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 89
    More: Interesting, evangelical christianity, American wars, Battle of Gettysburg, Union Army, Emancipation Proclamation, Gettysburg Address, Na Tuk Kong, Drew Gilpin Faust  
•       •       •

19631 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-20 12:30:59 AM
18 votes:
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.
2013-06-20 06:39:19 AM
7 votes:
I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.
2013-06-19 11:45:14 PM
6 votes:
It was bad because we didn't simply let the retards go and form their own dystopia.

*runs*
2013-06-20 07:17:13 AM
5 votes:
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?
2013-06-20 07:18:20 AM
4 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: 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.

There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.


I have a really, really hard time labeling any war as unavoidable.  One of the core courses of my undergrad major (and I can't remember the official title) was "Why Nations Declare War...and Peace", taught two doors down the hall from Dr. Brundage's office.  The driving force behind a state initiating a conflict is the mis-perception of relative abilities to conduct war; aggressor nations always believe they are stronger relative to their target than they really are.  But a second tenet of the course was that war is never inevitable; this serves to counteract an ill-conceived notion that emerged in the 1920s and again in the 1950s that the First World War was somehow "going to happen, it was a matter of time, what with all the military spending" (which was muddying cause and effect).

I believe that the American Civil War occurred when it did because the insurrectionists believed they could successfully defend their territory against an invasion from the north, but as Sherman pointed out in Louisiana in 1861:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth - right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

Sectional conflict in the U.S. was highly likely, but I don't think we can label it as inevitable.  Many of the same conditions regarding the balance of power existed in the Caribbean in 1961, but a war over missiles in Cuba turned out to not be inevitable.
2013-06-20 02:35:32 AM
4 votes:

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.




There are two Lincoln's: the private and the politician. The Private Lincoln abhorred slavery-and practiced equality. Booker T Washington, who was not a fan of Lincoln's policies, said that the President treated him like a normal person, not a curiosity.

The Political Lincoln stated that Slavery was constitutionally protected in the south...he was against expanding it into the west. He also made public statements saying that he did not believe that black and whites were equal... But they should be treated the same under law. (Nor did he say one race was better than the other.) The reason Lincoln took this stand, was to appeal to be the middle road between the Abolitionist and the traditionalist. It's how he got the GOP nomination.

The ultimate truth was That the Civil War was unavoidable. And Lincoln's ultimate goal was the preservation of the Union.
2013-06-20 01:29:40 AM
4 votes:

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.
2013-06-21 12:18:22 AM
3 votes:
Who gives a shiat? The South lost, they're still butthurt, fark them.
2013-06-20 08:56:06 AM
3 votes:

badhatharry: Only very rich people had slaves. Most of the people fighting and dying for the South weren't doing it for slavery.


It's called last place aversion.

There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

This is actually blatantly false.

1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-20 07:44:54 AM
3 votes:

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 07:15:39 AM
3 votes:

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.
2013-06-20 12:21:41 AM
3 votes:
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.
2013-06-20 12:07:17 AM
3 votes:
He goes on to impeach politicians, extremists, and the influence of evangelical Christianity for polarizing the nation to the point where compromise or reasoned debate became impossible.

Good thing that would never happen today!
2013-06-19 11:50:47 PM
3 votes:
This is the field where the battle did not happen,
where the unknown soldier did not die.
This is the field where grass joined hands,
where no monument stands,
and the only heroic thing is the sky.

Birds fly here without any sound,
unfolding their wings across the open.
No people killed - or were killed - on this ground
hollowed by the neglect of an air so tame
that people celebrate it by forgetting its name.

- William Stafford
2013-06-20 01:38:00 PM
2 votes:

Phinn: A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others. At what percentage does it cease to be slavery? 90%? 80%

At some point before the person is no longer property, need no longer fear arbitrary physical punishment for insubordination to the boss, enjoys full political franchise including the right to run for public office, may own his own property, may travel at will, including beyond his own national borders, may find new employment better suited to his own satisfaction, may even obtain substantial assistance from the government which purportedly "enslaves" him to educate himself in order to improve his lot, enjoys the legal right to benefit on equal terms with those similarly situated to himself from the government's expenditure of his tax dollars paid...


You are not a slave. You are one of the most free, privileged persons ever to walk the planet. A lawfully imposed income tax pursuant to a power expressly granted to the federal government has nothing substantial in common with slavery whatsoever.


This is not a question of opinion. It is a question of IQ. Either you understand the difference between slavery and taxes imposed pursuant to law in a democratic society, or you don't. And if you don't, your failure to understand derives from a deficit in your cognition relating to your ability to process abstract concepts. That deficit in turn may arise from damage to your cerebral cortex sustained in the course of repeatedly beating your head against a hard object such as a brick wall.


My prescription: a medical safety helmet, to be worn at all times. Even around the house.


img.fark.net
2013-06-20 09:12:38 AM
2 votes:

badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.


img.fark.net
2013-06-20 08:59:09 AM
2 votes:

Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.


Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

Frederick farking Douglass
2013-06-20 08:54:39 AM
2 votes:

badhatharry: There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.


........someone smack this man
2013-06-20 08:21:51 AM
2 votes:
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 08:04:35 AM
2 votes:

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 08:04:23 AM
2 votes:
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 08:04:13 AM
2 votes:

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 08:01:08 AM
2 votes:

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 07:57:37 AM
2 votes:

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 07:53:18 AM
2 votes:

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 07:29:35 AM
2 votes:

ChaosStar: Would we have had G.W. Carver or MLK jr without slavery? Would Ms. Tubman have been able to be a beacon of selflessness, determination, and ingenuity to future generations without slavery to fight against?


Without the Nazis, Audie Murphy wouldn't have had a chance to become such a decorated war hero.  I still would have preferred to not have the Nazis instead.
2013-06-20 06:56:36 AM
2 votes:

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


There's nothing uplifting about war.  It's a dirty business, anyone can and does recognize that.

It doesn't remove the fact that some men shine through as heroes in a war.  It doesn't negate whatever noble causes were championed by either side.  Recognizing the gritty reality does not demean the sincere idealism of the volunteers of the army or the honor of the men who were drafted, but carried out their obligation despite any chances they might have had to escape.

War is a tool of statecraft, as valid as any negotiation or trade deal.  War happens when a diplomat fails, but the interests of the nation needs to be carried out regardless.

I detest these hippies* who flop around on the ground bemoaning war as if it's the ultimate damnation of man.  Evil comes in many forms, and definitely is more noticeable during periods of intense emotions such as prolonged warfare can inspire, but is not isolated to this one activity.

You are attacking a ghost, insulting a naive strawman who doesn't truly exist.

*By hippies, I mean the word in it's original definition, not the broadly vague term used by people mocking the conservative stereotype.
2013-06-20 01:56:06 AM
2 votes:
On July 1st, 1863, Alfred Iverson ordered his brigade of North Carolinians across an open field. The soldiers marched in tight formation until Union riflemen suddenly rose from behind a stone wall and opened fire. Five hundred rebels fell dead or wounded "on a line as straight as a dress parade," Iverson reported.

Tactical stupidity says nothing about the war, there was much of this on both sides. The carryover of Napoleonic tactics out of military inertia combined with the accuracy of rifled weapons, and later repeating carbines, guaranteed bloodbaths. If you've ever seen that field, you'd be stupefied that his plan was to send guys across an open field towards guys in excellent cover behind a stone wall and extending into woods, but that was the tactical doctrine of the day. Go look at the genius Federal plan at Fredericksburg, or back to Gettysburg, Pickett's "charge" on the third day.

And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.

All that means is in hindsight, the tactical doctrines of the day seem ill conceived.

As for the strategic view, it's very simple: slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved. And therefore in the end it was the cause of the war, what it was fought to decide, and the Confederacy was very much on the wrong side of that conflict.
2013-06-20 10:10:34 PM
1 votes:
Waldo Pepper:
The only winning move...
2013-06-20 05:18:20 PM
1 votes:

StaleCoffee: StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: sorry I didn't make myself clear (just read what i wrote) when I cited the book. I was trying to reaffirm a previous post about how some in the south thought the slaves would be happy to fight for them and how they were actually shocked that the slaves fled to the Union side to be free. I was unclear.

I was also trying and it appears failing to point out how the plantation life appears much like life in Hollywood where they are in their own little world and are amazed that there is a real world out there that is vastly different from their spoiled life and no matter how happy people appear to be in working for them, almost all would rather be free or in the case of those working for the spoiled class they would rather be not have to be at their beck and call 24/7.

I don't believe I was painting a picture of the southern life being a downtrodden tragedy. I do believe they felt it was within the right to defend and protect their way of life and that it is very hard for us to understand how people viewed states rights vs national rights back them.


 completely misunderstood what you were saying. I appreciate the clarification and apologize for being an ass.

it is also ridiculous for those on here to talk about how there were resources for folks back then to know slavery was wrong. Let me tell you there is no way the resources were easy to obtain. I recently moved to a small town in NC well actually 10 miles outside of town (pop 3500, where i live pop 800) after spending my life in the Washington DC suburbs and a visit to the local library is eye opening. very limited selection, still has more VHS tapes to check out then DVD's

wrt that I disagree to an extent. The people making those policies were very easily informed as to their decisions and knew full well what they were doing. Those lower classes who did not have those resources available were as manipulated into their views as others in the current era in some cases, but for the most ...


I am talking more about the average joe living in virginia or even maine at that time. The thought as themselves first as Virginians (or where ever) and as American second  now days with the exception of Texas most people think of themselves first as Americans and then as Virginians (or where ever) if they haven't moved much in their life.

I think over the next 100 years and this is assuming we are still a nation you will find that people will think of themselves more of world citizens first and then as Americans or something of the sort.
2013-06-20 05:00:39 PM
1 votes:

StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: StaleCoffee: Waldo Pepper: I read the book "The fall of the house of dixie" and the author writes about and quotes those from that period about how the slaves will be happy to fight for the southern cause. It is quite amazing to think just how different a world plantation life was in the south.

I don't blame the south for wanting to fight for their lifestyle but I do blame those who created the Jim Crow laws and or took advantage of those in the south during the decades after the civil war. The United States had a chance to correct a major wrong a birth defect if you will and raped the a great positive that came out of a family fight.

I realize this is a bad comparison but I'd imagine this is how the hollywood community is like. the honesty think people are happy to serve them and everyone should have time to pursue charitable causes and cook organic and so on.

You are either amazingly ignorant or a maestro troll.

why?

Because I can't tell if your efforts to paint the south as some kind of downtrodden tragedy that was fully within its own rights to behave as it did is sincere or aiming for responses.

Citing that book as some kind of support for the idea that slaves were happy to fight for the Confederacy is either blatant falsehood or sheer ignorant twaddle.

As its ranks dwindled and in a last gasp, the Confederacy, too, had a plan to recruit black soldiers. In 1864, Confederate President Jefferson Davis approved a plan to recruit free blacks and slaves into the Confederate army. Quoting Frederick Douglass, Levine calls the logic behind the idea "a species of madness."
One factor that contributed to this madness, he says, "is the drumbeat of self-hypnosis" that told Confederates that "the slaves are loyal, the slaves embrace slavery, the slaves are contented in slavery, the slaves know that black people are inferior and need white people to ... oversee their lives. ... Black people will defend the South that has been good to them. There are, of ...


By the way, a lot of Southerners decided the war was bullshiat the minute the Confederacy enacted conscription and added an exemption for men who owned more than 20 slaves.  That was responsible for the sharpest increase in Confederate desertion in the entire war.  That's when they realized they'd been sold a bill of goods, the infamous "rich man's war, poor man's fight".
2013-06-20 04:57:34 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: 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.


I looked on every hard and flash drive in my house, and it's nowhere to be found - it must have been on my university shared drive (which has been wiped by now).

The TL; DR was that there were distinct periods of people building monuments after each war.  In all three cases, the people erecting monuments did so at a very local level, and predominantly in the hometowns.  As time passed, however, southern Americans bought into the Lost Cause mythology, and made monuments that were intended to honor abstract concepts like bravery and courage that weren't really objectionable on the surface, because (as someone upthread mentioned) Union monuments were often just as elaborate.  But the political messages in the Confederate monuments are stronger, such as the poses of soldiers, and the location (Confederate monuments along Seminary Ridge have a loose correlation between when they were put up and how much closer to Cemetery Ridge they were).

This contrasts with German war memorials, which almost universally use the most abstract style possible.  This is partly due to aesthetic differences in the era in which they lived, and some cultural differences, but almost every single soldier you see depicted on a German war memorial is kneeling, or has his head down, and looks very somber (but even these figures look a little like stylized cartoons rather than the realistic faces we see on Confederate monuments).  It's also hard to trace a full development path for First World War monuments because the Second World War interrupts the cultural path, but there's enough to work with that there are common traits in the beginning with rapidly divergent paths.

My personal conclusions from reading the sources for the historiography was that Confederate culture was allowed to retain a certain measure of absolution for what they did, and may have been fueled partly by Lincoln's desires in Reconstruction (getting back to "malice toward none"), and the process being abruptly halted by the election of 1876.  Germans, meanwhile, were figuratively hit over the head with the notion they had been an unjust aggressor in both wars, and in the case of the Second World War it's fairly obvious that the Allies undertook a major effort to eradicate as much support and desire for the political ideology that drove Germany into that war (consequently, Second World War memorials are the most abstract of all, as is the case with the Laboe Memorial in Kiel).

I can't remember all of my sources, but the most important ones were:

Confederate Symbols in the Contemporary South; William D. Richardson, Ron McNinch-Su, J. Michael Martinez
Cities of the Dead: Contesting the Memory of the Civil War in the South, 1865-1914; William Blair
Monuments To The Lost Cause: Women, Art, And The Landscapes Of Southern Memory; Cynthia Mills, Pamela H. Simpson
The Great War and Modern Memory; Paul Fussell
War and German Memory: Excavating the Significance of the Second World War in German Cultural Consciousness; K. Michael Prince
From Monuments to Traces: Artifacts of German Memory, 1870-1990; Rudy Koshar
Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability and Abnormal Sexuality in Modern Europe; George L. Mosse
2013-06-20 04:42:31 PM
1 votes:

lunogled: Brazil offers a very interesting parallel example:   In some ways, it is very similar to the US historically
(large decentralized country, European "colonial" elite, an early economy whose most productive part was slave-based, a "Wild West", which in Brazil's case was the North).
The biggest different, to my mind, is that there was no Civil War.    Slavery ended by a combination of passive resistance, uprisings, slaves running away to the North en masse, and at the end a Royal decree opposition to which was muted because, at that point, Slavery was essentially unenforceable.

So, what are the effects on "modern" XXth century Brazil:   There was no equivalent of Jim Crow.
There is plenty of subtle racial discrimination, which is really an artifact of Brazil's enormous economic inequality (worse than the US, cue the protests going on right now), but, for instance, so many intermarriages (and early acceptance of Intermarriage) that practically all Brazilians are, to some extent, mixed race.
I find it plausible that the absence of the Civil war had something to do with it.



A good observation.  Most countries in the world ending slavery without war.  It's a little disingenuous to suggest that the US 'had' to have one.  That just happens to be how it played out.

/tired of false dilemmas
/lazy thinking
2013-06-20 02:08:35 PM
1 votes:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.  But so are those who study history, as this thread proves.
2013-06-20 01:15:16 PM
1 votes:

Phinn: manimal2878: Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."

Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.

A slave has 100% of his productivity taken by force, to benefit of others.  At what percentage does it cease to be slavery?  90%?  80%?

You may not know this (Who are we kidding?  Of course you don't know this!  You're ignorant in general!), but there was a form of slavery that was found in Southern cities like New Orleans and Atlanta, whereby slaves would be "hired out" to work for other people.  Some of those slaves were literate, so they could do forms of work other than agricultural, like bookkeeping, for which they were compensated in money.

The slave-owner was the legal owner of 100% of the slave's earnings, but as a matter of practicality, the slave was ALLOWED to keep a portion of his earnings, to support himself, by paying for room and board and other necessities.

That hired-out slavery arrangement is the functional equivalent of the relationship that exists today between the US government and the 55% of people who pay income taxes.  The US government has, it claims, the superior claim to ALL of your earnings, but out of necessity, ALLOWS some people to keep some arbitrary percentage of their productivity for themselves.

Slavery didn't go away.  It merely evolved from the taking of a person's labor to the taking of a person's money.


Are you the property of your employer because you pay taxes?  Can they sell you to another employer?  No?

Then nothing you said was relevant.
2013-06-20 01:10:58 PM
1 votes:

manimal2878: I agree that it is hard to understand how one group of people could own another group of people and we should do our best to never allow this type of mindset to ever take place again. But to point to those who came before us as if they were somehow more evil then us based on information and hindsight is unfair. It's completely fair. Many people at the time thought slave owners were evil, viewing them that way is not new. The Jews sure didn't like that Pharaoh treated them as slaves, again, the concept of slavery as an evil institution is as old as time.


When arguing historical points.  It's best to not throw out things as metaphorical examples of situations that have no evidence.
2013-06-20 12:55:46 PM
1 votes:

bigwave: The South was great until the North found out about it[www.freewebs.com image 400x305]


And now all those black people have forgotten their place, huh? It must be rough living like that.
2013-06-20 12:43:13 PM
1 votes:
2013-06-20 12:24:55 PM
1 votes:

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.


In other words, that standard Libertarian view of that period.
2013-06-20 12:14:43 PM
1 votes:
Waldo Pepper:

do you even comprehend how the rural life in the south is now much less how was over 150 years ago?

I'm guessing it was pretty similar to rural life in the north, where they managed to figure out that slavery was wrong.

2013-06-20 11:33:00 AM
1 votes:

Phinn: That is how we live under the U.S. government today -- "Do as you are told, pay what you are instructed to pay, don't try to keep any more than what we allow because we will decide the point that you've made enough money, support every subsidy and crony-bailout we want, and go buy products you don't want from government-approved vendors. Do these things and you'll have a reasonably good life, so quit biatching about your 'freedoms.' We'll tell you what your freedoms are."


Yeah, having to pay your taxes is the same as being a slave.  TeaParty logic at work here.
2013-06-20 10:08:48 AM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: please how is my statement dumb. I feel it is unfair to judge someone from 150 years ago based on today's standards and not the standards and laws that were in place during their life. To equate gays with african americans slaves is so demeaning to the life slaves lived compared to the lush FREE life that all gays in this country live.


I am judging them on the standards of 150 years ago.  Have you never heard of the abolitionists?

Ah yes, the lush life of being able to marry who I choose, live openly without fear of reprisal or random beatings, full and  equal rights under the law. 

Are you even trying not to say things that are retarded?
2013-06-20 09:58:41 AM
1 votes:

Sandwyrm: I think that will be all the difference that matters.  I *seriously* doubt modern third-world labor practices will be held in as much contempt as slavery is.  Despite all that's deplorable about it, it's not as bad as it could be.


Consider the Gilded Age and its associated politics, revisionism by way of the right wing simply ignoring it aside. The most important thing to bear in mind when discussing slavery is there's a distinction between the  conventional slavery practiced the majority of human history, and  chattelslavery such as that practiced in Antebellum South, the key differences being for the former, promises of social mobility, recognition of human rights, and laws (or decrees) established protecting the welfare of slaves. All too many especially in the US conflate the two, and see all slavery through the lens of the South's chattel slavery.

Low-wage labor practices -- and mind you, that's not even restricted to the former third-world (look at Wal-Mart's, the largest private employer in the US, practices if you want evidence of this) --  are an, albeit informal, brand of conventional slavery.  De jure freedom doesn't mean much when workers are held in perpetual poverty great enough to stymie shows of discontent or attempts to move socially.
2013-06-20 09:56:19 AM
1 votes:

Wolf_Blitzer: Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.


Well I'm sure a British court would rule that the Declaration of Independence was illegitimite and invalid and all the signers are traitors to the crown.
2013-06-20 09:50:15 AM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: Interesting and thank you for looking it up. Were they all on the court during the civil war? it is a shame the ruling came after the war and not before it (yes I know it would have changed the outcome lol) but hindsight being 20/20 I feel using this ruling as justification that the south was wrong to suceded is tainted.


Yes they were all on the bench during the War, with the Lincoln appointees obviously being appointed during it. While the timing of the ruling is often used in an attempt to delegitimize it, the nice thing about Supreme Court decision's is that they're not just votes: the legal reasoning is made public.

That reasoning is pretty straightforward. Essentially:
1. The original US government under the Articles of Confederation was regarded as permanent (Its full title is the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, for crying out loud)
2. While changing it in almost ever way, the Constitution was still regarded as a revision, not an abolition of the Articles.

Thus, as the majority decision in Texas v. White states: "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

The Southern insurrectionists could've attempted legal secession through negotiation or in the courts. Their failure to do so speaks only to their own moral bankruptcy.
2013-06-20 09:46:32 AM
1 votes:

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.


=============

Not just blacks, the Southern owner class hate "white trash" even more.  Read the history of the failed labor union movement in the South, it's like something out of the most backward of banana republics.  It's no accident that Northern businesses decamped for the South before they fled off shore.  This BS hasn't ended either.  Currently the State of Texas is running ads on NYC TV/Radio featuring Gov Perry imploring NYC businesses to move to Texas because Texas has no regulations or worker protections.  The strangest things is that your average, Jebus fearing, Southern white trash will bite your windpipe shut like a cheetah if you suggest to him that's he's being exploited.
2013-06-20 09:29:47 AM
1 votes:

Madbassist1: IdBeCrazyIf: badhatharry: You're right. Just trying to clear up a misconception. Many slaves stayed on to work the same plantations where they were slaves. Granted it is difficult to just pick up and leave without anything, but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.

[img.fark.net image 500x375]

Why? Because it's the truth? What the fark is wrong with you people?


The good or bad treatment of slaves was entirely on the slave owner. I'm sure some of those folks at the very least were not cruel and evil people as depicted and were raised in an environment they were taught to be normal, but treated slaves with a modicum of respect or decency as best fit that culture. Some might have treated their slaves well simply because you get better work from a healthy worker. In some situations it would be more appealing to stay on as paid labor than it would be to strike out into a territory where the law still worked against you because of your skin color and you were more likely to be beaten or killed because you weren't even viewed as an investment. So staying on somewhere because it's familiar, your lot is slightly improved and you're significantly safer because you know the rules of the place even if you have next to no legal recourse is a much more appealing situation for anyone.

A lot of former slaves did feel that where they were was worse than a chance encounter with someone on the road that could beat or kill them with near impunity and took that chance to go out into the world. In a lot of cases it *was* that bad.

Even in cases where it was that bad, and people stayed, it was because people of any color or ethnicity tend to feel safer in familiar territory no matter how harsh or painful. You spend that much time terrified of death for running away, leaving is still a burned in terror even if someone a thousand miles away with no way to enforce your safety told you it's okay to do so.
2013-06-20 09:24:45 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, I got that one from my father (who was from Louisiana) when I was a kid. "Uncle Tom's Cabin was propaganda. They wouldn't treat their slaves like that, they were valuable property!" That sort of thinking ignores things like selling off members of your family. If your child was taken from you and sold, would that count as mistreatment? It was certainly a horrible thing to do. And what about all of the rape? Raping your "Valuable property" wouldn't diminish the value. It just goes on and on. Owning another person is horrible, from there it's just a matter of degrees of how horrible.
2013-06-20 09:18:24 AM
1 votes:
Lincoln:  "Save the Union"

Which is a euphemism for "Political independence shall not be tolerated"

Which is a euphemism for "Keep paying your import taxes so the US government can afford to subsidize my railroad buddies."

Lincoln, The Great Railroad Lobbyist.
2013-06-20 09:10:16 AM
1 votes:

badhatharry: but if slavery was the way Hollywood portrays it that would not be the case.


You continue to be utterly wrong.
2013-06-20 09:06:16 AM
1 votes:

grokca: Wow! You humans never get over anything.


FTFY
2013-06-20 09:04:11 AM
1 votes:

badhatharry: There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property


You are a first rate moron.
2013-06-20 09:02:38 AM
1 votes:

PonceAlyosha: Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

Frederick farking Douglass


"Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa - rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail."- Charles Darwin
2013-06-20 09:01:06 AM
1 votes:

badhatharry: Sandwyrm: badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.

I agree it is abhorrent. I'm not defending slavery.


Actually you are. You're white washing the enslavement of millions.
2013-06-20 08:55:27 AM
1 votes:
badhatharry:
There was also not widespread mistreatment of slaves. It was against the law. Slaves were treated like what they were. Valuable property.

Meaningless, the very notion of slavery is abhorrent.  Treatment of a slave is nothing more than a footnote to describe just how far your damnation goes.
2013-06-20 08:54:39 AM
1 votes:

Tatterdemalian: 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.

And for the South, telling them slavery is bad constituted "mistreatment." Which is wrong and stupid, but it's not the first time an entire region believed in something wrong and stupid strongly enough to murder anyone who questions it, and as the Nazis later proved, it wouldn't be the last time either.

/this is why the United States was not actually 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
//the founders were smart enough to base their break from King George on something mathematically testable and provable, not just "feelings" of being mistreated
///specifically, on taxation without representation


Ah yes, we broke away because we were being taxed to pay for our defense. Does that mean it's justifiable for a state to break away from the union now because it doesn't support the Afghanistan war?
2013-06-20 08:53:44 AM
1 votes:

Securitywyrm: From a legal perspective, the civil war was unconstitutional


Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter on such a legal question. They ruled that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White - after the war. They ruled afterwards, because the so-called "Confederacy" took to the sword first, rather than attempt to resolve the question by the legal mechanisms afforded to them.

One can of course make the argument that Texas v. White is illegitimate, as Southern apologists often do. At that point though, you're abandoning all pretense of legal justification. In which case: the South lost, get over it.
2013-06-20 08:52:31 AM
1 votes:
If crafters of the constitution had not included Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, the civil war may never have happened and we would be two nations under God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
2013-06-20 08:49:55 AM
1 votes:

MNguy: 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?

Winners get to  write the books.


True.  Anyone that's read a non-romanticised version of the American revolution can easily see that was hardly a heroic war itself.

/spoiler alert: Pretty much all the founding fathers were dicks
2013-06-20 08:46:47 AM
1 votes:

clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.


Don't forget about Power.  The north by making new states non slave states helped gain votes and power on their political side in washington. The south wanted the new states to be slave states to keep their power base strong and in control as it had been for decades. 

I feel it is unfair to judge the south for not wanting to lose their way of life, a way of life they had at least since the founding of the Nation. Looking back everyone knows Chattel slavery is horrible and wrong but if you grew up with it and was told it was right and legal then it is wrong for us to judge by our standards.  Imagine how we will be judged 150 years from now for certain aspects of our lifestyles based on what we think is right and legal. 

Had the North truly been hellbent on ending slavery they would have boycotted all Southern products forcing the Southern businesses to change. But of course money rules and the Northern businesses and population benefited greatly from slave labor. 

Which is worse the Pimp who owns the hooker and profits off of her/him or the john who pays for the hooker and enjoys the benefits of her/her without the shame of owning another person.
2013-06-20 08:35:12 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.

You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.


No one ever says that because most people know that WWII wasn't to end the Holocaust.
2013-06-20 08:34:44 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.

You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.


To be fair, WWII wasn't started with the intent to end the Holocaust.  Germany started a war of conquest, Japan did as well, before striking the US in order to keep us out of their affairs.  The allies weren't aware of the true scope of the holocaust until we already won.
2013-06-20 08:31:01 AM
1 votes:

CheatCommando: your side made that argument in 1861 - you  lost


I always get bent out of shape by comments like this, as if the Civil War conflict is still going on.  Do you find yourself bring proudly associated with every decision made by people in your city/state/region 150 years ago?  Because I could probably find a few moronic decisions made in your neck of the woods that I would be happy to ignorantly assume you automatically agree with.
2013-06-20 08:29:31 AM
1 votes:

Kyro: Anyone saying the war was started with the intent to end slavery is kidding themselves.


You ever notice how only the South is ever given this kind of deference? No one ever says "Anyone saying WWII started with the intent to end the Holocaust is kidding themselves". No one ever says that, because no one ever feels the need to tacitly defend Nazis.
2013-06-20 08:28:06 AM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Securitywyrm: I look at it as a constitutional issue.

Then you're an idiot.


Can't be so quick to dismiss his argument, it does have merit.  Until I can prove why the war was legal in context with the most revered legal document in this country, I can never truly deconstruct the justifications of the people who remain convinced the South was in the right.

Also, damn him for making a similar name.
2013-06-20 08:27:08 AM
1 votes:

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


The Emancipation Proclamation was also a tool of diplomacy.  Britain and France (through Mexico) were threatening to intervene on the South's behalf.  They both believed that the best future for North America was a British controlled Canada, two United Stateses and a French controlled Mexico.  But they had also both already banned slavery and they couldn't support the pro-slavery side in a war over slavery.  Prior to the Emancipation Proclamation it could be argued that the Civil War wasn't a war over slavery, but after that came, there was no way for the British or French to justify intervention.  It's also why Lincoln waited so long.  He had the Proclamation in his pocket for several months, but he needed a military victory before releasing it so that it didn't come off as desperate.  Antietam was that "victory."
2013-06-20 08:26:25 AM
1 votes:

UNC_Samurai: way south: Im still hesitant to buy the line that it wasn't about slavery.


Thanks. I am usually the one who is forced to post the Cornerstone Speech to remind folks of what the damn racists were fighting for. Sure, the morals of the Union side were not pure.

PonceAlyosha: 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?


He'd probably weasel out of that one by claiming the Constitution didn't see them as persons, so it did not apply. Thus proving the point that the whole thing was motivated by nothing more than base racism, and everything else is a revisionist attempt at window dressing.

And Security, your side made that argument in 1861 - you  lost. Get the hell over it. There is no right to secession, and the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
2013-06-20 08:26:21 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-20 08:24:20 AM
1 votes:
"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 08:21:33 AM
1 votes:

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 08:20:06 AM
1 votes:
 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 07:48:59 AM
1 votes:

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 07:48:39 AM
1 votes:

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


Hmm... I guess I was mistaken, then.
2013-06-20 07:48:12 AM
1 votes:

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 07:45:57 AM
1 votes:

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 07:44:06 AM
1 votes:
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 07:42:36 AM
1 votes:

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 07:36:03 AM
1 votes:

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 07:34:37 AM
1 votes:

kradio: The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery.


To be completely impartial and acknowledge the views of both sides, namely:

bigbobowski: ask any southerner whose family has been here since before the recent unpleasantness, and they will tell you to a man the war was over "states rights" of course, one of those rights happened to be the enslavement of the black race.


Let me fix your statement to say
 The best way to look at the Civil War is that the North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to preserve slavery their freedom from federal authority.
2013-06-20 07:29:25 AM
1 votes:
ask any southerner whose family has been here since before the recent unpleasantness, and they will tell you to a man the war was over "states rights" of course, one of those rights happened to be the enslavement of the black race.
2013-06-20 07:25:53 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-06-20 07:22:08 AM
1 votes:

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).
2013-06-20 07:21:29 AM
1 votes:

clkeagle: NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.

The article, like many that have come before, once again only address slavery as a moral issue. It was only a moral issue to the north.

To the south, it wasn't about the morality or immorality of slavery. It was about money, pure and simple. Their entire economy was based around having labor that wasn't paid with anything more than a leaky roof and just enough food to stay alive. Taking away slavery, purely from an economic standpoint, would force all those plantation owners to suddenly start paying their help... resulting in a major economic shift.


You make it sound like the North wasn't benefiting from the South's economic boons...
2013-06-20 07:18:55 AM
1 votes:

NobleHam: I don't know what the article mentioned that people have "misunderstood." I think most people know the civil war was a bloody, brutal affair. I think most people know that great change often comes with a terrible price, and that life for blacks didn't magically become great afterward. I just... I don't know what the point of that long, tedious article was. I was expecting some "Mount Stupid" article about how it wasn't about slavery, but instead I got some unnecessary bullshiat.


One could argue that slavery was a terrible price paid for great change. With a nation being built, revolutionary things happening yearly, and America slowly rising to the top, could it all have been done without that labor force?
Today we realize slavery is abhorrent, but at the time was it needed to become who we are today and reach that realization? Would we have had G.W. Carver or MLK jr without slavery? Would Ms. Tubman have been able to be a beacon of selflessness, determination, and ingenuity to future generations without slavery to fight against?
2013-06-20 07:16:46 AM
1 votes:
natas6.0
..and there was no real mention of the reason it started
-succession-


Did the King of America die without leaving an heir?
Now that really IS news to me.
2013-06-20 07:13:51 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-06-20 06:46:27 AM
1 votes:

vossiewulf: On July 1st, 1863, Alfred Iverson ordered his brigade of North Carolinians across an open field. The soldiers marched in tight formation until Union riflemen suddenly rose from behind a stone wall and opened fire. Five hundred rebels fell dead or wounded "on a line as straight as a dress parade," Iverson reported.

Tactical stupidity says nothing about the war, there was much of this on both sides. The carryover of Napoleonic tactics out of military inertia combined with the accuracy of rifled weapons, and later repeating carbines, guaranteed bloodbaths. If you've ever seen that field, you'd be stupefied that his plan was to send guys across an open field towards guys in excellent cover behind a stone wall and extending into woods, but that was the tactical doctrine of the day. Go look at the genius Federal plan at Fredericksburg, or back to Gettysburg, Pickett's "charge" on the third day.

And none of that compares to sending long lines of riflemen across open terrain under fire from artillery and machine guns in WWI; the British Army suffered 60k casualties on the first day of the Somme. Then there's Dieppe in WWII, and the Soviets for whom the high casualty frontal assault was standard doctrine.

All that means is in hindsight, the tactical doctrines of the day seem ill conceived.

As for the strategic view, it's very simple: slavery was the one subject without which compromise could have been achieved. And therefore in the end it was the cause of the war, what it was fought to decide, and the Confederacy was very much on the wrong side of that conflict.


"The one with the rifle shoots! The one without, follows him! When the one with the rifle gets killed, the one who is following picks up the rifle and shoots!"
2013-06-20 06:09:06 AM
1 votes:
For those of you braindead enough to find the the story of the Civil War an "uplifting" one, this article's for you.
2013-06-20 01:56:28 AM
1 votes:
WHAT was teh point of the article?
The headline made an assertion, but the article was tl;dr.
What are the highlights?
That it was a blood war? We got that. No misunderstanding there.
That some people are still butthurt over the war? No misunderstanding there.

That the losing side of the war doesnt like how the winning side of the war presented history?
No misunderstanding there.

wtf
I hate that article so much.
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report