# Confederate Apologists Have No Business in Government! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 16, 2001, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346 "2001-01-16T17:57:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2001, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/121 "2001-02-15T22:43:02Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Who’s demonstrated a need to purge history books of “anything that casts Americans in a positive light?”…(If there’s anyone in this debate who’s bringing in baggage from previous threads, boy howdy…) > > Sometimes self-awareness is a rare commodity. I advise you to check the content and tone of your recent re-entry into this debate. > > Ideological rigidity and affronted feelings do make for some mighty strange bedfellows… I don’t understand, **Jack**. So you don’t think **xeno** has a compelling need to purge history books of anything that casts Americans in a positive light? I’d advise you to check the content and, well, just the content, really, of your penultimate post. And I will give you **one million dollars** if you show to me that **xenophon41** wants to remove everything positive about Americans from the history books. 'Cause that’s what you said, and that’s some mighty tasty hyperbole. Back off it. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2001, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/122 "2001-02-15T22:51:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _from **Ivorybill** :_ > Now, why did the North fight to preserve the Union? Altruism? End slavery? Keep a handy source of arable land, raw material, and cheap labor? All of the above, plus the idea that the American system of government would be in great jeopardy were the Southern states allowed to secede. Certainly there were other reasons, but it is no more valid to discount the altruistic and abolitionist motivations of a great portion of the Union combatants than it is to discount the Confederate motivations which included states’ rights to self determinism. And **Jackmanni** , compare and contrast these two statements: > [@](#): > > _ **Jackmanni** :_ > [The latest link] casts doubt on whether the killings actually occurred by noting that Forrest **didn’t mention the subject in his official report** …_(bolding mine)_ and > [@](#): > > _ **spoke** ’s link:_ > The only existing official Confederate reports of the engagement are those prepared by Generals Forrest and Chalmers, neither mentioning any “massacre.” Surely you can spot the difference between “no mention of the subject” and “no characterization of the killings as a massacre,” particularly when it is followed by a description of the generals’ explanations regarding the killings. > [@](#): > > _again from **Jackmanni** :_ > Your “accurate and complete” article also tries to show Forrest as being an exemplary military man up until Fort Pillow as a way of casting doubt on the events there, with statements such as “Known to be a man of integrity…”. Your “man of integrity”, according to the Britannica link, “ordered his troops to take no more Negro prisoners when they assaulted and captured Fort Pillow.” > But I guess you failed to read that one too. So let me get this straight. To refute the opinion that, prior to Fort Pillow Forrest had conducted himself honorably, you cite a Brittanica article about Forrest’s conduct _at Fort Pillow_. Freaking brilliant. Let me ask you a question. Do you consider the two sentence description in the five paragraph Brittanica biography of Forrest to be as even handed a description of the Fort Pillow engagement as the 32 paragraph article your disputing? > [@](#): > > _ **Jackmanni** :_ > Your presence here seems appropriate though, as you can advise your pro-Confederate colleagues on the best way to haul around old baggage from lost causes (in your case, generated by prior SDMB debates). **?** Is it time for your meds again? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2001, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/123 "2001-02-15T23:06:04Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* \*\* > [@](#): > > Let me ask you a question. Do you consider the two sentence description in the five paragraph Brittanica biography of Forrest to be as even handed a description of the Fort Pillow engagement as the 32 paragraph article your disputing?\*\* No. I consider the Britannica link, agreeing as it does with accounts by sober mainstream historians, to be _far more evenhanded_. Forrest subscribed to the Confederate policy of “take no black prisoners”, which arose before Fort Pillow. The evidence does not show that he suddenly decided to follow official policy at the time of the assault. I don’t equate submission to this brutal policy as “integrity”. Just what is it about the slaughter of 300 black men, women and children that you find necessary to gloss over? ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/124 "2001-02-15T23:27:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > > Perhaps you should dwell on the phrase “what we percieve to be the facts” and the noun, apologist. Perhaps you should dwell on the notion that what’s written in “mainstream” history books on many subjects (C.W., Viet Nam, Indian Wars, others) tends to skew the events to make the victors look better, more justified, and wholly on the side of truth and justice than those who were on the losing end. I, and others on this thread have argued that has happened with the C.W. and that non-Southerners have been conditioned to treat the Southern view as wrong, racist, apologist, ignorant, etc., etc. The venom that is occaisionally spouted when the Southerners in this debate point out concrete examples of inaccuracies (see spoke-'s comments in the Georgia Flag thread) suggests to me that those of you who boil the whole C.W. era into good/bad, right/wrong, are having a tough time accepting that you don’t have all the facts and are hoping that by keeping your fingers in your ears, humming loudly, and by doing a bit of name calling and subject-changing you can get us all to shut-up and get back in place. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/125 "2001-02-16T00:28:27Z")
Who is it that’s throwing gauntlets around? > [@](#): > > Perhaps you should dwell on the notion that what’s written in “mainstream” history books on many subjects (C.W., Viet Nam, Indian Wars, others) tends to skew the events to make the victors look better, more justified, and wholly on the side of truth and justice than those who were on the losing end. Really? Do you think that history books are that skewed, huh? Considering that even **I** was not taught that unchecked westward expansion, for example, was a fabulous bed or roses, and I both live in the West and went to grade school twenty years ago, I’d say this is a pretty indefensible over-generalization. Besides, those of us advocating a position you consider “pro-northern” are not doing so because that’s what we learned in grade school; we advocate it because we’ve studied it, to various degrees, and believe it is true. > [@](#): > > I, and others on this thread have argued that has happened with the C.W. and that non-Southerners have been conditioned to treat the Southern view as wrong, racist, apologist, ignorant, etc., etc. Let’s not mince words: To the extent that it looks back upon the Southern cause in the Civil War as an admirable or ultimately justifiable one, the “Southern view” is both wrong, racist and arguably ignorant, and those who espouse it are by definition apologists. (“Apologist” is not an insult, BTW.) > [@](#): > > The venom that is occaisionally spouted when the Southerners in this debate point out concrete examples of inaccuracies (see spoke-'s comments in the Georgia Flag thread) suggests to me that those of you who boil the whole C.W. era into good/bad, right/wrong, are having a tough time accepting that you don’t have all the facts and are hoping that by keeping your fingers in your ears, humming loudly, and by doing a bit of name calling and subject-changing you can get us all to shut-up and get back in place. Wow. Let’s parse that out. Venom: What venom? What are you talking about? With the exception of only one or two posters, this discussion has been singularly _un_-venomous. “Concrete examples of inaccuracies” – such as? There have been no “concrete examples of inaccuracies” in this thread, and if you think that we Northerners are under gross misapprehensions regarding Southern conduct during the war, feel free to trot out an example or three. “Those of you who boil the whole C.W. era into good/bad . . .” Just who are you talking about here? Are you so embroiled in your own invective that you can’t direct your comments at particular posters? “Keeping your fingers in your ears and humming” – Listen, just because you have failed to convince anyone of the justice of your position does not mean we have not heard you. It means we don’t agree with you. There’s a huge difference, and to imply that we have willfully ignored you is insulting and defied by this entire thread. “Name-calling” Such as? “Subject-changing” Such as? I don’t care if you shut up or not, and I have no idea where you imagine your place to be, but just because you can’t convince people you’re right doesn’t mean you are justified in questioning the motivations of everyone who has attempted to discuss the issue with you. But it must be comforting to think that you didn’t change anyone’s mind because they refused to listen, rather than entertaining for a second the possibility that you didn’t change anyone’s mind because you just couldn’t convince them that you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/126 "2001-02-16T02:26:20Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Jodi \* \*\*Who is it that’s throwing gauntlets around? > [@](#): > > Really? Do you think that history books are that skewed, huh? Considering that even **I** was not taught that unchecked westward expansion, for example, was a fabulous bed or roses, and I both live in the West and went to grade school twenty years ago, I’d say this is a pretty indefensible over-generalization. Besides, those of us advocating a position you consider “pro-northern” are not doing so because that’s what we learned in grade school; we advocate it because we’ve studied it, to various degrees, and believe it is true. Then why, when spoke- and some others bring up source material that addressess Lincoln’s view of black/white relations, Sherman’s atrocities, or shows that Bedford Forrest changed his perspective after the C.W. in terms of his view of race relations, why are these sources discounted, off-hand, as revisionist, apologist, etc.? We’re not trying to get you to say “Gee, I guess those slave-owners weren’t all bad” - - rather, accept that it was a lousy time, there were racists all around, and the North wasn’t as indefensible as some histories, and posters, make it out to be. > [@](#): > > Let’s not mince words: To the extent that it looks back upon the Southern cause in the Civil War as an admirable or ultimately justifiable one, the “Southern view” is both wrong, racist and arguably ignorant, and those who espouse it are by definition apologists. (“Apologist” is not an insult, BTW.) You are correct; I agree totally. However, let’s also not mince words: to the extent that nary a single “pro-Northern” (your words) poster has admitted that the North, too has a share of blame in the whole sordid mess that was the C.W., and has indicated that it should, despite evidence, strikes me as avoiding a significant part of the discussion thus far. > [@](#): > > Wow. Let’s parse that out. Venom: What venom? What are you talking about? With the exception of only one or two posters, this discussion has been singularly _un_-venomous. See the post you’re replying to: operative word “occaisional.” Directed primarily to Collounsbury, but also appropriate to DanielInTheWolvesDen. > [@](#): > > “Concrete examples of inaccuracies” – such as? There have been no “concrete examples of inaccuracies” in this thread, True. See the Georgia Flag thread, esp. page 2. Note my reference to it this pm. > [@](#): > > …and if you think that we Northerners are under gross misapprehensions regarding Southern conduct during the war, feel free to trot out an example or three. Nope. I think that “you Northerners” (your term) have some gross misapprehensions regarding Northern conduct before, during, and after the war, up to (and including) exaggerating the conduct, character, and post-War lives of some of the Southern participants. Look: they weren’t all good, but they definitely weren’t as bad - - or evil - - as some have asserted. > [@](#): > > “Those of you who boil the whole C.W. era into good/bad . . .” Just who are you talking about here? Are you so embroiled in your own invective that you can’t direct your comments at particular posters? Hey, I’ve three kids, a job, a mortgage, dog, the whole catastrophe (instert smilie here). I didn’t have the time, at the time, to review the whole thread(s) to pick out the particular posters. Mea culpa. Jackmannii is one (others have called him on it as well. Collounsbury is another. > [@](#): > > “Keeping your fingers in your ears and humming” – Listen, just because you have failed to convince anyone of the justice of your position does not mean we have not heard you. It means we don’t agree with you. There’s a huge difference, and to imply that we have willfully ignored you is insulting and defied by this entire thread. “Name-calling” Such as? “Subject-changing” Such as? Bang. You got me. I was in too much of a hurry. Name calling: look at responses to some of my posts, in particular Collounsbury’s of this pm. Subject-changing: again, review some responses to some of my posts. (I’m sorry I don’t have time to go through each one right now.) > [@](#): > > …just because you can’t convince people you’re right doesn’t mean you are justified in questioning the motivations of everyone who has attempted to discuss the issue with you… Mebbe so. But seems that a group of fairly intelligent people representing “your side” would ultimately agree that things aren’t as simple as some have suggested here. (No time to preview post - - sorry if this is mangled.) ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/127 "2001-02-16T02:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* > … and the North wasn’t as indefensible as some histories, and posters, make it out to be. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview… “defensible” Argh. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/128 "2001-02-16T03:14:04Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* \*\* > [@](#): > > I didn’t have the time, at the time, to review the whole thread(s) to pick out the particular posters…Bang. You got me. I was in too much of a hurry…(I’m sorry I don’t have time to go through each one right now.)…(No time to preview post - - sorry if this is mangled.) \*\* This does not bode well for clear and rational discussion. Ivorybill, I don’t think you’ll find any opponents in this debate setting up Lincoln, Sherman or anyone else as infallible. What separates these men from their Confederate counterparts is the worthiness of their cause. In arguing that there were “racists all around”, it was a “lousy time” for everybody, everyone was to blame etc. etc., you have two sorts of backers - Confederate apologists and America-loathing moral relativists. Do you like what you see? ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/129 "2001-02-16T03:57:05Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > [@](#): > > This does not bode well for clear and rational discussion. Touche. Still, if there’s to be any discussion at all, I’ve got to squeeze in a post when I can. (The dog has prostate trouble, BTW.) > [@](#): > > I don’t think you’ll find any opponents in this debate setting up Lincoln, Sherman or anyone else as infallible. What separates these men from their Confederate counterparts is the worthiness of their cause. Agreed. Cause was worthy. Take that view far enough, though, and the ends are used to justify the means; historical reflection becomes dogma (much as fundamentalists interpret their texts literally, leaving no room for the worthy aspects of a different view); and such differing views are given limited, if any, study or attention. > [@](#): > > In arguing that there were “racists all around”, it was a “lousy time” for everybody, everyone was to blame etc. etc., you have two sorts of backers - Confederate apologists and America-loathing moral relativists. I don’t see my choices as that limited, however. (BTW… “America-loathing moral relativists??” Who are these people? Give me a name or a cite.) How is it that persons who would attempt to find the original source material behind a historical judgement, review said material, and point out original inaccuracies and mistakes are relativists and/or apologists? I would posit that folks who take a clear-eyed look at all aspects of a situation, point out the flaws on each side, and seek to learn from the situation also support holding both sides of the C.W. and Reconstruction accountable for their failings. Afterall, a primary reason to study history is to avoid making the same mistakes again. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/130 "2001-02-16T15:50:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by **Jodi** :_ > Let’s not mince words: To the extent that it looks back upon the Southern cause in the Civil War as an admirable or ultimately justifiable one, the “Southern view” is both wrong, racist and arguably ignorant, and those who espouse it are by definition apologists. Very true. And to the extent that _any_ attempts to put Southern views and perceptions in historical perspective are termed “wrong”, “racist” and/or “ignorant” such derogations are kneejerk reactions, and divisive. I’ve met many ignorant, racist and hate-filled rednecks who spread that special brand of Southern “heritage” that makes me want to hide them from Northern visitors. I’ve met many more Southerners like myself who do not enjoy being lumped in with the Klan simply because we correct simplistic assertions about complex social history. The stereotypical white supremacist with the Dixie bumperstickers and Confederate battle flag on the rear window of his pickup does not represent the views of everyone who points out that there’s more to the Southern story than slavery and oppression. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by **Jackmanni** :_ > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Let me ask you a question. Do you consider the two sentence description in the five paragraph Brittanica biography of Forrest to be as even handed a description of the Fort Pillow engagement as the 32 paragraph article your disputing?\*\* > > No. I consider the Britannica link, agreeing as it does with accounts by sober mainstream historians, to be _far more evenhanded._ :rolleyes: Then I heartily recommend reading historical comics. They really boil things down in a way that’s easy to understand, and fun, too! ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/131 "2001-02-16T16:05:51Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* \*\* > [@](#): > > I’ve met many more Southerners like myself who do not enjoy being lumped in with the Klan simply because we correct simplistic assertions about complex social history. \*\* And I’ve met many Southerners who do not have blinders on when it comes to the less savory aspects of their romantic Cause, who do not maunder on about how blacks loved their masters, fought eagerly for the South, etc.\*\* > [@](#): > > I heartily recommend reading historical comics. They really boil things down in a way that’s easy to understand, and fun, too! \*\* I love this trusting assumption that sheer quantity of words = Truth (You’ve got to trust that Bedford Forrest source! It has _32 paragraphs_! Must be the revealed word! Don’t fail to bolster your knowledge with the contents of other revisionist and white supremacist sites. I’m sure they have a diarrheic word output that you’d find most impressive. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/132 "2001-02-16T17:00:59Z")
**Jack’** , next time we meet in a 'Pit thread, I’ll tell you what I think about that. Until then, since you’re not worth starting a thread about, I think I’ll ignore you. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/133 "2001-02-16T18:16:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*I think I’ll ignore you. \*\* Darn. But I’ll welcome any insightful or relevant contributions from you. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/134 "2001-02-16T19:19:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > Darn. But I’ll welcome any insightful or relevant contributions from you. You’re asking someone else for insightful or relevant contributions? Hmm, let’s see: > [@](#): > > The war is over. The Good Guys won. Get over it. Relevant, but not insightful. > [@](#): > > …my original remark about “labored rationalization” was directed at Confederate apologists in general - the people who hawk half-truths and mistruths about The Cause, and act aggrieved that things turned out the way they did. Neither insightful or relevant. How many people in this thread have stated that they would have preferred the outcome of the Civil War to be different? You’re putting up a straw rebel. > [@](#): > > I’ll even applaud your new-found racial sensitivity. Neither insightful or relevant, though certainly patronizing and inaccurate. > [@](#): > > It seems then that the compelling need to purge the history books of anything that casts Americans in a positive light is what’s pushing you to join ranks with John > Ashcroft and other Confederate apologists. Relevant if true. Insightful if true. Unfortunately, **xenophon41** said nothing that could be construed as possessive of such a compelling need, and as such your statement is an egregious mischaracterization. > [@](#): > > Your presence here seems appropriate though, as you can advise your pro-Confederate colleagues on the best way to haul around old baggage from lost causes (in your case, generated by prior SDMB debates). The phrase “pro-Confederate” is relevant but not insightful, as you show a singular incapability of distinguishing between someone who is “pro-Confederate” and someone who is “anti-inaccurate and sweeping generalizations.” Your comment about old baggage, on the other hand, can best be examined by recollection of the Biblical case of _Mote v. Beam_. > [@](#): > > Sometimes self-awareness is a rare commodity. I advise you to check the content and tone of your recent re-entry into this debate. Irrelevant, uninsightful, and surprisingly meaningless. > [@](#): > > Ideological rigidity and affronted feelings do make for some mighty strange bedfellows… Neither insightful or relevant. Well, no–it _might_ be insightful and relevant, if it wasn’t so damnably cryptic. Just because you say something in one line doesn’t make it a one-liner. > [@](#): > > Just what is it about the slaughter of 300 black men, women and children that you find necessary to gloss over? Expanded use of the race card. Nice. Not, however, insightful or relevant–more an _ad hominem_ attack suggesting **xenophon** doesn’t mind “glossing over” the murder of black people. > [@](#): > > In arguing that there were “racists all around”, it was a “lousy time” for everybody, everyone was to blame etc. etc., you have two sorts of backers - Confederate apologists and America-loathing moral relativists. I gotta admit, the “America-loathing moral relativists” crack gave me a smile. Doesn’t mean it’s founded in reality, though. Relevant if true, but certainly not insightful. > [@](#): > > And I’ve met many Southerners who do not have blinders on when it comes to the less savory aspects of their romantic Cause, who do not maunder on about how > blacks loved their masters, fought eagerly for the South, etc. Another underdeveloped straw man. Or did I miss the part of the debate where **xenophon** maundered on about blacks loving their masters? Uninsightful. Irrelevant. Frankly, not very creative. > [@](#): > > Don’t fail to bolster your knowledge with the contents of other revisionist and white supremacist sites. I’m sure they have a diarrheic word output that you’d find most impressive. Mmmm…edging a bit toward libel here, if not completely round the bend. It amuses me that you so easily paint your opponents as unreconstructed racists despite lacking even a shred of supporting evidence. If that’s the kind of arrow left in your rhetorical quiver, it’s no wonder you find insight and relevance perpetually out of your grasp. And finally, once again: > [@](#): > > Darn. But I’ll welcome any insightful or relevant contributions from you. Yup. It’s just as I thought. That **is** one of the more ironically hypocritical statements I’ve seen on these here boards in a while. Congrats, **Jack**. I no longer find you frustrating; now you just make me laugh. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/135 "2001-02-16T20:09:55Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* \*\* > [@](#): > > Expanded use of the race card. Nice.\*\* One of the more deliciously ironic aspects of this “debate” is the sight of people like you who were no doubt throwing up their hands in righteous horror at the prospect of John Ashcroft as AG, now pitching invective from his side of the field\*. And the sight of a P.C. liberal wailing “Race Card!” is a real knee-slapper (I’m still waiting to hear what other racial slurs besides “octoroon” you find it appropriate to utter, so long as you can point to their occasional use by black people). I hope this most recent outpouring of effluvia didn’t take you as many hours as some of your previous trenchant analyses. \*\* > [@](#): > > I no longer find you frustrating; now you just make me laugh. \*\* Laughter _is_ the best medicine. We’ll cure you of that quasi-liberalism yet. (Gadarene, as self-proclaimed “The Westerner”, stalks off into the sunset muttering, trips over spurs, falls on bum). \*Lest we forget what the point of this discussion originally was - have Ashcroft’s views compromised his handling of the office yet? Haven’t heard about that. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/136 "2001-02-16T20:45:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Lest we forget what the point of this discussion originally was… Good point. I’m gonna start a new thread more specific to the topic of the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/137 "2001-02-16T21:46:19Z")
> [@](#): > > (Gadarene, as self-proclaimed “The Westerner”, stalks off into the sunset muttering, trips over spurs, falls on bum). The last word of your sentence just happens to be a slur against the indigent and transient populations in this country; that you would make light of such a person being fallen upon speaks volumes about your own insensitivity towards the social complexities surrounding the issue of endemic poverty. Shame on you, sir. I’m not even going to get into your casual insult thrown the way of the San Antonio Spurs basketball team. The shortest member of that team, [Avery Johnson](http://www.nba.com/playerfile/avery_johnson.html) is a full five foot eleven inches tall–hardly small enough that I might trip over him, as height-deficient as he might be relative to the rest of the league. I also think it’s no coincidence that thirteen of the fifteen players on the Spurs’ [roster](http://www.nba.com/spurs/roster/?nav=TextNavBar) happen to be black. The rest of you may judge for yourself **Jackmanii’s** implications in juxtaposing their outsized frames and salaries with a social presence so apparently negligible that my tripping over them seems a foregone conclusion. (You’re right, **Jack** : unsubstantiated oddball character assassination in place of rational debate _is_ fun! Told ya you make me laugh. :D) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/138 "2001-02-16T22:22:24Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* \*\* > [@](#): > > …unsubstantiated oddball character assassination in place of rational debate _is_ fun! Told ya you make me laugh. \*\* A bit forced and pedantic (“ya” and “you” are kind of jarring juxtaposed that way), but all in all not an entirely wasted effort at humor. Don’t worry, fluency comes with practice. Have a good Presidents’ Day holiday (try not to dwell on our forefathers’ sins against humanity). 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2001, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/139 "2001-04-04T20:53:45Z")
I’m resurrecting this because I have just read this article: [http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?20010412028R](http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?20010412028R). I just love the NYRB- especially now when I can’t get to most of the books it reviews. The books reviewed make many interesting points, shedding light on many issues that have been discussed here. Two that haven’t, to my knowledge, are disproportionate representation, and the gag rule. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The South also had disproportionate strength in the House of Representatives. The “three-fifths compromise” adopted by the Constitutional Convention stipulated that three fifths of the slaves were to be counted as part of a state’s population for purposes of determining the number of seats each state would have in the House. This provision gave slave states an average of twenty more congressmen after each census than they would have had on the basis of the free population alone. The combined effect of these two constitutional provisions also gave slave states about thirty more electoral votes than their share of the voting population would have entitled them to have. > \*\* This had _this_ effect: > [@](#): > > \*\* > During forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861 the presidents of the United States were Southerners—all of them slaveholders. The only presidents to be re-elected were slaveholders. > \*\* I have always wondered at the hysterical reaction the South had to the election of Lincoln (who said specifically that he would not pursue abolition, ironically giving fodder to the apologists who today use that as proof that the CSA did not secede over slavery). That figure puts it into perspective. Lincoln’s election showed the South that even with the additional electors from the 3/5 rule, they could be outvoted. But what does it do to the concept of “Southern Honor” to see that they had for four score years used such chicanery to maintain their political power. I know it was in the constitution, and therefore legal, but it hardly seems “honorable.” Those who argue that the CSA did not secede over slavery do not look at the entire history of the USA, and the compromises that were made to benefit the slave states during the founding and after. High among those compromises was the gag rule: > [@](#): > > \*\* > As Richards makes clear, Southern politicians did not use this national power to buttress states’ rights; quite the contrary. In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states. The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states. > \*\* I guess State’s Right’s are important, but Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press are not. There is also this article from 1999: [http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19991021055R](http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?19991021055R) which discusses a number of these same issues, and describes in some detail the abolition movement in the North. The simplistic notion that the North opposed slavery only in order to create “wage slavery” is pretty well buried by both the moral stance of the prominent abolitionists, and the political reality that slavery could only be defended if the slave states quashed debate and free expression: > [@](#): > > \*\* > It could well be, for instance, that the critical turn in Northern sentiment really came with regard to the issue not of slavery—at least not directly—but of the right of petition. The aging ex-president John Quincy Adams led a ferocious nine-year fight in the House of Representatives for repeal of the “gag rule” which Southern members and a contingent of their Northern supporters had established to prevent the reception of petitions for ending slavery in the District of Columbia. With the eventual success of this effort in 1844, by which time most remaining support for the gag rule in the North had melted away under the heat of public opinion, the prestige of Adams—who had denied all along that he was an abolitionist—had become enormous > \*\* The fact that the slave states could create such a rule in the national government, as well as supress freedom of expression within their borders, sheds a clear light on the question in another thread: “What would the CSA be like today?” For even further light on this, I have been reading this, which I found on a newgroup: THE WAR-TIME JOURNAL OF A GEORGIA GIRL 1864-1865 BY ELIZA FRANCES ANDREWS NEW YORK D. APPLETON AND COMPANY1908 COPYRIGHT, 1908, BY D. APPLETON AND COMPANY Published September, 1908. I can’t give you a good link to it (it’s not posted right now) but I’ll quote a few good points. Regarding the “heritage” she says this: > [@](#): > > \*\* > Never was there an aristocracy so compact, so united, so powerful. > Out of a population of some 9,000,000 whites that peopled the > Southern States, according to the census of 1850, only about > 300,000 were actual slaveholders. Less than 3,000 of these - men > owning, say, over 100 negroes each, constituted the great planter > class, who, with a small proportion of professional and business > men affiliated with them in culture and sympathies, dominated > Southern sentiment and for years dictated the policy of the nation. > The more prominent families all over the country knew each other > by reputation, if not by actual contact, and to be a member of the > privileged few in one community was an ex-officio title to > membership in all. To use a modern phrase, we were intensely > “class conscious” and this brought about a solidarity of feeling and > sentiment almost comparable to that created by family ties. > Narrow and provincial we may have been, in some respects, but > take it all in all, it is doubtful whether the world has ever produced > a state of society more rich in all the resources for a thoroughly > wholesome, happy, and joyous life than existed among the > privileged “4,000” under the peculiar civilization of the Old South > > - a civilization which has served its purpose in the evolution of the > race and passed away forever. > \*\* The “privileged “4,000” under the peculiar civilization of the Old South” “dictated the policy of the nation.”…hmmm, does that maybe mean… seceded? And let me quote myself: > [@](#): > > \*\* > Slavery was the central issue. The CSA flag apologists always say they fly the flag out of respect for the “Southern Heritage.” Well all that Southern heritage stuff, the “honor,” the “manners,” the “sitting on the veranda drinking our mint juleps,” all that stuff, came about because THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO WORK!!! THEY HAD SLAVES!!! > There was little about the CSA that wasn’t based on the fact that they had lots of money, and lots of leisure time. > \*\* Her description of race relations is interesting: > [@](#): > > \*\* > We can generally > avoid the Yankees by taking the back streets, but the negroes > swarm in every by-way and rarely condescend to give up the > sidewalk, so we have to submit to the indignity of being crowded > off by them. There was a time when such conduct would have > been rewarded with a thrashing - or rather, when such conduct was > unheard of, for the negroes generally had good manners till the > Yankees corrupted them by their “evil communications.” \*\* and > [@](#): > > \*\* > > I believe all the ladies > have now been released by Col. Drayton, except Mrs. Nish > Chenault, who is detained on a charge of assault and battery for > slapping one of her own negro women who was insolent to her! > How are the tables turned! \*\* and > [@](#): > > \*\* > > But it does seem to me a > waste of time for people who are capable of doing something > better to spend their time sweeping and dusting while scores of > lazy negroes that are fit for nothing else are lying around idle. Dr. > Calhoun suggested that it would be a good idea to import some of > those man-apes from Africa and teach them to take the place of the > negroes, but Henry said that just as soon as we had got them > tamed, and taught them to be of some use, those crazy fanatics at > the North would insist on coming down here to emancipate them > and give them universal suffrage. A good many people seem to > think that the Yankees are never going to be satisfied till they get > the negroes to voting. Father says it is the worst thing we have to > fear now. \*\* and so on and so on. [Sarcasm] We can clearly see how, if the CSA had won, race relations would be better there than they are in the USA at present [/Sarcasm] JDM ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2001, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346/140 "2001-04-06T13:51:42Z")
Your link to the NY Book Review doesn’t work. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confederate-apologists-have-no-business-in-government/50346.md?page=8)