If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   150 Years of Misunderstanding the Civil War   (theatlantic.com) divider line 387
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19634 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2013 at 6:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



387 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-20 07:36:03 AM  

StaleCoffee


Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.


As with any war, the "noble cause" and the day-to-day horrors were abstracted from each other.

In the case of the Civil War, you have long rifles firing lead bullets that in some cases were close to an inch in diameter. Such projectiles will make a mess of most humans (even at comparatively low velocity) regardless of motivation. Remember too that battlefield medical treatment could be just as brutal and bloody: there is a reason the doctor's nickname was "sawbones".
 
2013-06-20 07:36:37 AM  

Sandwyrm: UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.


When Kennedy was in a briefing session with XCom, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Maxwell Taylor (the man who commanded the 101st Airborne for much of the war in Northwest Europe) advocated a military response and an invasion of Cuba.

/yet, Taylor was incredibly unhappy with the assassination of Diem a year later
//hawks aren't necessarily snakes
 
2013-06-20 07:38:17 AM  

UNC_Samurai: StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.

It's a plague of popular history.  Even Ken Burns glossed over the horrors of mid-19th century conflict a little.  But if you REALLY want to see gross romanticization in action, go to a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (or find your nearest cluster of Unreconstructed white men who vote libertarian).


Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't happen, I just.. like I said, I figured it was along the lines of romanticizing the medieval era. That at some level most people understood the guy in his shining armor on a pretty horse was the hollywooded equivalent of a brutish grunt covered in entrails and shiat who was only going to live past the age of 30 because he was lucky enough to be born into nobility and have enough to eat, and for that entire period of time the infant mortality rate was 2 out of 3 and people ate and shat out in fields because it stank indoors.

Okay. Maybe I assume people are generally smarter than they are.
 
2013-06-20 07:40:23 AM  

log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.


That is the typical SCV line down here. No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. Meanwhile, my home town has to contend with renaming a park that commemorates a Confederate cavalry general; a very thorny issue with some, not so much for the majority. More wagging, less barking please.....we need to move on, history be damned.
 
2013-06-20 07:42:14 AM  

thamike: For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.


I was reading it thinking "now who the hell would think this was noble?" and then I realized that there are people who still do and they teach that in school.
 
2013-06-20 07:42:36 AM  

way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.


As much as we'd like to believe it, no one has ever started a war based purely on how injustly they feel someone else has been treated (Trojan War doesn't count).  Slavery was certainly important, but as stated more succinctly here :

vossiewulf: ...slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved.

it was the one issue that was guaranteed to cause disagreement between the sides.  Luckily (for those who wanted the war in the Union side) it was also easy to frame as THE moral issue.  All things considered, it was merely a means to an end, namely the Federal government asserting it's authority over seceeding territory.
 
2013-06-20 07:43:35 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: StaleCoffee

Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.


As with any war, the "noble cause" and the day-to-day horrors were abstracted from each other.

In the case of the Civil War, you have long rifles firing lead bullets that in some cases were close to an inch in diameter. Such projectiles will make a mess of most humans (even at comparatively low velocity) regardless of motivation. Remember too that battlefield medical treatment could be just as brutal and bloody: there is a reason the doctor's nickname was "sawbones".


I'm pretty sure that surgeons and doctors were still differentiated at that point but yes, I'm aware. When I was back in high school in the early 90's I remember one of the things our history teacher at the time described was an account of a cannonball just rolling lazily across a field and an "idiot soldier" putting out a foot to stop it like it was a ball, and subsequently losing a leg.
 
2013-06-20 07:44:06 AM  
voice of DOOM!
-succession-
Did the King of America die without leaving an heir?
Now that really IS news to me

I see what you did there, and I approve
 
2013-06-20 07:44:54 AM  

way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.


You are correct to not buy that line.

In Savannah on March 21, 1861 Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens delivered the Cornerstone Speech, a speech intended to do two things.  It told the southern public how the Confederate Constitution differed from its U.S. counterpart, and Stephens hoped it would stoke secessionist attitudes in states which had not yet broken away.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

From the Georgia Declaration of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
And in case anyone didn't get the message, the Declaration ends with this:

But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.


From the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

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

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



From the South Carolina declaration:

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.


The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


Texas might have been the most blunt:

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

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.


The full text of these declarations
 
2013-06-20 07:45:57 AM  

StaleCoffee: Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.


Hey now, there are several shades of SCA. There are the folks who take it waaaaayyyyy too seriously,

I just enjoy the multi-person rapier melees in the woods (you'd be surprised at how much tactics and good coordination can effect even simple 20-man rapier melees, even without ranged weapons. Its kind of neat). I'm not sure it's so much romanticism as enjoying melee combat and combat archery. The middle ages sucked.
 
2013-06-20 07:46:26 AM  

way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.


Slavery was a festering question since the founding of the country.  Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person not because of their race but because the free states knew that counting them as whole persons (even though they couldn't vote) would give slave states disproportionate representation in the House.  The compromise gave free states (mostly northern and smaller than the southern states) enough power in the House to mitigate the influence of the larger slave states.

Slavery is a demonstrably failed economic model.  Perhaps we could have eliminated slavery without the Civil War.  But war highlighted the failure of the slavery model more spectacularly than any amount of learned discourse or diplomacy - especially when dealing with several generations of slave owners.
 
2013-06-20 07:46:28 AM  

UNC_Samurai: Sandwyrm: UNC_Samurai:

Interesting, I never truly thought on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the subject of successfully prevented wars.  It's slightly strange to think how much things would have changed with a tiny difference.  That is true, but I would hasten to add that as long as the war stayed conventional, the Soviets would have been in a very poor tactical situation in Cuba.  Unless they were willing to open a European front, they would have lost Cuba with a quickness.  Not taking into account a protracted guerilla war which would have seriously sapped American power for a long time, of course.

Definitely an interesting scenario, I'm going to think more on it.

When Kennedy was in a briefing session with XCom, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Maxwell Taylor (the man who commanded the 101st Airborne for much of the war in Northwest Europe) advocated a military response and an invasion of Cuba.

/yet, Taylor was incredibly unhappy with the assassination of Diem a year later
//hawks aren't necessarily snakes


"Hello Commander. In response to the Alien threat, this council of Nations has chosen to activate the XCOM project."
 
2013-06-20 07:48:12 AM  

Mr. Right: way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.
It wasn't focused on slavery, but slaves were the economic engine of the south and the treatment of the black man (as well as endentured servants and the like) stood in opposition to the founding ideals of the nation.

It was about money and power and this made slavery a pretty big part of the story.

Slavery was a festering question since the founding of the country.  Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person not because of their race but because the free states knew that counting them as whole persons (even though they couldn't vote) would give slave states disproportionate representation in the House.  The compromise gave free states (mostly northern and smaller than the southern states) enough power in the House to mitigate the influence of the larger slave states.

Slavery is a demonstrably failed economic model.  Perhaps we could have eliminated slavery without the Civil War.  But war highlighted the failure of the slavery model more spectacularly than any amount of learned discourse or diplomacy - especially when dealing with several generations of slave owners.


Last time I made that argument in a Fark thread I was labeled a troll and a liar, but got a TF sponsorship. Fark is weird.
 
2013-06-20 07:48:39 AM  

UNC_Samurai: (documents detailing slavery to be THE central issue) ...


Hmm... I guess I was mistaken, then.
 
2013-06-20 07:48:59 AM  

StaleCoffee: UNC_Samurai: StaleCoffee: Where do they teach that the Civil War was some romantic, noble cause? Even my 6 year old has been taught that it was bloody, miserable and one of the most brutal wars the U.S. has ever participated in. It's the go-to subject for Why We Should Talk Things Out First as a simple explanation for younger folks. Hell, even most of the films I've seen focus on the free license for grisly demonstration of exploding limbs, not gallant men giving long speeches to each other as they gently bleed out on a sunny field.

It's a plague of popular history.  Even Ken Burns glossed over the horrors of mid-19th century conflict a little.  But if you REALLY want to see gross romanticization in action, go to a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (or find your nearest cluster of Unreconstructed white men who vote libertarian).

Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

I'm not saying that stuff doesn't happen, I just.. like I said, I figured it was along the lines of romanticizing the medieval era. That at some level most people understood the guy in his shining armor on a pretty horse was the hollywooded equivalent of a brutish grunt covered in entrails and shiat who was only going to live past the age of 30 because he was lucky enough to be born into nobility and have enough to eat, and for that entire period of time the infant mortality rate was 2 out of 3 and people ate and shat out in fields because it stank indoors.

Okay. Maybe I assume people are generally smarter than they are.


scumshine: log_jammin: 1. The war had nothing to do with slavery.

2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

3. The south didn't care about slavery, just their freedom.

4. The north started the war.

There. all your southern historical revisionism in one tidy little package.

That is the typical SCV line down here. No amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. Meanwhile, my home town has to contend with renaming a park that commemorates a Confederate cavalry general; a very thorny issue with some, not so much for the majority. More wagging, less barking please.....we need to move on, history be damned.


Yep, gotta agree with scumshine, you'd be surprised at what The Lost Cause mentality has done for cognitive dissonance down here (although in my personal biased opinion, the reenactors are far more level-headed than the Rotary Club-level historians).


You almost wonder if Shaara and Maxwell wrote this line for ACW enthusiasts as much as for Lee to say to Longstreet:

We are never quite prepared for so many to die. Oh, we do expect the occasional empty chair. A salute to fallen comrades. But this war goes on and on and the men die and the price gets ever higher. We are prepared to lose some of us, but we are never prepared to lose all of us.
 
2013-06-20 07:50:02 AM  
I was born in the south, but grew up in Maryland (yes, yes, technically still the south). It was an amusing contrast in cognitive dissonance.

At this time in my life though, I'm not sure I could say I know anyone who doesn't understand the point of the war. Regardless of how textbooks and teachers portray it, Obama used his time machine to go into the past, assassinate Lincoln, dress himself up in a Lincoln costume, declare civil war, and then later on pay Lee Harvey Oswald millions of dollars to go back in time as well, dress up as John Wilkes Booth, and shoot the Lincoln costume in the head while Obama snuck back into the future to sleep with more white women.


/Don't even get me started on how Obama assassinated a young, business-minded, deregulation-focused Stalin and played him off as the power-mad communist we know today.
//Obama also killed Jesus
///And Jerry Falwell
 
2013-06-20 07:53:18 AM  

Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?


Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?
 
2013-06-20 07:54:11 AM  

ph0rk: Deadite: That regardless of how loud a southerner screams it, the Civil War was actually the war of southern treason and not the war of northern aggression?

Do you think of the revolutionary war as the war of American treason?


Treason is such a relative term.

/hello NSA
 
2013-06-20 07:54:56 AM  

Felgraf: StaleCoffee: Do people really take that seriously? I always looked at them the same way I look at SCA folks and other LARPers. I give the tabletop wargamers more credit since they need to understand casualty rates to actually win a game.

Hey now, there are several shades of SCA. There are the folks who take it waaaaayyyyy too seriously,

I just enjoy the multi-person rapier melees in the woods (you'd be surprised at how much tactics and good coordination can effect even simple 20-man rapier melees, even without ranged weapons. Its kind of neat). I'm not sure it's so much romanticism as enjoying melee combat and combat archery. The middle ages sucked.


That sounds cool but even that sounds more like "I think this would be neat" instead of "This is historically accurate to some degree" since what I recall of rapiers they were a late period sword that came with the end of the middle ages.

It's not that people don't take it seriously, it's that their seriousness is in the same category as the rotund, grizzled elderman in the Comic/Hobby shop who glares at anyone who isn't a regular and yells at his ancient mother working the cash register. He'll be happy to rant about why Games Workshop is the devil and how tabletop gaming is a legitimate qualification for OCS. The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.
 
2013-06-20 07:55:36 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.


The Emancipation Proclamation did not unilaterally end slavery and free slaves. It only proclaimed slaves free in states not under Union control.

The hope of the Proclamation was that freed Southern slaves would rise up and help the Union win the Civil War by attacking the South from within.

Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.

Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was a convenience (or an inconvenience).

Citations? Everywhere.

/ lawdy lawdy Lincoln done freed me!
// no, not really
/// silly "revisionists"
/V slavery is not ok
 
2013-06-20 07:56:12 AM  

StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.


Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.
 
2013-06-20 07:57:37 AM  

teto85: Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The South was allowed to win the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.


The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.
 
2013-06-20 07:57:59 AM  

ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.


Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.
 
2013-06-20 07:58:30 AM  

teto85: Fail. Nothing about the election of 1876 wherein Tilden let Hayes win with the promise that Reconstruction would end and the federal government would look the other way when the states do not enforce the 14th and 15th amendments.  The North and South was allowed to win both won the Civil War from the point of view of continued economic slavery and second class citizenship of African-Americans even up into this very day.  Political expediency. Get the Presidency and let the country be damned.



There, fixed that for you.
 
2013-06-20 07:59:34 AM  
DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?
 
2013-06-20 08:01:08 AM  

DamnYankees: The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.


Given what transpired during the reconstruction, I can't believe they simply quit the field. They were actively screwing the remnants of the South on all fronts. (While the Southerners were trying to come up with new ways to politically manipulate the old racial order).

It just wasn't/isn't as important to people outside the South, so those Northern voices aren't as loud. In many places here, it is still very, very important.

All that said: Zinn
 
2013-06-20 08:01:08 AM  

hb0mb: Neither side cared about black people.


I disagree, the south cared quiet a bit about black people. They cared about continuing to own them.
 
2013-06-20 08:02:17 AM  

ur14me: TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: hb0mb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_Creek

This happened in the little county where I grew up (not originally from there).  Neither side cared about black people.  Lincoln used the issue as a means to an end.

log_jammin: 2. Lincoln didn't care about black people.

From quotes I've read it seems that Lincoln did earnestly believe that slavery was wrong.  However, he also believed that segregation was right and that black people were inherently inferior to white people.

What counts as progressive obviously changes with the times.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not unilaterally end slavery and free slaves. It only proclaimed slaves free in states not under Union control.

The hope of the Proclamation was that freed Southern slaves would rise up and help the Union win the Civil War by attacking the South from within.

Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.

Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery was a convenience (or an inconvenience).

Citations? Everywhere.

/ lawdy lawdy Lincoln done freed me!
// no, not really
/// silly "revisionists"
/V slavery is not ok


Those were war powers and freed slaves in non-border states and non-union states but did not make slavery illegal. Those items were not within the scope of powers granted to Lincoln in wartime.
 
2013-06-20 08:03:06 AM  

StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.


You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:13 AM  

ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.


You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:23 AM  
It was ultimately fought over the right of a state to volunteraly leave the Union. Unfortunately the issue that caused states to want to leave was slavery wich is like the most dick thing you could be hell bent to save.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:35 AM  

Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?


I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:48 AM  

StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.

You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.


Correction: hallucination in response to reality.
 
2013-06-20 08:04:55 AM  

ur14me: Lincoln also supported recolonization of the inferior race (his words) to Liberia.


Lincoln, like Henry Clay, used the rhetoric of colonization as a means of political expediency.  It was a way to find compromise to blunt any potential spread of slavery into the western territories.  He may have believed in the concept at one time, but there's been enough research on Lincoln to know he was pretty shrewd when it came to those things.
 
2013-06-20 08:06:59 AM  
hiker9999:
""If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." http://www.angelfire.com/my/abrahamlincoln/Greeley.html">(Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862) "

I'm not sure what exact point you're trying to make by quoting this. This was a public utterance made AFTER he had already decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It is the clear attempt by a politician to prepare the public for what was coming. By this time Lincoln had decided (as had most Republicans) that slavery had to go. He was just trying to figure out how to do it legally, particularly in the border states where he could not abolish it as a war aim.

One of the biggest problems with linconology is that people forget the man was a politician and that his public utterances (which is most of what remains for him) cannot be taken as accurate portrayals of either his "real" opinion (which we know was always changing) or even his policy.
 
2013-06-20 08:09:49 AM  
DamnYankees:

I see, thank you.
 
2013-06-20 08:10:44 AM  
Slavery. Just say slavery.
 
2013-06-20 08:11:46 AM  

DamnYankees: Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?

I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.


And they worshiped their military, leaders and soldiers, and built statues of them in defiant positions.  They never developed a "stabbed-in-the-back" mentality, however; probably some lingering success of Lincoln's "malice toward none, charity toward all" attitude.

/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss
 
2013-06-20 08:13:13 AM  

UNC_Samurai: //wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments


I'd actually be interesting in reading that if you had it handy.
 
2013-06-20 08:13:47 AM  

StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: ph0rk: StaleCoffee: The kind of serious that isn't well connected to reality.

Reality is just shared hallucination - you don't happen to be sharing his.

Okay, feel free to ignore physics, personally I'll keep gravity in mind when I'm looking at a cliff.

You were discussing social rules, structure, and values. You don't think those things are as simple, predictable, or as deterministic as physics, do you?

If so, you're the one with the relatively unshared hallucination.

You used the words hallucination and reality. If you want to over simplify an idea you get an oversimplified response.


You are the one that used the world "reality" to describe the social. Fall back to the physical sciences to defend your point if you must, but are you claiming that the social world is analogous to the physical one in terms of rules?
 
2013-06-20 08:14:02 AM  
img.fark.net

Totally not worth it.
 
2013-06-20 08:20:06 AM  
 The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.
Then it had a civil war to add the caveat, "Except if that government is us."

I look at it as a constitutional issue. The 10th amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That means that if the constitution does not grant the power to control something to the federal government, that power is granted to the states or to its people. The constitution does not cover a state leaving the union, therefore under the 10th amendment, the right to secede from the union is the right of a state.

From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-20 08:20:55 AM  

Securitywyrm: The United states, founded on the premise that a group of people has the moral and ethical right to break away from a government that is mistreating its people.


So slave rebellions were constitutionally valid attempts at secession?
 
2013-06-20 08:21:33 AM  

UNC_Samurai: DamnYankees: Sandwyrm: DamnYankees:

The North also surrendered the field of popular myth in order to give the South its dignity back. That's what's screwed our historiography.

Can you explain this, please?

I'll see if I can find a good link explaining it, but basically the story is that the South had a massive vested interested in telling a story and creating a history in which they were the good guys, and the North really didn't care about doing that very much. Partially because the North was also full of racists so they had no desire to characterize themselves as black saviors, and partially because having won the war, the North just didn't really feel the need to 'vindicate' themselves in the same way. Over the course of 50 years between 1870 and 1920 or so, that just of let to the Lost Cause myth becoming pervasive, since Southern writers were pushing it hard and there wasn't much pushback from the other side. By the time there was a lot of pushback, all the main players were dead and it just became the "he said she said" dispute we have today.

And they worshiped their military, leaders and soldiers, and built statues of them in defiant positions.  They never developed a "stabbed-in-the-back" mentality, however; probably some lingering success of Lincoln's "malice toward none, charity toward all" attitude.

/yes, I went there
//wrote a historiography a few years ago comparing German WWI and WWII memorials to Confederate monuments
///guess which group's monuments did more to convey a sense of regret and loss


After WWII, many of the stories and newspaper articles centered around common people feeling betrayed about the real reasons for the war. Even the U.S. had a generally favorable public opinion toward what the Germans were doing prior to the Japanese attacking us. There were no illusions for the South. They knew what they were doing, for what reasons they supported the activity, and what they would lose if they could not accomplish their ends. There really is no regret comparison between the two that is worthwhile.
 
2013-06-20 08:21:51 AM  
As with most wars, the Civil War was ultimately about power, money, and territory. It isn't incorrect that slavery was a key factor in the Civil War, but the understanding of why slavery was such an issue is often totally left behind.

Yes, a whole lot of white people truly believed they were the superior race to black people. But more importantly than that, they knew that slaves were their livelihood (and by they, I mean predominantly rich white guys; poor white guys really couldn't afford to keep slaves). Industry in the south was kept booming by slave workers and the north was frankly very nervous about the amount of power and influence commanded by the south's product. Is it such a shocking departure from reality that corporate interest was such a divisive issue that a country was willing to go to war over it?

Whether there were some who supported the moral crusade to end slavery during the Civil War or not is not in question: there were plenty of sympathizers who genuinely wanted to end America's slave institution. But there were a great deal more politicians who simply wanted the south to be subject to more federal rule and for their growing influence to be quashed by nature of economic neutering.

The Civil War did result in an untold amount of death and suffering, and it did fail on many levels to alleviate the blight of the slavery institution, but it just goes to demonstrate that...

/war...
//war never changes
 
2013-06-20 08:22:06 AM  
Iverson reported. "This ain't practice, man.  This is the game.  This is the game where I go out there and die, man.  This ain't practice.  This ain't practice, man.  We aint' talking bout practice."
 
2013-06-20 08:22:19 AM  

Securitywyrm: I look at it as a constitutional issue.


Then you're an idiot.
 
2013-06-20 08:24:20 AM  
"We've decided the Civil War is a 'good war' because it destroyed slavery," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina. "I think it's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they had to slaughter each other to do that."

The only reason we had to slaughter each other is because the South couldn't learn to f*cking deal with the fact that sometimes politics doesn't go your way and they became traitors who should have all been hanged.
 
2013-06-20 08:26:09 AM  
Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.  If the Union was so upset over slavery, why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation apply to slaves owned in northern states?

However, I'm going to roll my eyes just as hard at anyone saying the south didn't love them some slavery.  It was the economic engine that made many of them obscenely wealthy.  Of course they would have a hissy fit over it being threatened.

The Civil War wasn't a war of good American vs evil Americans.  It was a war of young Americans being ordered to fight by stupid Americans.
 
2013-06-20 08:26:21 AM  

Kome: "We've decided the Civil War is a 'good war' because it destroyed slavery," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a historian at the University of North Carolina. "I think it's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they had to slaughter each other to do that."

The only reason we had to slaughter each other is because the South couldn't learn to f*cking deal with the fact that sometimes politics doesn't go your way and they became traitors who should have all been hanged.


That's an amazing quote in its myopia and racial view of the world. It's an indictment of 19th century Americans that they fought a war to end slavery? How about no - its an indictment of 17th through 19th century Americans that they fought a war ON THE SLAVES to keep them enslaved.
 
Displayed 50 of 387 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report