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.
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:
and
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jodi *
**Who is it that’s throwing gauntlets around?
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.
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.
See the post you’re replying to: operative word “occaisional.” Directed primarily to Collounsbury, but also appropriate to DanielInTheWolvesDen.
True. See the Georgia Flag thread, esp. page 2. Note my reference to it this pm.
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
:rolleyes: Then I heartily recommend reading historical comics. They really boil things down in a way that’s easy to understand, and fun, too!
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 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.
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.
You’re asking someone else for insightful or relevant contributions? Hmm, let’s see:
Relevant, but not insightful.
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.
Neither insightful or relevant, though certainly patronizing and inaccurate.
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.
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.
Irrelevant, uninsightful, and surprisingly meaningless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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. **
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.
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 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 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)
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).
I’m resurrecting this because I have just read this article: 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.
This had this effect:
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:
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
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:
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:
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:
Her description of race relations is interesting:
**
and
**
and
**
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]
