as a truly great general.
Agreed... It's almost standard, required reading for anyone who ends up in a Tank unit in the US Military As I alluded to earlier in the thread, he was brilliant with one pretty big flaw, which was his tendency to outrun his supplies
Right, there's a beautiful quote out there that said a gifted commander masters strategy but a master concerns himself with logistics. Smedley Butler's decision to unfuck "Rail Camp" first and foremost, leaving order where there was chaos THEN going out to whomp ass during the first world war is an interesting look at the mind of a skilled commander.
Rommel's book SHOULD be standard issue for any grunt too, there's solid info and doctrine on moving troops, broken up with spicy quotes like "In the absence of orders, find something and kill it". It does lack pictures except for a few diagrams as I recall so that might make it hard for some of my grunt brethren to complete...
MrDwhitey wrote: Rommel had people go over his head, disobey orders, wasn't given command of the tank reserves, he got fethed.
Yes, but that was an issue endemic to the military of Nazi Germany. Hitler fostered a hostile command environment that would make even a Sith Lord blush. He basically encouraged intra-faction rivalry and pitted his senior officers and staff against one another for favor and rank, and given how highly politicized the German military had become, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that this was actually the norm rather than the exception. Don't even get me started on what the 'chain of command' and 'command structure' looked like either. Lets put it this way, while allied structures were relatively linear, the German command structure was split and divided along so many different lines that its amazing anything managed to get done, as any single officer was answerable to multiple higher authorities simultaneously, including command authorities from entirely separate units, service branches, and chains of command.
Anyway, I think, personally, that the brilliance of Rommel is exemplified by the fact that he was an outstanding infantry officer who also turned out to be an outstanding armored officer. To me that speaks to a deeper understanding of the fundamental aspects of the profession of arms. Most successful officers and military leaders are successful because they understand their specific subset of the broader art of war to a degree that sets them apart from others, but for the most part if you were to take an acclaimed officer from one 'domain' and give him command of another, you wouldn't get very good results (and this has popped up a few times over the centuries to validate that point). Rommel on the other hand was a career Infantry officer, who was given command of a Panzer unit without any real formal training in armored warfare and sent into battle less than 3 months later to more than impressive results. For all the crap the Allies get over their lackluster performance during the invasion of France, they were by no means inept. For Rommel to have had the success he did there with no real experience in leading an armored unit speaks to a brilliance that isn't often seen.
)
