AH Challenge: no confederate nostolgia
- Thread starter Straha
- Start date
Faeelin: Ah, so slavery was OK in 45 AD? Glad you cleared that up...
Ian runs a fine board, but evenhanded, he isn't. Perhaps that is the price of using the board, however, and (as someone who often stirs the pot myself) I think that is a fair enough bargain.
Ian runs a fine board, but evenhanded, he isn't. Perhaps that is the price of using the board, however, and (as someone who often stirs the pot myself) I think that is a fair enough bargain.
Michael E Johnson
Banned
--Pretty much. About the only people who have a great regard for the former Confederacy are hard core Southern racists which is made up largely of real losers.--
Let me guess-the problem with this statement is not that its incorrect when it says that "the only people who have a great regard for the former Confederacy are hard core Southern racists " but when it says such people are real losers ?????!!!! This has to be new for this board a red herring about a red herring.
But seriously a certain "regard" for the Confederacy certainly IS prevalent among a good percentage the white inhabitants of the US- South and North. This regard is based on the ,usually unstated, belief that the South was somehow wronged by the Civil War. In a country where the extent of many peoples knowledge about the Civil War is limited to Gone with the Wind ( Reconstruction Revisionism at its finest) this isnt too suprising.
Let me guess-the problem with this statement is not that its incorrect when it says that "the only people who have a great regard for the former Confederacy are hard core Southern racists " but when it says such people are real losers ?????!!!! This has to be new for this board a red herring about a red herring.
But seriously a certain "regard" for the Confederacy certainly IS prevalent among a good percentage the white inhabitants of the US- South and North. This regard is based on the ,usually unstated, belief that the South was somehow wronged by the Civil War. In a country where the extent of many peoples knowledge about the Civil War is limited to Gone with the Wind ( Reconstruction Revisionism at its finest) this isnt too suprising.Michael E Johnson said:
But it is not just "hardcore Southern racists" which hold the Confederacy in a
good light. Like it or not, to many southerners (and some northerners, as well), the Confederacy represents both the best and worst parts of southern history. Whether or not you agree, men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson are not only two of the greatest military commanders this country has ever produced, but in the minds and hearts of many, some of the most noble, as well. Neither fought for slavery, regardless of what you believe. They fought for their homes, their families, and their states. The way they saw it, and many southerners still do, is that the northerners were acting agressively towards the south, and, in some ways, they were. In their hearts and minds, they were defending their states, their families, the same way any northerner in such a position would.
Michael E Johnson said:
The South was, undoubtedly, wronged in some manner by the Civil War. Take, for example, the actions of Sherman and his so-called "March to the Sea." While Robert E. Lee insisted that his army pay for all items (albeit in Confederate money) in Maryland, General Sherman plundered, burned, and raped the Georgia countryside, burning the entire city to the ground. Also, look at the poverty which was inherent in the South up until Roosevelt's New Deal. In the minds of Southerners, they were wronged, regardless of what you believe about it. In fact, many still see themselves being wronged. They see the federal government "repressing" the items of their heritage (the CSA flag) and consider that to be a slight.
Walter,
The Federal government isn't really doing anything about the Confederate flag; most of the objections to the Confederate flag come from state groups (though Jesse Jackson is a nationwide figure).
Here's an idea. The Union allows the Southern states to secede, and over the next few decades, the Confederate states stagnate and experience vicious slave revolts and equally vicious reprisals every few years until their entire society is on the brink of collapse. Eventually, they come crawling back to the US and are re-admitted, accepting the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments willingly and not going through all the Jim Crow BS.
That's certainly more radical than most suggestions (except, of course, the execution and expulsion of Confederate sympathizers), but it works. All Southerners, white and black, will remember "the Confederate years" as pure hell and there will be little if any nostalgia.
The Federal government isn't really doing anything about the Confederate flag; most of the objections to the Confederate flag come from state groups (though Jesse Jackson is a nationwide figure).
Here's an idea. The Union allows the Southern states to secede, and over the next few decades, the Confederate states stagnate and experience vicious slave revolts and equally vicious reprisals every few years until their entire society is on the brink of collapse. Eventually, they come crawling back to the US and are re-admitted, accepting the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments willingly and not going through all the Jim Crow BS.
That's certainly more radical than most suggestions (except, of course, the execution and expulsion of Confederate sympathizers), but it works. All Southerners, white and black, will remember "the Confederate years" as pure hell and there will be little if any nostalgia.
Michael E Johnson said:
Racists are real losers. The problem with this statement is the assertion that one has to be a racist to hold the Confederacy "in great regard." That is simply not the case.
Matt Quinn said:
Not exactly true. The Federal government is not as overt about it as the NAACP, but they have their hands in the pot. One prominent example is Point Lookout Cemetery, where for years a Confederate flag was flown year-round over the graves of the Confederate POWs buried there. This was taken down a couple of years ago by order of the Veterans Administration. There are other examples.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Scott Rosenthal said:
No one was freeing slaves in 45 AD and the steam engine wasn't invented yet. In 1861 most Western countries already outlawed slavery along with most states north of the Mason-Dixie lind.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Walter_Kaufmann said:
I see, a man like RE Lee who got his butt kicked every time he tried to take the fight to the North continued to do. The only explanation that makes sense to me is Lee didn't give a damn if he lost 10,000 men as long as it is to the "Greater glory to Lee" . It will get more in the history books and in the paper if you invade Maryland and Pennsylvania instead of doing the smart thing and staying in Virginia and make the Union come to you. Lee owned slaves and so did Stonewall Jackson. The South could have had a shot of getting recognition from England if it freed its slaves. There was no realistic chance of that happening without that. If it weren't about slavery the South would have done so in 1861 or 1862. The South didn't even try to reform slavery until late 1864 and early 1865 when the war ended. By that time it was all over for the South and Lee and co were worried about being treated like most traitors in history and would "Hang by the neck until dead".
BL, that's a bit simplistic. Lee didn't move north because he wanted to kill thousands of his men. He knew full well that if he sat in the south doing nothing, the union would simply grind him down with it's much larger numbers. His goal was to maneuver the AOTP into a position so he could destroy it and then force a peace on Lincoln before the men could be replaced. And once again, why do so many of you try to reduce the reasons behind the ACW to a single cause? Why can't there be several? The reason the ACW came about was slavery...and states' rights... and arguements over tarrifs.. and that the south saw the north as dominating them both economically and politically....
NapoleonXIV
Banned
robertp6165 said:
Uh guys...you're complaining because he DIDN'T stifle 'free speech' not because he did. If you think that remark was a troll then simply don't reply. (Fat chance there
)btw, there's no such thing as 'free speech' on these boards. They are set up and run ENTIRELY by their administrators. You're essentially in his house, so watch the carpet.
The aformementioned remarks are NOT my official suck up for the month. I'll do that later. I have, however, seen some board adms simply pack up and leave when the board grew not to their liking.
Brilliantlight said:
Robert E. Lee never purchased a slave in his life, ever. He (or rather his wife) inherited slaves from Lee's father-in-law...which Lee freed prior to the war.
As for Stonewall Jackson, yes, he did own a slave. He is also memorialized in stained glass in an African-American church in North Carolina because he sponsored and taught a Sunday school for blacks in Lexington (including teaching slaves to read the Bible, which was technically against the law).
So these are not your stereotypical Southern slave masters.
Brilliantlight
Banned
robertp6165 said:
Lee might not be but Jackson sure was. If he were so against slavery then he could have freed them but he didn't. Teaching them how to read the Bible is far from enough, from everything i have read about the man he tended toward religous fantaicalism.
Brilliantlight
Banned
David Howery said:
I never said he wanted to kill his own men , just that he didn't give a damn if they died for his own greater glory. The idea of destroying the AOTP while it was in the North was overly optomistic at best and reckless at worst. Lee did so well in Virginia largely because he had the advantages of a defender. Such as entrenched troops, better inteligence, knowing the land better, logistics and so on. In theNorth everything is reversed and he is the one having to go through entrenched troops with them having better intelligence, knew the land better and in this case far more troops and a much better logistical system to boot. There are reasons that the South never even attempted to besige a major Northern city.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
David Howery said:
Quite true, the South wanted State's Rights to keep Slavery rather than having to knuckle under to the Federal abolition they saw coming. They also resented the Northern economic policies which they felt made them keep slavery rather than being able to industrialize their states and modernize their agriculture. Further, they resented the North's completly ignoring the problem of what to do with the slaves after emancipation.
The South would NOT attempt a "Final Solution" to African Americans. The whole point of the Confederacy was to maintain vaulable property.
I think people get the Reconstruction wrong. The fact is that Lincoln's original plan for a mild regime was followed in 1865. What happend. Vicious black codes and electoral victories for people led the greates act of Treason in America's history.
Moderate Republicans in say March 1865 would not have wanted to impose- for instance- full suffrage for all former male slaves. By the time the South had done what it wanted the whole of the Republican Party would have accepted it.
In OTL Lincoln was a bit ahead of Public opinion on issues around race and slavery but not so much as to destroy his base. I suspect he would have been appalled as other mainstream Republicans were at the response to the extreme leniency he sought to introduce.
I suspect that the way for the nostaligic myths and lies about the old South to have been defeated would have been for the Northern Leadership to have made a sharper distinction between the Planter class and the rest of the South
I think people get the Reconstruction wrong. The fact is that Lincoln's original plan for a mild regime was followed in 1865. What happend. Vicious black codes and electoral victories for people led the greates act of Treason in America's history.
Moderate Republicans in say March 1865 would not have wanted to impose- for instance- full suffrage for all former male slaves. By the time the South had done what it wanted the whole of the Republican Party would have accepted it.
In OTL Lincoln was a bit ahead of Public opinion on issues around race and slavery but not so much as to destroy his base. I suspect he would have been appalled as other mainstream Republicans were at the response to the extreme leniency he sought to introduce.
I suspect that the way for the nostaligic myths and lies about the old South to have been defeated would have been for the Northern Leadership to have made a sharper distinction between the Planter class and the rest of the South
"Robert E Lee noble? Sorry, but what is noble about his particular treason? The man didn't believe secession was right, but still fought against his country. That doesn't seem very noble to me."
How is secession treason, legally speaking? It's only considered that way because winners write the histories. The Founders endorsed secession; ever heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (secession/nullification in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts)?
Lee is considered noble b/c of his character, plus his motivation...he opposed slavery and viewed secession as unwise, but fought for the South b/c he did not wish to fight against his own state. He also said that even though he opposed the North politically, he "never stopped praying for them," a far more noble attitude than William T. Sherman and his associates had.
How is secession treason, legally speaking? It's only considered that way because winners write the histories. The Founders endorsed secession; ever heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (secession/nullification in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts)?
Lee is considered noble b/c of his character, plus his motivation...he opposed slavery and viewed secession as unwise, but fought for the South b/c he did not wish to fight against his own state. He also said that even though he opposed the North politically, he "never stopped praying for them," a far more noble attitude than William T. Sherman and his associates had.
"AAh If the South wins them there wouldn't be any booby sitting around being Nostolgistic"
True, but you misunderstand my point. If the South won the war and lost the peace and came crawling back, nobody would be nostalgic for the Confederacy. Rather than thinking, "Oh if we won there'd be better race relations, lower taxes, etc," they'd remember slave revolts, police state tactics, class divisions, etc.
They'd basically appreciate the USA whole lot more.
True, but you misunderstand my point. If the South won the war and lost the peace and came crawling back, nobody would be nostalgic for the Confederacy. Rather than thinking, "Oh if we won there'd be better race relations, lower taxes, etc," they'd remember slave revolts, police state tactics, class divisions, etc.
They'd basically appreciate the USA whole lot more.