Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While there is some truth to your post NELS, you still only glean the surface of the reasoning and understanding of the CSA. It is hard for us to understand how much they loved their land back then. It wasn't just the idea they loved, they treasured the very soil itself, much like many Texans I know. To attach your love to the physical land itself and blend it with an idea is an extremely powerful motivator for the hearts of men...

Manchu wrote:NELS1031, your opinion is the best argument in favor of Confederate History Month given that it reveals the paucity of accurate information concerning the average confederate soldier, his motivations and priorities, and the circumstances of his life.

The winner writes the history books and thats where my opinion was informed

I'm an open minded dude, so if you have any info, or can point me in the right direction that may better inform my views, feel free to unload.

Fateweaver wrote:As to GHM what's wrong with the idea (well, unless you are a liberal)?

Well, we already have Veteran's Day for war, and the history of war makes a lot more sense as a subject than the history of guns.

Plus, shouldn't "guns don't kill people, people kill people" also mean "guns don't save people, people save people"?

NELS1031 wrote:I'm an open minded dude, so if you have any info, or can point me in the right direction that may better inform my views, feel free to unload.

Although it is sometimes criticized for being biased toward the Union cause, this isn't a bad place to start learning about the Civil War.

JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is some truth to your post NELS, you still only glean the surface of the reasoning and understanding of the CSA. It is hard for us to understand how much they loved their land back then. It wasn't just the idea they loved, they treasured the very soil itself, much like many Texans I know. To attach your love to the physical land itself and blend it with an idea is an extremely powerful motivator for the hearts of men...

Just out of curiosity if we can overlook slavery (which the CSA chose to protect a half dozen times in their constitution) can't we overlook anything?

Are Nazis, Imperial Japanese, the Khemer Rouge, Red Guard, blah blah blah similarly worthy of respect and admiration? THey really, really (x2) loved their land too. Is there anyone NOT worthy so long as they loved their soil?

Love of Soil v. Love of Slavery is not the spectrum balanced in the heart of Confederate soldiers. K_K, you're asking questions about the present framed in questions about the past. Is it not enough to say that a Confederate History Month that does not exclude mention of slavery is good and acceptable? Or do you really believe that the Confederate cause is so exactly analogous to Nazi genocide? Seeing as how I have respect for you, I'm phrasing this as a question rather than some supposedly-witty barb.

@KK: Aren't you ignoring slavery in the Union? I haven't noticed your willingness to throw the Union under the bus, despite several of its states actively owning slaves, and them making no attempt to eliminate it until after the Civil War....

It's probably a lot easier to criticise the union than it is to defend the confederacy.

Easiest of all is to criticize the Confederacy. Followed by defending the Union.

Of course it is, but I am merely noting his seeming obsession with reminding us all of the CSA's stance on slavery and ignoring anything else, and pointing out a casual dismissal of the Union's acceptance of slavery. Of course slavery is abhorrent, but people should take things in a more broad perspective, and not be so quick to absolve some people of sin while denouncing others as heretics...

I think what is important to remember is that the extreme minority that held the wealth and slaves in the South convinced the majority of poor, undereducated, white people to go die so they wouldn't have to be in a Democratic Republic where you don't always get your way. Of course this was all a plot by the lizard people to try and keep the Greys (which ironically resided in the North) from being able to gather intelligence on their plans for global dominance.

A more accurate view of history I have never read Ahtman...

Fateweaver wrote:Gotcha. It still can be construed as racist and I know a few people who think it's utter crap that BHM exists but if someone wanted to make, say August, WHM they'd be shot down as racist. Whites might still be the majority in the majority of the US but that doesn't mean that BHM is accepted and recognized as a time to point out all the good Black people have done by everyone.

Sure, I don't really like the idea of Black History Month, it has a feel of tokenism to it. I think it would be better to review the teaching of normal history to include more stories from minorities.

I was just pointing out the significant difference between focussing on a minority for a short time and focussing on a majority for a short time, when that majority dominates history as taught already.

Me, I could care less. If the Latino's want to have a LHM more power to them. Me, I want a Gun History Month. A month to celebrate all the good that guns have done for our country.

I really like and really hate this idea all at once. I think it'd be an interesting view to look at the evolution of guns over time, it'd shine a light on technological progress, on lifestyles at different times, and finally on the changing face of war over time.

On the other hand I think we focus on the violence in history too much, causing people to lose track of how the majority have lived their lives. It doesn’t make sense as a national focus, but amongst a community that’s already pretty interested in guns it’d be a good way to get them looking at history in a different light.

JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is some truth to your post NELS, you still only glean the surface of the reasoning and understanding of the CSA. It is hard for us to understand how much they loved their land back then. It wasn't just the idea they loved, they treasured the very soil itself, much like many Texans I know. To attach your love to the physical land itself and blend it with an idea is an extremely powerful motivator for the hearts of men...

Sure, it should be pointed out that the greater political reasons for war do not translate down to the soldier on the ground. A whole lot of soldiers fought because their home state called on them to fight so they did. Loyalty to Virginia or whatever state a man called home was a really important thing.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Just out of curiosity if we can overlook slavery (which the CSA chose to protect a half dozen times in their constitution) can't we overlook anything?

Are Nazis, Imperial Japanese, the Khemer Rouge, Red Guard, blah blah blah similarly worthy of respect and admiration? THey really, really (x2) loved their land too. Is there anyone NOT worthy so long as they loved their soil?

I don’t think you have to ignore slavery in order to recognise that individual soldiers might have fought for other reasons. I think we can recognise, for instance, that the Nazis were genocidal nutters while recognising a lot of soldiers simply fought to defend Germany, or simply because they were drafted and they had to go.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@KK: Aren't you ignoring slavery in the Union? I haven't noticed your willingness to throw the Union under the bus, despite several of its states actively owning slaves, and them making no attempt to eliminate it until after the Civil War....

Again, one can recognise that the North was not that interested in slavery while realising that it was the primary political issue in the Confederacy’s decision to secede.

Abolition was a growing political force, primarily in the North. This caused a great deal of concern in the South and was used heavily in the presidential election as a reason to vote against that Northerner Lincoln. Lincoln won and the South wigged out. Precede that with some stuff about Buchanan being an incompetent git and you’ve just about covered a complete explanation as to how one part of a country can secede over something that wasn’t a priority to the whole.

Manchu wrote:Love of Soil v. Love of Slavery is not the spectrum balanced in the heart of Confederate soldiers. K_K, you're asking questions about the present framed in questions about the past. Is it not enough to say that a Confederate History Month that does not exclude mention of slavery is good and acceptable? Or do you really believe that the Confederate cause is so exactly analogous to Nazi genocide? Seeing as how I have respect for you, I'm phrasing this as a question rather than some supposedly-witty barb.

THe subject at hand is 2010's Confederate History Month, so I think presentism is justified. If someone declares 'Manifest Destiny Month' or 'Colonize the Philippines Month' or 'Transcontinental Railroad Month' discussion of the racism in each of those events would be appropriate even if people back in the day did not think in those terms. Deliberately omitting the issue and calling it insignificant would be deplored.

Godwin's Law really does not apply here. We had a group that took up arms against a democracy, launched unprovoked aggression against that democracy all to defend a race-based genocidal system. So yeah, comparing their cause to that of Nazi Germany is not inappropriate. Lots of German soldiers loved their country, there were lots of causes including the Versides Treaty and poorly drawn borders but y'know what the evil of their cause overshadows any attempt to remember them.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@KK: Aren't you ignoring slavery in the Union? I haven't noticed your willingness to throw the Union under the bus, despite several of its states actively owning slaves, and them making no attempt to eliminate it until after the Civil War....

Is this 'Slavery in the Union History Month'? Did the governor of Maryland call on us to remember the sacrifices of Maryland's sons to defend slavery in that state? I've been attacking slavery as a whole from the start. People point out that Lincoln's Emmancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the Union but conveniently forget that he had not authority to free the slaves in the Union. As commander-in-chief he could free them in lands occupied by Union troops but not in loyal states. And the Republicans did free slaves in the Union as soon as they could through the 13-15 ammendments. The almost 100 years of slavery in the union is an abomination in our history.

Which is why I am so irked at being asked to remember the sacrifices of those who fought to preserve it.

There's not much difference between the CSA and US constitutions, except that the CSA constitution had far more protections for slavery and even commanded it be maintained in its present form forever.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Godwin's Law really does not apply here. We had a group that took up arms against a democracy, launched unprovoked aggression against that democracy all to defend a race-based genocidal system.

I'm not seeing how southern slavery was genocidal. Nor would I think that defending their system of domestic racism was a significant reason for German aggression.

@KK: Have any of us defended slavery? Name one and I will concede the point. Not one person has ever said that it was a good thing, but I think it is unfair to lump all those brave men and women who fought for their homes in with the institution of slavery. Nearly half the CSA states only joined because Pres. Lincoln exhibited tyrannical power by creating an army to force the Southern states into submission and for suspending the Writ of Habaeus Corpus in Maryland. There were several Confederate generals who we should all be proud to call Americans, and should be honored, and equally there were horrible ones whose legacy should be remembered for their inhumanity. That is what you should take into consideration before reminding us, again and again and again of something we already know.

I see Orkeo and JEB have this covered.

For those still wondering what the war was about.

Mississippi's declaration of secession before the Civil War said: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

It was about sun burns!

We probably should have been quicker to invent straw hats.

Or just imported them from French Indo-China...

On the positive I am having fun arguing they were a bunch of no good traitors on another board. For some reason that means I am a communist...

Leave the state then. I am actually enjoying the State of Va. thank you very much. I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite. Oh feth Black History month. I am tired of the bull gak.

To me, CHM reflects the political climate we have today. A country so divided that talks of secession are not unheard of.

On one side, we have an opportunity for change (abolitionists/socialized healthcare) and on the otherside we have those who wish to keep the status quo (slavery/capitalist healthcare).

Money, as always is the heart of the matter.

While I am a social liberal and a fiscal moderate, this seems to me to be a play for some political reason to make CHM again. Incite the hippy libs into fits of poofy rage? Give the gun blasting cons a reason for thoughts of secession? Whatever the reason, there seems to be a underlining reason for this, a political maneuver of some kind.

When liberal governors are in office there, CHM isnt recognized. When con governors are in office, its always recognized.

What good does it do for the cons to attempt to validate this without recognizing the reason why the confederacy was made in the first place? It always "slips their mind" when CHM is recognized. If anything is a historical rewrite, its the attempt by the cons to validate the confederate position without acknowledging their reasons for being.

Damn I hate politics.

ounumen wrote:I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite.

So, wait, are you trying to say that any historical event which is not commemorated via some sort of 'History Month' has been written out of history? I guess that doesn't bode well for the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Cold War, World War II, the Louisiana Purchase, and any number of other historical events.

You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.

On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.

On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).

Thats just because you're jealous of our lack 3 feet+ snowfalls...

dogma wrote:

ounumen wrote:I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite.

So, wait, are you trying to say that any historical event which is not commemorated via some sort of 'History Month' has been written out of history? I guess that doesn't bode well for the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Cold War, World War II, the Louisiana Purchase, and any number of other historical events.

I cant wait for McCarthy History Month. I shall point fingers. I shall report my parents social activities. I shall regard anythign different than me to be an anathematic abomination.

Hellfury wrote:

dogma wrote:

ounumen wrote:I suppose we should forget it ever happene.d Go Go historical rewrite.

So, wait, are you trying to say that any historical event which is not commemorated via some sort of 'History Month' has been written out of history? I guess that doesn't bode well for the Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, McCarthyism, the Cold War, World War II, the Louisiana Purchase, and any number of other historical events.

I cant wait for McCarthy History Month. I shall point fingers. I shall report my parents social activities. I shall regard anythign different than me to be an anathematic abomination.

Sounds like college.

Frazzled wrote:On the positive I am having fun arguing they were a bunch of no good traitors on another board. For some reason that means I am a communist...

That's my position on the CSA; you can imagine how popular it makes me here in good ole Tennessee...

Frazzled wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:You know, I don't really have a problem with the South having decided to secede.

On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with invading the newly formed slave-empire to the south of us after this happens either (especially after having already taken over a bunch of Mexico).

Thats just because you're jealous of our lack 3 feet+ snowfalls...

But with summer coming we can relax in the mosquito filled humidity instead!