::sigh:: Um, spoke-, go back and check what I wrote about the Indian wars. I wrote that we shouldn’t have done it, but that we should also deal with the facts as they exist now. I sure as hell ain’t gonna wander around London demanding compensation because the English starved my family out of Ireland, and I ain’t gonna suggest that millions of U.S. citizens should be forced to lose their citizenship.
Might I point out that your correlation between monuments to unjust wars and the spoils of unjust wars is truly bizarre? Ain’t heard anyone recently suggest that the Arabs give Egypt back to the Copts and the Nubians.
Let me ask you a simple question - do you think, just out of common courtesy, it might be a bad thing to erect a monument at the border crossing in El Paso that reads (in English and Spanish, of course) “From this point, Gen. Scott marched into Mexico, killed hundreds, and forcibly annexed half of Mexico”? I think this would have a detrimental impact on U.S.-Mexican relations.
I’m having a basic disconnect here. As has been documented in this thread, the South seceded because of the threat to slavery. However, many of you argue that the North didn’t want to end slavery. Were the Southerners just idiots, or did they know something y’all don’t?
But OK, I’ll put that aside. The argument now seems to be that the North was not in a morally superior position because they weren’t trying to end slavery. Let’s assume that’s true. The South, however, was fighting to preserve slavery. So the North was morally neutral. The South was fighting for an morally indefensible cause. Even if the North was not on the side of the angels, they were still in a morally superior position to the South.
Sigh. The North did not prosecute the war to end slavery; and a majority of the Northern population did not care about slavery one way or the other. If you will examine the letters and diaries of both Union and Confederate soldiers, you will be very surprised at how seldom slavery is mentioned in them. There is much talk about why they chose to fight, most of it having to do with patriotism, but there is very little talk of slavery as a motive for fighting, whether pro or con. Slavery may have sparked the war, just as money problems or an adulterous affair may precipitate the breakup of a troubled marriage. But slavery was not the sole issue, and those who insist that it was are simply being asinine.
What’s the problem, Sua? Are you perhaps feeling a bit guilty about what the North did to the South? Are you so determined to believe in the moral superiority of the North because otherwise the sins of your fathers are just too horrible to contemplate? Does it not bother you the least little bit that the United States treated Germany and Japan far better at the end of World War Two than it treated the South at the end of the Civil War?
That has been my argument all along. You seem to be the one who is changing the subject.
The flaw in that argument is that the North was not fighting from a “morally neutral” position. During the war and the years immediately following it, the North raped the South. The Southern states were devastated and plundered, and much of the population reduced to debt bondage, itself commonly recognized as a form of slavery–so your war did not eliminate slavery. To keep the South in the Union, the North had to crush the South militarily, economically and politically–in other words, they had to devastate the region totally. With the exception of the American Indians, who were driven to near extinction by troops flying Old Glory, the United States has never been more cruel to a defeated foe.
Until you explain the circumstances in which a people are morally and legally justified in severing their bonds with a government, you will never have a justification for what was done to the South.
I am wondering if you have a cite for this, LP? According to the source I cited earlier McClelan did not denounce the war as a failure. He was a War Democrat, that is he favored a return to status quo ante only after the southern revolt had been put down. Their position was “The Constitution as it is and the Union as it was.” The Peace Democrats did manage to get the “war failure plank” adopted at the Democratic Convention but McClellan repudiated it in his acceptance speach.
Also, “Little Mac” didn’t run for President as we understand it today.
He despised politicians and felt that a gentleman shouldn’t seek high office but also shouldn’t refuse it if offered. He did his best to not be seen running for anything. He did do some work behind the scenes to drum up support but he maintained the illusion that he was not a candidate until he was “spontaneously” nominated.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by LonesomePolecat *
**
In that case, we’ve got some perfect fuzz to clear away.
As I indicated earlier, myths and distortions about Lee, Grant and slave-owning are among the favorite weapons of Confederate apologists. Lee did not free his slaves until a year and a half after the war started, even according to “scalawag” sites like this one. Lee was obliged to free these slaves by the terms of his father-in-law’s will, but missed the deadline by about a year. Yet the Internet is jammed full of rebel sympathizer sites which declare Lee freed his slaves before the war, before commencing his military career, etc.
And yeah, we know all about Grant and the handful of slaves that passed through his family’s hands…more fodder for the neo-Confederate distortion mill. Let’s not forget Grant fought for the cause that freed the slaves.
And to temper the allegation that the North laid waste to the South and treated it horribly as an occupied nation - consider the remarkably lenient treatment granted to rebel troops by the victorious Grant at Appomattox and the South’s own plunge into violence and anarchy via the Klan after the war, necessitating Federal intervention to restore order.
I had expected more in terms of ignorance-fighting from some of our SDMB Civil War enthusiasts.
Let’s try this one more time. First of all, of course slavery was not the sole issue. However, it was definitely an issue for the South. Therefore, how can you possibly say that it wasn’t an issue for the North?
But the fact there were many issues doesn’t detract from the fact that one of the issues for the South was the preservation of an morally indefensible economic system.
pole baby, my ancestors didn’t fight in the Civil War - it caught my family between generations (either too old or too young). The closest connection I have is the brother of the woman who married the first Green in America fought for the [drumroll, please], the South. He’s my uncle six generations removed, and his existence was discovered by some recent genealogical research by one of my uncles. I don’t feel pride or shame about him.
I’m therefore not trying to expiate my family’s sins. I have no emotional baggage here.
As for treating Germany and Japan better than the South, that’s called progress. I made be a blind optimist, but I think that over the past 200 years, our society has become more humane. So yes, it certainly does bother me how the North treated the South during Reconstruction, and I would be greatly opposed to memorials of the “heroes” of Reconstruction.
I just don’t see how that is relevant to whose cause was the more just.
Pointing out the flaws in your argument is not the same as changing the subject, polecat. The flaw in your argument is that one of the South’s motivations was expressly the preservation of slavery. This puts them at a moral disadvantage to the North, regardless of whether the North wanted to end slavery.
You are confusing motivations and tactics. I’ve never defended the conduct of the war (by either side); I’ve never even addressed it. But if you must know, I don’t think that (within limits) the conduct of the war has a great impact on the rightness or wrongness of that war. The fact that the U.S. indefensibly firebombed Dresden does not mean that we weren’t doing the right thing by fighting Germany.
Another problem with your argument about tactics is that you don’t (and can’t) argue that the South did not also employ morally reprehensible tactics. The North was simply better at them.
As for your point about debt bondage, two questions: 1) who were the people holding others in debt bondage? My (mildly-educated) belief is that it was fellow Southerners, except for the brief period of Reconstruction (share-cropping far outlasted Reconstruction); 2) Who was most affected by debt bondage? My (better-educated) belief is that a far larger percentage of blacks in relation to the population were sharecroppers than whites.
So, if my beliefs are correct, than it was the South who reestablished slavery in the form of debt bondage. If my beliefs are incorrect, please provide me with a citation and I will change them accordingly.
In this case, it’s easy. You can rebel to escape oppression; you can’t rebel if you are trying to keep the right to oppress others.
And please, point out to me which of the issues that led to the Civil War were cases of the North oppressing the South. Please try to distinguish normal political disagreements - being on the losing side in democratic debate is not the same as being oppressed. Otherwise, the east and west coasts have a moral right to rebel because the damn people in the middle keep “oppressing” them by electing Republicans.
These threads are so very frustrating. They always turn into a “I know more about the history of this war than you do” debate. And all of it is shit and means nothing. Nothing because the reason we debate this constantly is because many white Southerners continue to romanticize, glamorize and use this period in history to define what it is to be “Southern”. The only point here is that black people, who comprise about 15% of the American population and much of that concentrated in the South, find this glamorization offensive. Naturally it would be offensive to them. It is a constant reminder that unlike much of the rest of this country (perhaps with the exception of the Chinese) their ancestors did not travel here to find a new life and freedom but were stolen from their homes and enslaved. It doesn’t matter to them if their ancestors came into New York harbor or Charleston. They don’t care if they came on Dutch or English ships. They don’t care if the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing more than a political move to further a politician’s career.
What they care about is everywhere you go down here there are huge bronze statutes of bearded Confederate generals astride their horses, heads held proud, overseeing all who pass by. They care because a state building, a state where they pay taxes, is flying the Tennese Battle flag everyday. They care because they grew up on Jackson St. (and we ain’t talking Jessie). It is a daily and constant reminder of the less than human status that their ancestors endured. And they dig their heels in and demand that WHITE people stop shoving in their faces!
There is no excuse. There is no excuse for any white Southerner to embrace this particular part of their heritage and use it to define what it is to be Southern. It’s divisonist. It enrages a large segment of our society. It belittles them. And that is why it is still so damned popular.
Needs2know, I agree with much of what you say. It is of course easy to understand why black citizens whose ancestors lived in slavery would be offended by Confederate icons.
On the other hand, I don’t think we need to go to the opposite extreme and revile Confederates, or for that matter, those who have a keen interest in the Civil War. Frankly, the Civil War is the defining moment in the history of the South, for better or worse.
I think it is wrong to try to erase history because it may be unpleasant. My own views:[ul][li]The battle flags need to come down off of state capitols, and for that matter, the grounds of state capitols. (You listening, South Carolina?) Regardless of the original motive for flying those flags, you cannot escape the fact that a significant portion of the state’s population is justifiably aggrieved by them. State symbols should unite, not divide, the citizens of a state.[/li][li]On the other hand, private citizens should be allowed to feel comfortable flying a Confederate flag, if they so choose. It should not be assumed that anyone who takes pride in their Confederate ancestry is, ipso facto, a racist. (Granted, it is impossible to control the perceptions of others, and anyone who flies the battle flag does so at the risk they will be perceived as racist.)[/li][li]I would like to see more monuments to Confederate soldiers and fewer to Confederate generals. (What can I say? I am an anti-elitist.)[/li][li]I would like to see the monuments to the Confederacy couched in less glorious and heroic terms. Many of the monuments to the Confederate dead you see today were erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy after the turn of the last century. They often make a glowing reference to the “cause” for which the Confederates fought. I would rather see monuments with a less heroic and more somber tone. The Vietnam Memorial is a good model. I’d like to see an acknowledgement of the soldiers’ valor and sacrifice, but at the same time, an admission that the system they fought to preserve was wrong.[/li]I would like an end to rhetorical comparisons of Confederates to Nazis, and of the Confederate battle flag to the swastika. That sort of rhetoric does more harm than good to the cause of bringing black and white Southerners together. Effectively calling someone’s ancestor a “Nazi” is not helpful.[/ul]
Problem with this is that you guys just don’t enjoy studying the history yourself, you enjoy seeing to it that EVERYONE be more enlightened about it. And I’m simply not interested, neither are my black neighbors. I personally wouldn’t compare Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson or any of the others to Nazis. But I would compare an awful lot of modern apologists to them. Shut up about it already!
I live in Richmond. I don’t need to see a new rendition of Lee go up on the floodwall. I’ve seen the guy’s visage before. The image of the battle flag and what it symbolizes is imprinted on my damned brain! If my neighbor is flying that flag in front of their house, I want nothing to do with them. You and others can apologize until your tongues fall off. You can’t fool me, I’ve lived with you guys all my life. It is bigotry that fuels this facination. I know it, black people know it, and apologists know it, they’re just too cowardly to admit it. Wrap it up in what you want. Study the war if you like, just do it privately, and don’t bother trying to shove it down my throat. I also don’t appreciate you using it as a symbol of being “Southern”. I’m a Southerner and it does not reflect what I feel it means to be from the South. Stop making the rest of the country think we’re all a bunch of racist, apologist assholes.
It’s very likely that one or more of my ancestors fought in that damned war, so what!? I had a cousin that died at Normandy. My uncles were in Korea. So!? Anyway you slice it Southern white people hang on to the glamorization of this war because they are hanging on to being not just Southern but WHITE! And we certainly do not need another monument, plaque or stone erected anywhere down here to that war, no matter what the tone. Enough is enough already.
spoke, those were the wisest comments in this whole thread and neatly illustrate why it is maddeningly inappropriate to characterize any and all defenders of Southern history as pro-Confederate sympathizers. Well-done!
I never felt that the confederacy, or the civil war for that matter, was exclusively the province of a racial dispute, or even a dispute about race.
It seemed to have something to do with secession from the union.
The race issue was brought into it in an effort to stir more sympathy up, but “equality” of rights was not held in the highest of regard in the north or the south.
Confederates had an idea about how government should be run. they also had an idea about how some people should be ruled by that government.
THE NAZIS, on the other hand, offered a system of govnernment which, as part of its ideology and/or philosophy, turned the German man into a superman, better than the rest of the genetically impure world. It wasn’t that people deserved the right to work (remember, this is a brand of socialism here), it was that the GERMANS deserved this.
At the exclusion of all else.
To me, the difference is obvious.
To go on to say that confederates and confederate apologists have some racism in them is the equivalent of saying that anarchists use terrorist tactics, or that all capitalists are aristocrat supporters, or something else. It unites ideas that are mutually exclusive to one another, though they may coincide…I guess, there is no causal relationship between the ceonfederate form of government and racism. There is no causal relationship between socialism and genocide.
To be a socialist, one must not side with nazis. To be a confederate, one need not support slavery.
Needs2know, I am interested in the Civil War, and in the Confederacy. I have no racism in me, nor do I subscribe to any theory of racial superiority. Therefore, your assumptions are wrong.
BTW, I hope you are not as condescending to your “black neighbors” as your post suggests. Bigotry can spring up in the most unexpected places…
And just to clarify, I am not suggesting that new monuments be built in addition to existing monuments. I am suggesting that existing monuments that glorify the “Lost Cause” should be replaced with more somber and reflective monuments.
Xenophon41, thank you for the inadvertent compliment.
We can all agree that the Nazi/Confederate comparison is wildly inappropriate for many reasons, the chief one being that it is ahistorical. I also agree with almost all of Spoke’s suggestions for the treatment of Confederate history and historical artifacts. I admire spoke’s sense and evenhandedness.
The one point I have to vehemently disagree with is that the display of the Confederate flag can be done in a non-racist fashion. Sorry, that’s impossible. The legacy of the stars and Bars is inextricably bound up with the cause of defending the forced enslavement of millions of human beings. When you fly that flag, you are supporting the Confederate cause, which was, like it or not, the cause of slavery. There is nothing to be proud of in the Confederate heritage, and I say this as a descendant of Confederate veterans. The Rebel flag has long since been adopted by the lowest racists and hate-mongers in our society. When you fly that flag, you are making common cause with the likes of David Duke and Richard Butler. In addition, flying the flag is an affront to black Americans whose ancestors were lashed to pick cotton by the men who fought for that flag.
On the other hand, N2K lost me completely with her last post. Not study history?? Talk about wild overreactions! Confederate history is our history as Americans, and while it may not be anything to be proud of, a knowledge of our past can help us bind the wounds of the present. Moreover, it is incumbent upon us to face ALL of our history accurately, not just the bits we like.
You know, there’s a U-Boat Memorial in Germany that includes the names of all the men who died in Germany’s submarine service in both World Wars–including the men who fought for the Third Reich. I don’t see any reason why the men of the CSS Hunley couldn’t also be so remembered. Remembering men–and boys–who lost their lives doesn’t have to mean glorifying the cause they ultimately served. And I’m sure that many ordinary German soldiers in the Second World War were fighting for all sorts of reasons other than hatred of the Jews or a fanatical desire to conquer the world on behalf of the Aryan race.
goboy, I certainly agree that it is almost impossible to fly a Confederate battle flag without being perceived as being racist. I find this sad, since I think their are planty of folks (myself included) who might like to fly the flag simply as en emblem of pride of place, but who are reluctant to do so because of the negative associations.
I also agree that the battle flag has been co-opted by the KKK, various skinhead groups and the David Dukes of this world (I hate that bastard). The negative associations are just about impossible to shake. Therefore, I don’t fly the flag.
However, I would like to suggest, as an alternative banner of southern pride, the Bonnie Blue Flag. It has all of the “heritage” and none of the “hate” associated with the battle flag.
I never seem able to get my point across the way I’d like too. First of all study that particular part of history if you’d like. I’m terribly burnt out on it myself. It just permeates everything here in my part of the Southern world, perhaps maybe more so than in other parts of the South because of Richmond and Petersburg. I’m just not terribly facinated with that aspect of our history. It is refreshing to take a little drive into Williamsburg occasionally and not see any Confederate stautes or monuments by the side of the road. Early colonial history is everywhere you look in that town. And I find that earlier history of my home state much more interesting and uplifting than a study of the Civil War. So study away, just don’t expect everyone to be constantly interested or facinated with Civil War history, I’ve had enough of it myself.
I also cannot condone the display of that flag. Goboy is right about the image that it portrays. I’ve had many aquaintances and occasional friends become terribly angry with me or suggest that I am simply not a Southerner because I refuse to wrap myself in that flag. So be it. I refuse to use that hatful rag as symbol for my heritage. It would be nothing more than a benign image from a long ago war if the Klan, redneck biker clubs, and every redneck bigot that ever spoke the “n” word hadn’t adopted it as their offical symbol.
Actually I am interested in local history, Civil War history is just not part of it. Richmond is most likely the site of the first iron works in North American and the first hospital. There was an indian massacare here in 1633 that nearly wiped out all of the white settlers. I live within walking distance of where Lafayette based his headquarters during the Revolutionary War. It also happens to be where Lee was stationed during the seige of Petersburg. I don’t need anyone to feed me my Confederate history. Some people have had enough.
I never seem able to get my point across the way I’d like too. First of all study that particular part of history if you’d like. I’m terribly burnt out on it myself. It just permeates everything here in my part of the Southern world, perhaps maybe more so than in other parts of the South because of Richmond and Petersburg. I’m just not terribly facinated with that aspect of our history. It is refreshing to take a little drive into Williamsburg occasionally and not see any Confederate stautes or monuments by the side of the road. Early colonial history is everywhere you look in that town. And I find that earlier history of my home state much more interesting and uplifting than a study of the Civil War. So study away, just don’t expect everyone to be constantly interested or facinated with Civil War history, I’ve had enough of it myself.
I also cannot condone the display of that flag. Goboy is right about the image that it portrays. I’ve had many aquaintances and occasional friends become terribly angry with me or suggest that I am simply not a Southerner because I refuse to wrap myself in that flag. So be it. I refuse to use that hatful rag as symbol for my heritage. It would be nothing more than a benign image from a long ago war if the Klan, redneck biker clubs, and every redneck bigot that ever spoke the “n” word hadn’t adopted it as their offical symbol.
Actually I am interested in local history, Civil War history is just not part of it. Richmond is most likely the site of the first iron works in North American and the first hospital. There was an indian massacare here in 1633 that nearly wiped out all of the white settlers. I live within walking distance of where Lafayette based his headquarters during the Revolutionary War. It also happens to be where Lee was stationed during the seige of Petersburg. I don’t need anyone to feed me my Confederate history. Some people have had enough.
I never seem able to get my point across the way I’d like too. First of all study that particular part of history if you’d like. I’m terribly burnt out on it myself. It just permeates everything here in my part of the Southern world, perhaps maybe more so than in other parts of the South because of Richmond and Petersburg. I’m just not terribly facinated with that aspect of our history. It is refreshing to take a little drive into Williamsburg occasionally and not see any Confederate stautes or monuments by the side of the road. Early colonial history is everywhere you look in that town. And I find that earlier history of my home state much more interesting and uplifting than a study of the Civil War. So study away, just don’t expect everyone to be constantly interested or facinated with Civil War history, I’ve had enough of it myself.
I also cannot condone the display of that flag. Goboy is right about the image that it portrays. I’ve had many aquaintances and occasional friends become terribly angry with me or suggest that I am simply not a Southerner because I refuse to wrap myself in that flag. So be it. I refuse to use that hatful rag as symbol for my heritage. It would be nothing more than a benign image from a long ago war if the Klan, redneck biker clubs, and every redneck bigot that ever spoke the “n” word hadn’t adopted it as their offical symbol.
Actually I am interested in local history, Civil War history is just not part of it. Richmond is most likely the site of the first iron works in North American and the first hospital. There was an indian massacare here in 1633 that nearly wiped out all of the white settlers. I live within walking distance of where Lafayette based his headquarters during the Revolutionary War. It also happens to be where Lee was stationed during the seige of Petersburg. I don’t need anyone to feed me my Confederate history. Some of us have had enough.
I never seem able to get my point across the way I’d like too. First of all study that particular part of history if you’d like. I’m terribly burnt out on it myself. It just permeates everything here in my part of the Southern world, perhaps maybe more so than in other parts of the South because of Richmond and Petersburg. I’m just not terribly facinated with that aspect of our history. It is refreshing to take a little drive into Williamsburg occasionally and not see any Confederate stautes or monuments by the side of the road. Early colonial history is everywhere you look in that town. And I find that earlier history of my home state much more interesting and uplifting than a study of the Civil War. So study away, just don’t expect everyone to be constantly interested or facinated with Civil War history, I’ve had enough of it myself.
I also cannot condone the display of that flag. Goboy is right about the image that it portrays. I’ve had many aquaintances and occasional friends become terribly angry with me or suggest that I am simply not a Southerner because I refuse to wrap myself in that flag. So be it. I refuse to use that hatful rag as symbol for my heritage. It would be nothing more than a benign image from a long ago war if the Klan, redneck biker clubs, and every redneck bigot that ever spoke the “n” word hadn’t adopted it as their offical symbol.
Actually I am interested in local history, Civil War history is just not part of it. Richmond is most likely the site of the first iron works in North American and the first hospital. There was an indian massacare here in 1633 that nearly wiped out all of the white settlers. I live within walking distance of where Lafayette based his headquarters during the Revolutionary War. It also happens to be where Lee was stationed during the seige of Petersburg. I don’t need anyone to feed me my Confederate history. Some of us have had enough.
Lee was obliged to free these slaves by the terms of his father-in-law’s will, but missed the deadline by about a year. Yet the Internet is jammed full of rebel sympathizer sites which declare Lee freed his slaves before the war, before commencing his military career, etc.