[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoke- *
[li]I would like an end to rhetorical comparisons of Confederates to Nazis,**[/li][/QUOTE]
Again- AFAIK- nobody has compared the Confederate army to nazis. Can you show me where that has been done?
I did compare the KKK with Nazis- and I’ll happily do it again.
Unless, somehow, you think that an attack on the KKK is an attack on Confederates in general? Does “southern apologist” include “KKK & other racist hate-groups apologist”? I do hope not.
Why, you’re welcome! (You probably deserve an advertent compliment for your even tone through this thread, but that wouldn’t be very adversarial of me, would it? 
)
Actually, I mostly agree with you here. I don’t see how displaying any of the Confederate flags in the context of 20th - 21st Century American society could be perceived as anything but a racist statement. I don’t see how a state government can justify flying a flag of the Confederacy. Such flags have no place in official emblems. I don’t, however, think that a CSA battle flag in the rear window of a truck is more provocative than many other forms of protected speech. I have little respect for those who brandish that flag, but I would have much less respect for any movement to ban private displays of historical symbols.
I think that may depend on how you define “Confederate.” If you’re making it synonymous with “antebellum” I might agree with you, as pre-CW Southern society was based on and supported by the practice of slavery. But if you define it purely in terms of the CSA as it existed in 1861 through 1865, there is much that can be remembered with a sort of pride. It is a misapprehension of the context of those years to believe that the South pursued the was simply to preserve slavery. While the war was made inevitable by the South’s integral reliance on the institution of slavery, and its failure to relinquish that institution on its own, the conduct of the war became a struggle for identity and survival for the South. Such struggles inevitably bring out the best and worst in individuals and societies. Is it wrong to remember and observe certain heroic individuals and deeds, from both sides, in a war that most historians believe defined us as a nation?
Huh. I think I hold precisely the opposite point of view. The entire pre-war history of the South encompasses Jefferson and Madison and the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty (whereas those laggard Yankees in Massachusetts didn’t get around to disestablishing their state church until 1833); and Oglethorpe’s noble experiment in the founding of Georgia. The entire pre-war history of the South also includes a lot of slavery, oppression, and injustice. So does the entire pre- and post-war history of the United States (slavery was legal in many “Northern” states well into the 19th Century; it only gradually became an exclusively Southern problem).
The CSA, on the other hand, I can associate only with slavery and white supremacy. It was formed for the defense and perpetuation of slavery and white supremacy. Any brave deeds done in its name were unfortunately done ultimately in the defense of slavery and white supremacy, whatever the personal motivations of the men who fought and died for the Confederacy may have been.
I think Needs2know the problem is when you say racism is bad you use so much racism yourself.
Now I only quoted the majorly racist parts of your post. Your entire arguement acts like you know how all black people think and how all white people think. I don’t think that you speak for all black people and know how all white people are bigots if they consider a statue ok. You should not judge people based on the color of their skin.
I personally don’t like racism, if you could refrain from using it(like in your quadruple post where you refrained from being racist:)) your arguement would probably go better.
Sua said:
That’s the whole point, as far as I’m concerned. The whole war is more complicated than you seem to be trying to make it. There were state governments seceding over slavery but there were also normal folks simply fighting in defense of their homes. The reduce the entire conflict to a battle of Good versus Evil is just bad history.
And no one is saying that it does (I’m not, anyway). Of course slavery was an abbhorrent system. I’m just saying that not only is it irresponsible to leave out all the other factors when discussing the war, it is also bad news when attempting to learn the evils of war. NO WAR IS A BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL. It just is not that simple. The Civil War, on the most local level, was about normal folks on both sides losing homes and loved ones to a cause that was decided by politicians, just like all other wars. To try to gloss over that fact by making one side “right” and the other side “wrong” is a dangerous oversimplification.
Don’t display the Stars and Bars. It pisses me off too. Tear down ALL the monuments to the Confederate side for all I care. Just don’t forget that there was more to it than what the southern states said in their secession documents.
Needs2Know said:
The views of “many” white Southerners do not necessarily reflect the views of all the folks who disagree with you on this issue. Yes, most of the people who fly the Stars and Bars outside their house are probably racist. Chances are pretty good that they’ve got no concept of the more complicated aspects of the war either. At least as far as this debate is concerned, I think we should ignore them. Because what they have to say and what I and the other people on this board holding my position have to say are two different things.
I’m not trying to make this a battle between Good and Evil. Never said it, never believed it. All I’ve been (repeatedly) saying is that it is incorrect to assign equal moral stature to the North and the South. Let’s just assume for a second that all of the other issues that led to the war on both sides were morally neutral and/or cancel each other out. Let’s further assume (as so many people here are arguing) that the issue of slavery had no role whatsoever in the North’s causus belli (a ridiculous assumption in my mind, but no matter). We are still left with the fact that ONE of the reasons the South fought was to preserve slavery.
Given that, if I were a person who wandered onto the scene, I know what side I’d fight on.
Sua
Horse puckey. That’s exactly what you’ve been trying to do all along.
Now you’re piling it higher and deeper. Many a Southern plantation owner could honestly say he treated his slaves better than the mine and factory owners of the North treated their so-called “free” workers. Why is it intolerably evil to work a 12-year-old black kid to death in a sugar cane field but somehow not so evil to work a 12-year-old white kid to death in a coal mine?
Northern hypocrisy never fails to astonish me.
This, I think, is the crux of the disagreement between the spoke and the Sua Sponte sides to this argument (if I may identify the sides by the two most representative posters).
I don’t think anyone on the spoke side (other than one drive-by revisionist) has denied that slavery was the salient cause which split the nation and led to the secession of the Southern states. (The effect of this divide was the Civil War.) I don’t think anyone on the Sua Sponte side has denied that the individual Southern combatants did not universally believe their cause was the defense of slavery.
I’d like to take a stab at paraphrasing the arguments down to their basic statements:[ul][li]spoke: The Southerners who fought for the CSA did so to preserve and defend their country against an invading army, believing they had the right to separate from the Union. Although ultimately (and thankfully) the Union was preserved, this part of Southern history can be remembered and honored as legitimately as any other part of our history.Sua Sponte: The Southern cause in the Civil War was the preservation of an evil system which enslaved and subjugated one race for the economic benefit of another. No post hoc rationalization can disassociate the CSA from that evil, and those who fought for the South should be remembered but should not be honored for it.[/ul][/li]If I’ve paraphrased accurately, perhaps we could focus the debate on the veracity of those positions? If I’ve not portrayed the positions accurately, perhaps the other principles in this argument could correct my phrasing?
And BTW, this is the least acrimonious and most revisionism-free CW debate I’ve seen in a long time. I hope we can keep this up.
Crap. I guess y’all can strike the last paragraph in my previous post.
Lonesome, I don’t disagree that a 12 yr old worked to death in a coal mine is just as dead as one worked to death in a cane field. Which do you think was more common, more expected and more supported by social structure in the mid 19th Century? The issue of economic coercion of the Northern lower classes is a valid one, but to introduce it in order to make slavery seem more attractive from a moral standard is insupportable and distractive.
Ya see son, this is the problem with historical revisionism. If you would be so kind as to go back to my very first post, you may notice that I disclaimed any comparison between the CSA and the Nazis. I’ve never claimed that the CSA as a whole was evil. I have claimed, and do believe, that slavery is evil, and I have repeatedly asserted that the CSA’s defense of slavery tainted their moral position.
Real simple analogy (I’ll use small words): There are two guys. Both are honest and upstanding. Both pay their taxes, attend church, and respect and are faithful to their wives. One of them likes to kick dogs. Who’s the better man?
I adopt Xenophon’s response. The flaw is in your moral code, not mine.
Sua
Is a wage system susceptible to abuses? Certainly. However, I work for an employer who pays me–that’s how I’ve made my living for my entire adult life, working for employers who pay me wages or salaries–and no one’s worked me to death, or beaten me, or shackled me to the walls of my cubicle. In fact, I have a pretty good benefits package, and I always have the option of seeking employment elsewhere–in a different state or part of the country, even.
A slave system is also susceptible to abuses–much more so than a wage system. It’s much less capable of being reformed–slaves can’t unionize, employees can (however difficult the struggle to unionize may have been, it was eventually successful); employees can always pull up stakes and seek employment elsewhere (however difficult it may be to exercise that option in practice). Furthermore, while both wage and slave labor are susceptible to abuses, over and above the basics of their systems, slavery is inherently evil. A wage worker is a free man (or woman) and a citizen; he or she has political rights and freedoms guaranteed by law. A slave–however well treated–is property; although it’s true that some slave states extended some limited protections to slaves, the most basic rights and liberties of slaves are always taken from them.
Frankly, I find this whole line of argument rather disgusting. The North had a system of labor which contained abuses and injustices, which were eventually and after much struggle and even bloodshed corrected. The South had a system of labor which was inherently unjust, abusive, and evil; after much struggle and much bloodshed, it was abolished. It could never have been “reformed”.
To a large extent, Southern slavery was then replaced with something not much better, a kind of peonage–I should watch that passive voice, shouldn’t I?–to a large extent, Southern whites (with the connivance of Northern whites) then imposed a new system of semi-unfree labor on Southern blacks, a form of peonage combined with repressive political and social institutions (“Jim Crow”). Nonetheless, the abolition of slavery laid the Constitutional foundations (the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) for eventual full legal and political equality and freedom for all. And “Jim Crow” was better than slavery. Note that large numbers of Southern blacks moved North and got factory jobs during the World Wars. This was vital in changing and improving the social and political status of American blacks. Does anyone really think that slaves could have simply packed up and moved North? “Sorry, Master, I don’t want to pick cotton any more; I’ve decided to seek employment in a factory up North, instead. Can I get a letter of recommendation?”
MEBuckner, a few points in response to your last post:
I agree wholeheartedly that slavery is morally indefensible. I agree also that it cannot be fairly compared to so-called “wage-slavery.” (More about which later…)
I think Lonesome Polecat was reacting defensively to the simplistic notion that the Union states were “morally superior” to the South. I guess you could say thet the South had a beam in its eye, but the Northern industrial states had at least a mote in their own, which they did not address until late in the 19th century.
Everyone in this debate seems pretty well-versed in their history, but for those who don’t know what a “wage-slave” is… The North had numerous factory towns and mining towns, where the workers lived in company-owned housing, and were often paid in company scrip (“money” printed up by the company). The scrip was redeemable at a “company store” where groceries and other goods were sold at exorbitant prices. When the scrip ran out, the merchandise was sold on credit. The result was that workers found themselves so far in debt that they could not hope to escape, and wound up trapped by their financial circumstances. They were virtual, if not actual, slaves.
Now granted, this is not as bad as actual slavery. The workers could (theoretically at least) walk away from their jobs. (Though where would they go?)
On the other hand I think Lonesome Polecat is not just whistling Dixie when he says that slaves were often treated more humanely than Northern workers. Think about it. A slave was valuable property. If a slave dies due to ill treatment or poor health care, or if a slave runs away because of mistreatment, the slaveholder has just lost a bundle of money. The slaveowner had a financial incentive to at least try to keep his slaves as healthy and content as possible under the circumstances. On the other hand, if a factory worker in the North died owing to poor health care or unsafe working conditions, the factory owner had only to stroll down to the dock and hire a new immigrant to replace him.
I am not trying to perpetuate a “happy slave” myth here. I am merely pointing out financial incentives.
Now, a couple of points regarding the sharecropper system that evolved in the South after the war…
I would argue that the sharecropper system is more closely analogous to the “company store” system than to actual slavery. Sharecroppers, like Northern workers, often found themselves in debt to the property owner, and financially trapped in their position. If anything, though, I would argue that Southern sharecroppers were treated better than Northern factory workers because Southern property owners did not have the ready access to replacement labor that was available to Northern factory owners. There was no steady stream of immigrants sailing into Southern ports.
Also, I would point out that the sharecropper system ensnared poor whites just as readily as blacks. I would guess that by the turn of the century, the number of black sharecroppers and the number of white sharecroppers was about equal.
In fact, I would argue that the large number of poor whites in the South after the turn of the 20th Century was a big factor in the vehement racism that erupted at that time (as manifested in the re-formation of the Klan). I’ll explain my thoughts on that in more detail if anyone wants to get into it.
Anecdotal evidence to support a portion of your statement can be found in the book Rising Tide by John Barry. It chronicles the great 1927 flood of the Mississippi River and the havoc it caused. Farmers in the Greenville, Mississippi area prevented the evacuation of share croppers and their families from their perches on the levees (the only high ground around) for fear that they wouldn’t return, thereby leaving the planters w/o labor. IIRC, the planters had tried to recruit immigrant white labor with little success. Don’t know if this affected how they treated the labor they did have, but if they were worried about their returning, it couldn’t have been all that good. The book is a great read, BTW.
Sua said:
But what we’re really looking at here is more like one guy who kicks dogs twice a day and another one who kicks them five times a day. And what bothers me about what you’re doing is that you use slavery as the gap between them force your fingers in and push one of them way up higher than they ought to be and the other one way down lower. I realize that when you express your opinion in finite terms you continually say that you are not trying to make it a conflict between good and evil. But I feel that the all your comments taken together do not support this. You seem to want to take two sides which both had good and bad points but make the North “right” and the South “wrong” by virtue of the fact that one of the South’s bad points was worse.
Goddamn if that last sentence wasn’t totally devoid of comprehensibility…but I think you get my point. Hopefully.
Also…could we please stop debating whether wage-slavery is preferable to slavery? I think a moment of consideration by members of both sides will make us all realize what an absolutely ridiculous discussion that is. Wage slavery is of course pertinent to the overall debate and should not be removed, but discussion of which was “nicer” is kind of silly.
Please explain this. I have been explicitly discussing the motivations of each side to war. No one in this thread has pointed to another causus belli for either the North or the South that was morally indefensible. The other causes of the war were the “normal” things that cause war - economics, culture, ego, etc.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. One of the South’s bad points was qualitatively worse. For the sake of this argument I will concede that perhaps the North wasn’t “right”, but the South was definitely “wrong”.
Sua
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**
Spoke- I ask again: Just when & where here on the SDMB, or commonly elsewhere- have you seen the Confederates compared to “nazis”? THAT was the major point of your OP-right? The title & everything?
You would not be using that old propaganda trick where one trots out HUGELY oveblown attacks on what the propagandist wants to defend- as the reaction will be that of defending the attackee- despite their very real but lesser crimes?
Well let’s see, Daniel; you called Nathan Bedford Forrest “the ‘Stormtrooper’ of American history,” and talked about his “very racist ‘Final Solution.’”
Your references are not subtle.
Another poster wrote “[T]he Conferate flag is the Black people’s swastika.”
I’ll not name that poster because (your defensiveness notwithstanding) I did not start this thread to attack any particular poster.
My references were not supposed to be subtle- I was comparing NBF as the first national leader of the KKK, and its “Grand Wizard” while it cowardly murdered hundreds of black folks for no other reason than their skin color. Want me to do it again?- the KKK is a Nazi-like organization- and has been since its first years. It is now, and has been full of cowards, racists and other assorted evidence of inbreeding. They are & were evil. Is that “non-subtle” enough for you? I could even argue they are WORSE than the nazis- as at least the nazis did not try to hide their faces under pillowcases. Altho all the real Nazis were pure evil also- some seemed to have a ration of guts that the KKK is completely lacking. Need more “non-subtle”?
Hmm, it seems like you take attacks on the KKK to be attacks on the Confderates. The KKK sometimes tried to say it was “just continuing the war” as part of the “un-surrendered” Confederate army- but I am sure you do not beleive that. :rolleyes:
But you are able to defend the racism of the Confederacy- by saying the North were not exactly white knights. (It does not take “pure good’ to fight “evil”). And you have defended slavery by that old tired chestnut of 1/1000 of 1% of Negroes also owning slaves- not to mention that non-sequitur that “wage-slavery” is no fun either. Slavery in the Old South was about as evil as slavery ever was- and you know why? Becuase folks were slaves because of their skin color. Not because they lost a war, or commmited a crime- their 'crime” was being black. They were thought of as “sub-human” (hmm, where HAVE we heard that before…?).
So you started a whole thread about the Confederacy not being “naziz” becuase of two comments. One was me- comparing the KKK to the nazis. Another poster compared the MODERN use of the Confed flag to the swastika. NOBODY compared or called the Confederate forces to “nazis”. Remember that question I asked about that old propaganda trick? You just answered it.
Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden:
You’re really close, Daniel, but not quite there. Actually, it seems to me that a lot of attacks on the Confederates are actually attacks on the KKK and people of their ilk. The KKK are idiots. No one here denies this. Especially considering that the KKK today was started almost 50 years after the original KLAN was all but wiped out, I don’t think thei opinion of what the Confederacy fought for is really all that relevant.
I wasn’t in on the thread where you and -spoke apparently had at it…but as far as this thread goes, no one has tried to defend slavery.
Here’s a good part of the trouble, Daniel. Spoke- has provided some credible evidence that Forrest (1) did not instigate the massacre of blacks at Fort Pillow, (2) that he did not help organize the initial version of the KKK (despite agreeing to serve as the first Grand Wizard), (3) that he ordered the original Klan disbanded when it started its spiral into racial violence and (4) altered his views of race relations after the C.W. You can continue to demonize Forrest if you want to, but continuing to do it here is not constructive.
Point to one post on this and other threads on the C.W. issues where anyone has attempted to portray the current KKK any differently than you do (with the exception of the portion I’ve italicized).
My interpretation has been that spoke-, xeno,, I, and others have not defended the racism of the Confederacy, but have attempted to point to concrete examples in the historical record where Confederates have been unjustly maligned and the Yankees unfairly exonerated.
Daniel, back this up. Pull up spoke-'s posts on this thread where he defends slavery. You will find it impossible to do so.
I cannot speak for spoke-, but my impression is that he started this thread for several reasons: (1) we’d hijacked the OP’s intention in the the thread about John Ashcroft; (2) where any “pro-Southern” poster was having his/her post parsed and debated as being ignorant, racist, and apologist despite the poster’s clearly stated intent to the contrary; and (3) because the word “Nazi” and swastika were being tossed about like hand grenades.
With a few exceptions, this current thread has been argued w/o rancor and w/o ad hominem attacks. We’re happy to engage you in a careful, thoughful discussion. Are you?