What the McDonnell broo-ha-ha brought up for me was, why this adoration of the Confederacy? You can find Confederate flags in states which had no partici..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Romanticization of the Civil War

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 17:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11157
PAGE 1 of 3

Thursday, April 8, 2010 11:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


What the McDonnell broo-ha-ha brought up for me was, why this adoration of the Confederacy? You can find Confederate flags in states which had no participation in it, on the back of big pickup trucks, etc. What is so romantic about it? It was hard to find much on the internet, this is about all I found:
Quote:

The Antebellum Period can be looked back on with sentimental nostalgia in the US South, as an idealized agrarian and chivalric society, with the moral issues of slavery generally being glossed over. This is due in part to widespread destruction caused during the war by both armies and a lingering resentment of the occupation of the region by Union forces after the Confederacy was defeated. As a result the architecture and fashion of the period were better documented in this region of the United States than in other parts of the country and can be heavily romanticized.
Quote:

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind...

From the opening of the film Gone With the Wind

“Old South” is a way of describing the former lifestyle in the Southern United States. The term originally came into use after the American Civil War to describe the antebellum period. Many southern whites used it with nostalgia to represent the memories ofa time of prosperity, social order, and "gracious living". Most blacks saw it as being a reference to the past times of slavery and the plantation economy in which they were chattel property. A desire to return to the order of the "Old South" was a justification for ongoing racial segregation and the continuance of the Jim Crow system.

In this romanticized view, the process of the Industrial Revolution is mythically substituted for by the widespread destruction of Sherman's March to the Sea and by the military occupation of the defeated Confederacy by Union forces during the period termed Reconstruction ( 1865 - 1877). While the South was largely ruined after the Civil War, this had as much or more to do with the failed domestic polices of the Confederacy, notably its impressment of food supplies, and thousands of uprooted civilians, than it did with the scorched earth policy of Sherman. Sherman's March was exclusively limited to Georgia and South Carolina and scorched earth policies were not implemented in Florida, Tennessee, or the Trans-Mississippi states.

More than any other single American artifact, the novel and movie Gone With the Wind have permanently fixed a slanted popularized image of pre-Civil War American history and are good examples of the romanticized view. In the romanticized view, the Antebellum Period is often looked back on with sentimental nostalgia by some whites in the U.S. South, as an idealized pre-industrial highly-structured genteel and stable agrarian society, in contrast to the anxiety and struggle of modern life. The issue of slavery is largely ignored. For example, a romanticized view of the Antebellum South would claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights rather than slavery, when in actuality the war was fought predominantly over a state's right to allow slavery. Because of slavery and many other human rights abuses, most African Americans find the romanticization of this era to be offensive, and often see a coded approving reference to the racism of the period in the term "Old South".

Once those with personal memories of the antebellum South were largely deceased, the term continued to be used. It was used even as a marketing term, where products were advertised as having "genuine Old South goodness" and the like. However, fraternal and political organizations often used the term to show that they were supporters of white supremacy and segregation, but in a less blantant way.

Certain groups now wish to rescue the term from racist connotations by stating that they desire only to celebrate only the things about the Old South which were good, such as its chivary, and not every aspect of Southern culture, particularly not the racist aspects. An important and sizeable group of this sort is the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who insist that their group is about "Heritage Not Hate" and make a point of honoring the memories of those blacks who served with the Confederate armed forces and their descendants.

The underlined part is some of my answer as to why the McDonnell thing is news; also the part about "coded approving reference to the racism of the period". But it still doesn't explain why the Confederate flag can be found all over the US, and why it's flown in the South to this day.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 11:32 AM

MINCINGBEAST


A partial response, that evidences more reaction than thought:

People are contrary. If you tell them not to do something, then that something becomes irrestibily attractive. If you tell them not to say a word, then that word achieves a tremendous power. And if you tell them not to use a symbol, the symbol seems sort of awesome.

For every person that wags their finger and says that the Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression and evil, there is another person that will pick it up out of spite. The fact that people are hypersensitive about certain issues makes assholes like me just want to needle them over it. Did you know that there are dudes in Scandinavia that sport the Confederate Flag (so called "Raggare") just because it pisses people off? Now imagine you are from the South, and anytime your home comes up, everyone feels obliged to demand you aplogize for slavery.

That said, I have no fondness for the South, or the Confederacy, and when I see the Confederate flag, I wince.

EDIT: My point, if I have one, is that idealization of the Rebs may be in part a response to demonization of the Rebs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 11:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Very astute, Mince!


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:10 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


The Civil War was about a psychic treasonous Rothschild Jew bankster's massacre of 1-million US citizens, and enslavement of all goyim whites and blacks as unratified 14th Amendment "citizens" of the corporate "federal" govt of City of DC Municipal Corporation, in Plantation USA. Forcing Congress to sign under martial law at gunpoint don't count.

Dictator Abe "Lincoln" Rothschild did not free the black slaves when the Civil War started (when the "North" Feds invaded the South States).

The first slaves stripped naked and sold on auction blocks in America were WHITE Europeans.

Some things never change.


Jew dicktater GW Bush's kosher cousin porn pimp Hugh Hefner

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:12 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:


Jew porn pimp Hugh Hefner


An American arrested-adolescent success story!


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:12 PM

MINCINGBEAST


PN, if you had lips, I would kiss you, you bad-ass goyisha punim.

I just totally love all the shout outs to my people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:57 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ewwwww... ...just the thought!!

On the other hand, well said, Mincing, makes sense to me.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2010 2:10 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Gone with the Wind is an interesting novel, much more complex and layered than the film, naturally of course. I don't think that the Old South was shown in a particularly favorable light in the book, it was depicted as a decadent period and the people who inhabited it often weak and frivolous. Scarlett and Rhett were not examples of Old South, but something new and different, hard headed capitalists, who were willing to do a lot to survive and definitely not romantics, either of them - even Scarlett for all her sighs and pining over the ridiculous Ashley.

The film was more frills and frocks, but it was never the happy ever after love story that it is made out to be. Scarlett is too difficult to love, and Rhett gives up in the end. Hardly a traditional happy ever after romance.

The fact that it depicts (especially the book) the horrors of war and the effect of war and losing a war on a civilian population - particularly the effect on women, makes it a fascinating book with universal themes that can be appreciated outside of the North vs South paradigm.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 4:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


For a lot of folks from the South, it's mostly family. Given that pretty much anyone who was living in the Confederacy during the Civil War had at least one family member either in the military or in a city that was beseiged or destroyed by Union forces, it's not hard to figure that a lot of them would remember and pass down some history. Family history has it that my great-grandfather died in 1864 of "Camp fever" after being invalided out of the Confederate army and sent home to Northeast Georgia.

I can also tell you that a lot of folks with deep Southern heritage dislike the racists and neo-nazis who have co-opted the Confederate battle flag as their symbol.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 9:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Magons, sounds like the book has a lot the movie didn't touch on; but how many Southerners read the book? The movie DEFINITELY romanticizes the Old South, and mourns its loss. I wish it had touched on the more negative aspects, because one comes away with the feeling the movie-makers WANTED one to feel, that the South got descimated and it was once wonderful. The rest isn't touched on in very visceral terms, at least I thought so when I saw it.

Aside from Mincing's suggestion, nobody has presented an articulate answer to my question. While I agree with him to a point, I think there's far more than that at work. Maybe displaying the flag on one's truck is a symbol of rebellion or something, I dunno, but I abhor all it stand for and the mentality that accompanies it.

And I don't think romanticizing it comes out of being asked to "apologize" for slavery. I don't think a lot of people in the South feel the slightest bit of remorse over losing slavery, and I think racism is still very alive and well there. JMHO


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 9:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, the thing is, finally the historic glass of public school history class bullshit is being rubbed off and folks are realizing just what a freakin monster Lincoln really was.

It's far less clean cut than most folks were taught, and the causes and factors were radically different than what they were taught, and when folks learn this they tend to get angry.

Neither side was angels, nor were even most of those involved of noble intentions, if anything, nearly ALL of those involved on both sides in the run up to war were lying about their reasons for doing so and this compounded by the bullshit factor of winners writing and propagandizing the history, has muddied the issue to where only the most dedicated scholar can make any sense of it, and so when presented with a whole host of contradictory information to where the facts seem vague and malleable, folks are gonna believe what they *want* to believe, it's human nature, that.

Me, well, I come from Maryland originally, we never liked Lincoln, still hate his guts, and I have issues with the idea of forcing ones citizens to fight other citizens at gunpoint and then shelling the civvies that refuse to do so.
(See Also: New York Draft Riots)

Between Lincolns behavior, and Grant the butcher, who's tactics were mostly "bury them in bodies, we'll just conscript some more!" - and finally, Sherman the war criminal...

I can't say that I consider the Union any damned better, since regardless of anything else, they removed the idea of "mutual consent" and reduced america to rule of the gun.

And for THAT, Lincoln deserves to spin on a spit in the deepest part of his beloved christian hell forever and ever.

That said, I got no issue with someone flyin a dixie flag, so long as they got no issue with my black banner.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 4:47 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
... but I abhor all it stand for and the mentality that accompanies it.

And I don't think romanticizing it comes out of being asked to "apologize" for slavery. I don't think a lot of people in the South feel the slightest bit of remorse over losing slavery, and I think racism is still very alive and well there. JMHO



Niki, I fear you've fallen into a stereotype trap. Do you actually know people from the South, or do you form your opinions based on movies and TV fiction?

I've lived in states that belonged to the Confederacy for all my life, and I've seen them progress from segregation, to resistance to integration, to acceptance, to folks getting along real well. It has taken some time, but as the older generations who never went to integrated schools or met other races socially die out, there's less and less notice of color. Here in Northern Virginia the kids don't care at all and most of the parents are the same. I've seen the same visiting my relatives in Georgia and South Carolina, and have no reason to think it's much different anywhere in the South.

There are always gonna be racists, but if you check on them now, the virulent ones sure aren't restricted to (or even predominant in) the South.

And I have discussed with my older relatives the use of the Confederate battle flag by racists, skinheads, and neo-nazis, and they all were upset by it. They consider that flag a symbol of their brave ancestors who fought against long odds for their cause, not a symbol of bigotry.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 5:15 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Niki, not being an American I can only speak generally, but I think the tendency to romanticise war is age old. Wars are rarely just or righteous, not matter what the propaganda machine makes out. Mostly they are about preserving or obtaining economic resources and territory and the reality of them is that they are horrible. People kill and die and do shocking things to each other and anyone who happens to be in the way, or a strategic target. It's a bloody, gruesome, nasty business that is usually (these days at least) organised by people who will never take any direct part in it.

And the people who are involved directly, the young, foolish and poor would predominantly make up soldiers throughout history, and some story has to be spun to get them to run into the line of fire, and to their families when they don't return or return maimed and ruined, otherwise imagine the rage that the general population would feel if it knew that it lost its sons for no real good reason. And so history is rewritten to make it palatable.. Even more needed when you've actually lost the war, I'd guess.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 5:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


But Geezer, help me out here.. What WAS the Confederate cause?

State's rights? Rights to... what?

No matter how I bang it, the nub of the division seems to come down NOT to the practice of slavery in the Old South, because that was already a settled issue... but expansion of slavery westward
Quote:

At the end of the Mexican War, many new lands west of Texas were yielded to the United States, and the debate over the westward expansion of slavery was rekindled. Southern politicians and slave owners demanded that slavery be allowed in the West because they feared that a closed door would spell doom for their economy and way of life. Whig Northerners, however, believed that slavery should be banned from the new territories. Pennsylvanian congressman David Wilmot proposed such a ban in 1846, even before the conclusion of the war. Southerners were outraged over this Wilmot Proviso and blocked it before it could reach the Senate.


There seems to be a lot of double-think going on in the South about the Confederate Cause. It's as if the Nazi flag would become an item of nostalgia in Germany as people remember the Brave Soldiers Fighting for their Fatherland, but fail to mention what the war was all about!

That's not to say that southerners are terribly racist (in fact, the harshest racism is in the northeast) but there seems to be a great deal of voluntary amnesia in the south about what the Civil War was all about.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 5:32 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

I can also tell you that a lot of folks with deep Southern heritage dislike the racists and neo-nazis who have co-opted the Confederate battle flag as their symbol.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Thing is, others could make just about that same claim for THEIR family ancestry - "heritage", "honor", and all that rot - only since they're of German ancestry, they'd get to fly a Nazi flag. And yeah, they're all kinda pissed that the racists and neo-nazis have co-opted THAT flag as their symbol, too. After all, to them, it's merely a symbol of their ancestors' highest rise, and really, it wasn't about the Jews or any of the negative stuff, so why keep banging on about just THAT aspect of it, right?

Here's the thing: If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government, then don't get upset at people who want to fly OTHER flags here as well - flags like Al Qaeda banners, Nazi flags, Mexican flags, Chinese flags, etc.

Sound like a fair deal?




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 5:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But Geezer, help me out here.. What WAS the Confederate cause?

State's rights? Rights to... what?



States Rights to determine their own policy, probably.

Remember that the Revolutionary War was still fresh in memory in 1860. Its end was less than 80 years ago. Folk who were alive then were still alive. The folk in the Confederate states figured that it was their right to secede from the Union if they wanted to, based on the rules the Founding Fathers laid down. When they did, they considered that they were invaded. Many of the major cities in the South were destroyed and an army of occupation was imposed on them. Think of how you suppose Iraq feels.

I understand that slavery was an abomination, but, given the cost in lives and residual hatred caused by the war, I'd wonder if letting the South secede and then propagandizing against slavery and boosting the Underground Railway until the South realized it wasn't economical and gave it up might not have been a better solution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 5:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

States Rights to determine their own policy, probably.
Yes, a policy of slavery. Your thinking goes only so far and no further. That explains a lot.
Quote:

Its end was less than 80 years ago. Folk who were alive then were still alive.
Yeah, if you were a baby then you'd be an old fart by 1860.
Quote:

The folk in the Confederate states figured that it was their right to secede from the Union if they wanted to, based on the rules the Founding Fathers laid down.
Actually, no. The Constitution doesn't provide for secession, it never did. They were referring to the Declaration of Independence. But as historians have often noted, once the FF had a nation to create, their rhetoric toned down considerably.
Quote:

When they did, they considered that they were invaded. Many of the major cities in the South were destroyed and an army of occupation was imposed on them. Think of how you suppose Iraq feels.
Or Germany, or Japan, which have shouldered their responsibility and guilt, and moved on. A lot quicker than southerners, it seems.

Sounds to me like the south would do a lot better by saying: YEP, we were slaveholders. The war was all about slavery. It was wrong. We were wrong. Let's move on. But instead, the south has to keep justifying and re-justifying itself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 5:59 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here's the thing: If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government,



Didn't do too well in history class, did you?

The Confederacy never wanted to overthrow the U.S., just leave it. As of 1860, many states though that it was all right to opt out of the United States if they wanted to, based on what the Founders had proposed 80 years previous. When several states did, the U.S. government responded by reenforcing its military bases in the states which had opted out...for example, Fort Sumter.

Aside from that, the first major battle of the Civil War was when Union troops invaded Virginia at Manassas Junction. Aside from Gettysburg and Antietam (attacks by the Confederacy to convince the Union to quit the war and leave them alone) all the major battles of the Civil War were fought on Confederate soil.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 6:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
[B}'States Rights to determine their own policy, probably.' Yes, a policy of slavery. Your thinking goes only so far and no further. That explains a lot.



As I noted, I disagree with slavery, but not the concept of states rights. I also figure that non-violent action could have resolved the slavery question more affirmatively, less bloodily, and with less resentment - if possibly a bit less quickly - than a war that killed more Americans than any other in history.

Edit to update based on your edit:

Quote:

Yeah, if you were a baby then you'd be an old fart by 1860.

Oh, come on. In 1860 the Revolutionary War was the biggest thing that had ever happened in the United States. Folk still believed the Declaration of Independence applied.
Quote:

Actually, no. The Constitution doesn't provide for secession, it never did. They were referring to the Declaration of Independence. But as historians have often noted, once the FF had a nation to create, their rhetoric toned down considerably.

Historians pre-1860? Cites?
Quote:

Or Germany, or Japan, which have shouldered their responsibility and guilt, and moved on. A lot quicker than southerners, it seems.

Were Germany or Japan trying to secede from a government? Seems to me they were invading and conquering other countries. Slightly different. Would you expect the Founding Fathers to apologize for the Revolution?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 6:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In the best of all possible worlds, slavery could have been defeated without war. But the conflict was being propelled forward by westward expansion, and required urgent resolution.

So you reach a conundrum- Which set of rights takes precedence: The right of all men to be free, or States' rights? Assuming that you HAVE to choose, which would you pick?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 6:37 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In the best of all possible worlds, slavery could have been defeated without war. But the conflict was being propelled forward by westward expansion, and required urgent resolution.

So you reach a conundrum- Which set of rights takes precedence: The right of all men to be free, or States' rights? Assuming that you HAVE to choose, which would you pick?



Good question. Is it worth sacrificing 600-700 thousand people to free 4 million? I'd probably choose the one that kills the least; trusting that if given the chance, folk will eventually figure the right thing to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 6:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yeah, if you were a baby then you'd be an old fart by 1860.-Signy

Oh, come on. In 1860 the Revolutionary War was the biggest thing that had ever happened in the United States. Folk still believed the Declaration of Independence applied.- Geezer

Mmm hmmm. Conveniently.

Quote:

Actually, no. The Constitution doesn't provide for secession, it never did. They were referring to the Declaration of Independence. But as historians have often noted, once the FF had a nation to create, their rhetoric toned down considerably.-Signy

Historians pre-1860? Cites?-Geezer

Modern historians. I can find a lot of cites... here are just two.
http://stubbornfacts.us/random/secession_and_the_constitution
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/there-is-no-right-of-s
ecession-guaranteed-by-the-constitution
/

But the historian I was thinking about specifically was Howard Zinn.

Quote:

Or Germany, or Japan, which have shouldered their responsibility and guilt, and moved on. A lot quicker than southerners, it seems.-Signy

Were Germany or Japan trying to secede from a government? Seems to me they were invading and conquering other countries. Slightly different. Would you expect the Founding Fathers to apologize for the Revolution?

Southerners WERE trying to export slavery to new territories. They were expansionist in service to an ideology (a "way of life") which most people now find anathema. (slavery, the master race, and the emperor overlaid with racism). What's the difference?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 6:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Good question. Is it worth sacrificing 600-700 thousand people to free 4 million? I'd probably choose the one that kills the least; trusting that if given the chance, folk will eventually figure the right thing to do.
Good question, revealing answer.

Were slaves not "people"? Then contemplate how many SLAVES died, then ask yourself if it was worth sacrificing 700,000 people to save two or three million people from death. Because while "folk" were figuring out the right thing to do, slaves would continue to die. But quite honestly, slave deaths don't seem to enter into your equation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2010 8:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I see *someone* hasn't gotten past their public school "history" and actually fact checked their data...

But oh noes "slavery, slavery, SLAVERY!!!!!11!!"

Yeah, right.

Tarriff of Abominations, anyone ?
Lincoln being pro slavery (and proposing a constitutional amendment that would have protected it ?) and not really giving a shit either way save as an excuse ?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html
http://confederateheritage.org/Northern-Permanent-Slavery-Amendment.ht
ml


It was about economics, and whether or not our government was by "mutual consent of the governed" (which would, logically, have the right to STOP consenting and leave) or whether it was "rule of the gun".

This last was the primary core issue, remember these states VOTED to secede, and there was much debate over it, Lincoln arrested most of Marylands legislature to prevent that vote, locked up newspaper folk who dared speak against him, forced his own people to fight their brethren at gunpoint, and what the hell is conscription but a far *worse* variation on slavery ?

Besides which, the practice was dying out already, all a westward expansion would have done was propped it up a while, industrialisation made the whole concept no longer cost-effective, and the moral implications were indeed a great factor in the rest of the planet abandoning the idea.

But no, buzzword bullshit "history" written to demonize any who would dare question the FedGovs right to ram a gun down your throat and tell you what to do seems to be trumping any actual evidence here, as far as I see it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:37 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

Were slaves not "people"?



Come on, Siggy. In common usage, the word "people" is assumed to apply to both groups in such a sentence.

Since you obviously misunderstood my point, no response from me is necessary, I guess.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here's the thing: If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government,



Didn't do too well in history class, did you?

The Confederacy never wanted to overthrow the U.S., just leave it. As of 1860, many states though that it was all right to opt out of the United States if they wanted to, based on what the Founders had proposed 80 years previous. When several states did, the U.S. government responded by reenforcing its military bases in the states which had opted out...for example, Fort Sumter.

Aside from that, the first major battle of the Civil War was when Union troops invaded Virginia at Manassas Junction. Aside from Gettysburg and Antietam (attacks by the Confederacy to convince the Union to quit the war and leave them alone) all the major battles of the Civil War were fought on Confederate soil.



"Keep the Shiny side up"




I actually did pretty well in history class, thanks.

Quote:

On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftsumter.htm

You can try sophistry and equivocation all you want, but the fact still stands that the Confederacy attacked the Union and kicked off hostilities. And secession is not a patriotic action. Traitorous rebel scum seems an apt descriptor for such people taking such actions.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:41 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Besides which, the practice was dying out already, all a westward expansion would have done was propped it up a while, industrialisation made the whole concept no longer cost-effective, and the moral implications were indeed a great factor in the rest of the planet abandoning the idea.
-F



I was wondering if, given the cost of the Civil War, it wouldn't have been cheaper and cost a lot less lives for the Union to just buy out all the slaves in the Confederacy. While looking for figures on the costs of the war and the cost of slaves, I came across this:

Quote:

What If the Union Had Bought Out the Confederacy Instead of Fighting the Civil War?
Brian Gongol


Was There a Better Way to End Slavery Than Civil War?

Slavery was one of the most vile institutions ever to mar the soul of the American republic. This exercise assumes three things:
It was right to end slavery
The resources used to fight the Civil War could have been used in other ways
It is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible

Evaluating the Costs of the Civil War

Total cost (North and South) of the Civil War (in current dollars from the era): $5,200,000,000
Total number of slaves living in the South at the start of the Civil War: 3,500,000
Average cost of war per slave: $5,200,000,000 / 3,500,000 $1,485.71
Average market price per slave in 1860 (current dollars from the era): $1,658.00
Total estimated cost to have bought out all living slaves at market price: $1,658.00 * 3,500,000 $5,803,000,000
Approximate premium cost of buyout in excess of direct costs of war: $603,000,000
Total combatant deaths due to war: 558,052
Value of combatant lives lost if priced at the market value of a slave: 558,052 * $1,658.00 $925,250,000

The Premium Paid for War
If slaves were selling for more than $1,600 each, then it would be consistent with the principle that "all men are created equal" to value the life of a free soldier at the same amount. A very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat, then, would be the market value of a slave times the number of soldiers' lives lost, or more than $900,000,000. The difference between the actual cost of the war ($5,200,000,000) and the hypothetical buyout option ($5,803,000,000) would have been only $603,000,000, or three hundred million dollars less than the very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat.



http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/

I found other sources that put the dollar cost to the Union at over $6 billion, so the buyout might have been even less than the cost of the war.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


While not a historian, would you give any credence to the words of Revolutionary agitator Samuel Adams?

Quote:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."


Seems he wasn't keen on domestic insurrection or rebellion, and thought the leaders of Shays' Rebellion should be hanged.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:50 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Besides which, the practice was dying out already, all a westward expansion would have done was propped it up a while, industrialisation made the whole concept no longer cost-effective, and the moral implications were indeed a great factor in the rest of the planet abandoning the idea.
-F



I was wondering if, given the cost of the Civil War, it wouldn't have been cheaper and cost a lot less lives for the Union to just buy out all the slaves in the Confederacy. While looking for figures on the costs of the war and the cost of slaves, I came across this:

Quote:

What If the Union Had Bought Out the Confederacy Instead of Fighting the Civil War?
Brian Gongol


Was There a Better Way to End Slavery Than Civil War?

Slavery was one of the most vile institutions ever to mar the soul of the American republic. This exercise assumes three things:
It was right to end slavery
The resources used to fight the Civil War could have been used in other ways
It is desirable to use resources as efficiently as possible

Evaluating the Costs of the Civil War

Total cost (North and South) of the Civil War (in current dollars from the era): $5,200,000,000
Total number of slaves living in the South at the start of the Civil War: 3,500,000
Average cost of war per slave: $5,200,000,000 / 3,500,000 $1,485.71
Average market price per slave in 1860 (current dollars from the era): $1,658.00
Total estimated cost to have bought out all living slaves at market price: $1,658.00 * 3,500,000 $5,803,000,000
Approximate premium cost of buyout in excess of direct costs of war: $603,000,000
Total combatant deaths due to war: 558,052
Value of combatant lives lost if priced at the market value of a slave: 558,052 * $1,658.00 $925,250,000

The Premium Paid for War
If slaves were selling for more than $1,600 each, then it would be consistent with the principle that "all men are created equal" to value the life of a free soldier at the same amount. A very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat, then, would be the market value of a slave times the number of soldiers' lives lost, or more than $900,000,000. The difference between the actual cost of the war ($5,200,000,000) and the hypothetical buyout option ($5,803,000,000) would have been only $603,000,000, or three hundred million dollars less than the very conservative estimate of the value of lives lost in combat.



http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/

I found other sources that put the dollar cost to the Union at over $6 billion, so the buyout might have been even less than the cost of the war.



"Keep the Shiny side up"




But without the outright abolition of slavery, what's to stop speculators from just stepping in and using that buyout money to go and buy MORE slaves to bring over and sell?




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You can try sophistry and equivocation all you want, but the fact still stands that the Confederacy attacked the Union and kicked off hostilities. And secession is not a patriotic action. Traitorous rebel scum seems an apt descriptor for such people taking such actions.



Okay.

Quote:

The Capture of Fort Ticonderoga occurred on May 10, 1775 when a small force of Green Mountain Boys led by Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold overcame a small British garrison at the fort and looted the personal belongings of the garrison. Cannons and other armaments from the fort were transported to Boston and used to fortify Dorchester Heights and break the stalemate at the Siege of Boston.

After seizing Ticonderoga, a small detachment captured the nearby Fort Crown Point on May 11. On May 18, Arnold and 50 men boldly raided Fort Saint-Jean on the Richelieu River in southern Quebec, seizing military supplies, cannons, and the largest military vessel on Lake Champlain.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Ticonderoga

Hmmm. Almost two months prior to the Declaration of Independence, when the Colonies seceded by declaring "...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;..."

Traitorous rebel scum indeed, King George.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One, a fight for freedom.

The other, a fight for slavery.

Same thing!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:06 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You can try sophistry and equivocation all you want, but the fact still stands that the Confederacy attacked the Union and kicked off hostilities. And secession is not a patriotic action. Traitorous rebel scum seems an apt descriptor for such people taking such actions.



Okay.

Quote:

The Capture of Fort Ticonderoga occurred on May 10, 1775 when a small force of Green Mountain Boys led by Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold overcame a small British garrison at the fort and looted the personal belongings of the garrison. Cannons and other armaments from the fort were transported to Boston and used to fortify Dorchester Heights and break the stalemate at the Siege of Boston.

After seizing Ticonderoga, a small detachment captured the nearby Fort Crown Point on May 11. On May 18, Arnold and 50 men boldly raided Fort Saint-Jean on the Richelieu River in southern Quebec, seizing military supplies, cannons, and the largest military vessel on Lake Champlain.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Fort_Ticonderoga

Hmmm. Almost two months prior to the Declaration of Independence, when the Colonies seceded by declaring "...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;..."

Traitorous rebel scum indeed, King George.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Absolutely. That's exactly how the revolutionaries were viewed by the British. And had the British defeated the colonists, the leaders and traitorous rebel scum would have been rounded up and hanged. Guess maybe the Union shouldn't have been so merciful with the Confederate scum, eh? ;)




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:06 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
While not a historian, would you give any credence to the words of Revolutionary agitator Samuel Adams?

Quote:

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."


Seems he wasn't keen on domestic insurrection or rebellion, and thought the leaders of Shays' Rebellion should be hanged.



Jefferson, on the other hand, said:

Quote:

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
One, a fight for freedom.

The other, a fight for slavery.

Same thing!



I don't recall the Revolutionary war freeing the slaves.

As Fremd noted, making the Civil War all about slavery is pretty much revisionist propaganda. It was about trying to preserve the Federal government.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Come on, Siggy. In common usage, the word "people" is assumed to apply to both groups in such a sentence.

Since you obviously misunderstood my point, no response from me is necessary, I guess.

Then why did you respond?

Geezer, you don't get to skate past so easily.

You counted up the death of free citizens, but the death of slaves due to slavery never even crossed your mind. It's like the rich Filipino said: In my country, people don't do laundry. Your bias runs so deep, you gloss over the brutal deadliness of slavery so quickly that it never rises to the surface. Your application of the category "people" is sketchy. THAT is exactly the problem I'm talking about: Selective amnesia.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I don't recall the Revolutionary war freeying the slaves.
Nope, the job was completed in 1865. And not by the south.

Keep defending your peculiar institution, buddy. It owns you.

AFA what the Civil War was all about: It started with the question of slavery and it ended with freeing the slaves. I find the whole argument about "State's rights" and "preserving the Union" to be sophistry at best.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You counted up the death of free citizens, but the death of slaves due to slavery never even crossed your mind.



Okay. when you start doing your mind-reading act again, it's time to ignore you, since you'll just skip right past whatever I say and fall back on your erroneous preconceptions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


S'wenyway, there was a war fought to decide if a state can secede from the Union. In doing so, we found out a couple things:

1) A state CANNOT secede from the Union peacably, simply by voting itself out.

2) A state or group of states that wishes to leave the Union must do so violently, and must WIN, overthrowing that Union and demolishing it. Otherwise, it's still part of the Union.

Confederates claimed that they COULD leave the Union by choice and vote, and they rather seem to have been proved conclusively wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Okay. when you start doing your mind-reading act again, it's time to ignore you, since you'll just skip right past whatever I say and fall back on your erroneous preconceptions.
No, Geezer, I'm reading what you wrote. You looked at free citizens' deaths due to the civil war and balanced on the scale against freeing 4 million slaves. But if death due to slavery (including the slave trade) ever crossed your mind, you didn't mention it.

If it didn't, then you completely overlooked it due to bias. And if it did and you didn't mention it, then you consciously misrepresented the costs of action/ inaction.

There were 600,000-700,000 deaths on one side of the scale. That was the "cost of action". On the other side, several million deaths due to slavery IN ADDITION TO the violent subjugation of an entire people. That was the "cost of inaction".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Shoot, I'm going to have to do this in pieces--when you guys get going, you REALLY get going. Anyway, only got part way through so I may duplicate.

PLEASE TRY TO READ THIS, as it clears up the whole question of slavery as the cause of the Civil War, and I think is important for us to know:

Frem, I’m not naïve, I know about the REAL reasons for the Civil War, and that slavery was mostly a convenient one which has gone down in the history books. And yes, both sides deserved to be smacked upside the haid almost equally. But I refuse to believe the reason people get angry and fly the flag, or omit slavery from a celebration, etc., is because of that. Sure, they have reason to be pissed at being portrayed wrong, but I don’t think that’s why.

You’re entitled to your opinion of Lincoln, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. While I’m not uneducated on that aspect either, I don’t see him as the devil you do, I think it’s less clear cut.

Yes, Geezer, I know Southerners...some who’ve moved here. I like them all, and I know we have our share of racists, etc. Everyone does. But those in the rural South, who never move from where they were born; the “good old boy” mentality, I maintain is as I believe is valid.

I don’t question at all that racism has changed and is improved, and that education and integration have helped change it in the South. I can’t find any information on racism by state, tho’ I tried every word combination I could come up with, but OVERT racism is still most evident in the South, from the incidents we have seen in the news, like the Black-White prom controversy, the nooses, etc. I can only go by that. There’s also the different KINDS of racism across the country, from anti-Native American racism in places like Idaho to anti-Hispanic racism here in California, etc. But the general topic is “romanticization” of the Civil War, so since I can’t show statistics on racism, I’ll stick with that.

Magons, you’re absolutely right; romanticizing wars is an age-old tradition among humans. Again I point to “The Americanization of Emily” for some of the best (IMO) portrayal of romanticizing wars by the British, which can easily be generalized to people all over.

Sig, again since I can’t find statistics, I can’t argue where racism is the worst in the states; I wish I could, because I have trouble believing it’s worst in the Northeast. Since I can’t refute it, I’ll let that lie.

Mike,
Quote:

If any of you don't have a problem with someone flying the flag of the confederacy, a bunch of traitorous, anti-American rebel scum who attacked the U.S. and waged war on American soil and sought to violently overthrow the legitimate government
I’ll bet Frem jumped all over that further down the line, because that’s an inaccurate portrayal of what led to the Civil War, trust me. We’ll see as I get further down.

But since Geezer replied to your question, I’ll do what I can to clear it up a bit. Some of the real reasons, via a quick search, were as follows. This first one gives secession as the primary reason (but in my opinion that’s not accurate in that it doesn’t answer the reasons BEHIND the desire for secession), but it goes on to state:
Quote:

The second reason behind it was to weaken the south. Thanks to its thriving slave-oriented economy, the south was considerably wealthier than the north at the time. The north wouldn't stand a chance against its richer southern enemy if it didn't. The final reason for Lincoln's action was a strategic maneuver. He knew the south wouldn't comply and therefore he'd have a due cause for war- as well as attracting a greater following in sweeping down on the south.
http://www.iberianet.com/articles/2009/11/22/forum/doc4af86784a1afa653
390058.txt


This one’s written by a Southerner and is quite slanted; he calls it the War of Northern Aggression. Nonetheless he makes some good points:
Quote:

In his book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 author Frank Conner noted that Northern manufacturers wanted to overprice their goods “…in the firm knowledge that the competing low-priced British goods--with the tariffs added--would then be more expensive than theirs…Second, the Southerners bought most of the manufactured goods imported from Britain, largely because they sold most of their cotton to Britain; thus--by paying the tariff--the Southerners paid most of the costs of running the US government…and all of the Southern states were paying about 85% of the cost of running the federal government. By increasing the tariff rates, the North could force the South to pay most of the costs of the US government’s industrialization program--a program which would benefit the North tremendously, and the South not at all.”

The Northern view of the country, with Unitarian and socialist influence, was that the central government in Washington should be increasingly more powerful while the states should be satisfied to become mere vassals to the collectivist leviathan. This didn’t set well with most Southerners, who held to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution--meaning that the Federal government should deal only with those areas delegated (not surrendered) to it and should stay out of everything else. Such an anachronistic position simply had to be dealt with because the South was holding up the “progress” (which they had paid for) of the rest of the country.

Pastor Wilkins has also noted that: “The more radical element (in the North) were desirous of removing the one barrier to the progressive consolidation of power with the central State authority. The destruction of the South would give them the liberty they needed to establish this change in the structure and philosophy of the national government

The Northern view of the country, with Unitarian and socialist influence, was that the central government in Washington should be increasingly more powerful while the states should be satisfied to become mere vassals to the collectivist leviathan. This didn’t set well with most Southerners, who held to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution--meaning that the Federal government should deal only with those areas delegated (not surrendered) to it and should stay out of everything else. Such an anachronistic position simply had to be dealt with because the South was holding up the “progress” (which they had paid for) of the rest of the country.

Pastor Wilkins has also noted that: “The more radical element (in the North) were desirous of removing the one barrier to the progressive consolidation of power with the central State authority. The destruction of the South would give them the liberty they needed to establish this change in the structure and philosophy of the national government.”

http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/some-real-reason
s-war-northern-aggression.aspx


And a good one from a layman:
Quote:

It depends on which perspective you examine. While slavery is the most obvious issue, it is more of a fundamental difference that developed between North and South. More than just different views of slavery, the two regions were economically different and politically different. Even population density was different. If you're Lincoln the reason for the Civil war is to keep the Union together. If you're a Southern Democrat, the reason for the war is because you think you have lost your political power since Lincoln is elected without any Southern support (not even being on the ballot in 10 states). If you're an abolitionist, the war is a means to eliminate slavery. If you're a Copperhead/Butternut/Peace Democrat, the war is simply a political maneuver by Lincoln to grab up as much power as possible. While there are a number of different perspectives, historians agree overall that the leading cause was the sectional tension between North/West and South as they developed independently from each other.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090518151556AAb40S5

None of these goes deep enough or expansive enough, but they’re a beginning. Slavery wasn’t the initial issue, and in the end was an excuse; “The South could have kept her slaves had she stayed in the Union. No one was trying to outlaw slavery in Dixie, so that’s not what the war was about. In September 1862, Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had already been in progress for two years by that time.” There’s an even more comprehensive one at http://www.scribd.com/doc/24055375/5-Reasons-of-Civil-War, but it’s PDF so I can’t copy/paste it. You want to educate yourself as to the specific chronology and government actions that brought about the Civil War, go there.



"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:36 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


I don't recall the Revolutionary war freeing the slaves.



Excellent example of deliberately misrepresenting your opponent's point.

You are good at being slimy.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:55 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Onward. Sig, your dig at Geezer, as you can see from the above, is inaccurate. It wasn’t States Rights to continue slavery, it WAS States Rights to begin with. You’re right that the Constitution doesn’t apply to secession. I don’t think the South should apologize and shoulder their “guilt”, as they weren’t the initial aggressors, but I do agree they should move on.

Geezer IS right in that the South didn’t “invade” the North, nor did they want to overthrow the government. I disagree, however, that nonviolent means would have solved the problem; when you realize the problem was differences in economics and government control, that wouldn’t have changed...plus the war wasn’t BEGUN about slavery, that was an excuse used later.

Sig, although your reference to Western expansion is right on the money, I say again, it wasn’t about slavery; the States Rights issue was another issue all together. Yes, they wanted to expand their way of life Westward, but I don’t see that as the primary reason for the War, at all. On the other hand, good cites on secession. I think it’s something that can be argued about forever, but if you look at the REASONS they wanted to secede, it becomes irrelevant whether the Constitution left room for it or not, doesn’t it?

Oops, there comes Frem; as I predicted, he’s clearing it up. I won’t go back and delete the references I made, since they’re still valid, give more comprehensive information, and don’t carry Frem’s (with respect) biased viewpoint.

Again, Geezer, “buying off” the Confederacy wouldn’t have worked, as the initial problem was ECONOMIC, the Confederate states’ strength because of the cheap price of cotton v. the Northern states desire to lessen that discrepancy (or overcome it) via tariffs, etc., AND the question of States Rights. The divide went much deeper than the issue of slavery which, again, only came into it TWO YEARS after the war began.

But Sumter is a valid point, Mike, and yes, Ticonderoga was about the War for Independence, which I see as a whole different issue. And again I make the argument, Mike, that the two are not comparable in that the Colonies were just that—not a legitimate part of British Government—whereas the Confederate states were part of a union. I see a big difference, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Whew! The rest was mostly snarking, so I won’t respond to it. Geezer is more right than wrong, Sig, and I don’t buy your put-downs that he was ignoring the slaves as “people”. He was talking about direct cost of the War itself; if you want to expand that, you can, but I don’t think it’s valid because, again, THE WAR WASN’T ABOUT SLAVERY. End of story.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Here's a judgment for you, and not a self-righteous one because I'm guilty of the same thing:

Sig and Story, your snarking and accusations are a prime example of why reasonable discussion is difficult (not impossible, as with some others, just difficult) here. Geezer has attempted to make his points reasonably, and his poins in large are GOOD ONES; you're stuck on slavery, slavery, slavery and not only not addressing the facts, but having digs at him to boot.

There, that's my pronunciation for the day, and I say it because, knowing the truth of the history, as I read down I see it that way. I think if you re-read what you've written from the vantage point that the war WASN'T about slavery, you might get some insight. No (serious) offense intended. JMHO.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Niki, I disagree.

The South and the North did develop differently. And the major difference was that the basis of the southern economy was SLAVERY. Before mechanization, that was the only way to make an agrarian (cotton) economy profitable. The south was protecting its source of wealth, which was the extraction of agrarian value and the subjugation of a people via slavery. Then as now, the wealthy southerners (ie plantation owners, cotton merchants etc.) had a disproportionate say in the politics of the day, and they managed to winkle poorer southerners to go along with their plan.

All of the crap that people hang on to the civil war after the fact is so much gafla.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 7:25 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by Niki:

Geezer IS right in that the South didn’t “invade” the North, nor did they want to overthrow the government.




Wrong. The South marched armies into the North and fought battles there. I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from that's called an invasion. And the simple historic fact that the South tried to secede from the Union, then attacked Union positions, and then went to war with the Union, *IS* by its very definition an attempt to violently overthrow the legitimately-elected government of the United States. Sorry you can't see that, but it's plain as can be to me.

You can argue semantics all day long, but the semantics of it is, it always and in all ways came down to slavery. Economics? The economics of WHAT? The economics of an agrarian-based economy in the South, based on slave labor. States' rights? States' rights to do WHAT? Continue to own and exploit slaves, that's what.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ganted the South's supremacy economically was based on cheap cotton. Given that abolition wasn't declared until two years into the war, however, who's right and who's wrong? Economically, the North wanted the South weakened. Equally so, the South wanted to maintain their economic supremacy. So in THAT way, the war WAS about slavery. But it wasn't begun as about "slavery" specifically, some Northerners owned slaves and were quite happy to go on doing so.

Ergo, the war, to me, wasn't about slavery, it was, as you said, about finances. AND about states rights.
Quote:

The Constitution could be interpreted in opposite ways. In its clause giving Congress all powers "necessary and proper" for carrying the specified powers into effect, Alexander Hamilton as secretary of the treasury found ample authorization for his financial program, including a national bank. In the Tenth Amendment, however, Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state discovered a bar to congressional legislation of that kind: no power to establish a bank having been delegated to Congress, that power must have been reserved to the states. As president, George Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bills that Congress passed to enact Hamilton's plan. Eventually Jefferson withdrew from the Washington administration and, with Madison, organized an opposition to it. Thus, in the 1790s, originated the two parties, Federalist and Republican, the one willing to exploit the "implied powers" of the Constitution, the other demanding a "strict construction" of the document.

The Republicans, already convinced that much of the Federalist legislation was unconstitutional, were further outraged when, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act--providing for the fining and imprisoning of those who uttered anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government, the Congress, or the president--seemed flagrantly to violate the First Amendment, which stated that Congress should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.

(just a taste from http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm, which delves into the details of the disagreements about states rights)

Now, given the North's first salvo in weakening the South was the tarriffs (and there were more things enacted to further that weakening), who "fired" the first "salvo"? Admittedly the South was resisting them to MAINTAIN their own financial power via cheap cotton. But in my opinion, the North started it by misues of their legislative power. IF they managed to secede, they'd be the stronger economic power. I see that to be as much reason for the North going after them as anything else; if they allowed secession, they'd be the weaker power. Given their superiority in manufacture and industrialization, weapons of war gave them the surpremacy in a war. Ergo...

On the other hand, South had political power, and used it to continue their agenda.
Quote:

Politically, Henry Clay was a Jeffersonian Democrat. An advocate of a protective tariff to aid the nation's young industries, he also supported making internal improvements at national expense and establishing a national bank. He was a border-state politician who owned slaves but favored gradual emancipation and stipulated in his will that his slaves be freed.

The sectionalism that divided the United States before the Civil War concerned more than just slavery, states' rights, and protective tariffs. Opinions differed on either side of the geographical split between the North and the South over the disposition of land owned by the federal government. In the decade before the war, three land-grant measures that had strong Northern support were defeated by Southern politicians.

A homestead act would have made free western land available to unemployed working men and given them a chance to be independent landowners and farmers. Laborers who did not move west to take advantage of the free land would also benefit because with less competition for jobs, they could demand higher wages. Southern politicians, fearing the West would be filled with non-slaveholders from the more populous North, voted against the measure.

The transcontinental railroad act was another land-grant measure that was repeatedly defeated by Southern politicians. The project would have enabled the country to tap the vast wealth of the West.

Southerners also blocked a land-grant college act, which would have provided government-owned land to states for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical schools. Again Southern politicians believed Northerners would derive more benefit from the schools than would Southerners.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments.

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment was the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together.

The nullification crisis of the 1830s was a dispute over Northern-inspired tariffs that benefited Northern interests and were detrimental to Southern interests. The legal basis for the Southern call for nullification of the tariff laws was firmly rooted in states'-rights principles.

Southerners viewed the Constitution as a contractual agreement that was invalidated because its conditions had been breached. The Confederacy that was subsequently formed by the seceded states was patterned on the doctrine of states' rights. That doctrine, ironically, played a large role in the destruction of the country that it had caused to be created.

The doctrine of state's rights, the legality of secession, and the institution of black slavery had been issues of debate in the United States for decades before the election of Abraham Lincoln brought on the secession of the Southern states. Time after time the South had forced political compromises by threatening to dissolve the union, but by 1860 many Northern politicians had come to view the threat as a bluff and were sick of compromising when it came to slavery. Southerners were thoroughly indoctrinated in the issues, and their education emphasized the inviolability of the Constitution and honored such state's-rights leaders as Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun.

"The tug has to come and better now, than any time hereafter," wrote President-elect Lincoln in response to the movements among Southerners toward making good their threat to remove themselves from the United States if he were elected. On November 10, 1860, four days after the election, the legislature in South Carolina, the undisputed leading agitator for secession, they seceded.

Black African slavery had existed in the North American English colonies for 168 years before the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787. It had existed all across colonial America, but by 1804 most Northern states, finding that slavery was not profitable for them, had effectively abolished the institution. In the South, however, especially after the 1793 invention of the cotton gin, the institution grew, becoming an inextricable part of the economy and way of life.

Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secessioncrisis/index.html

We can debate it forever, whether the South's USE of slavery was wrong and gave them economic advantage, their actions in blocking legislature, their attitude toward slavery being okay, etc., etc., so if you want to go waaay back, you can blame the South. But if you want the INITIAL causes of the war, it's a fight for supremacy, with actions on both sides. Chicken or the egg?

For me, it comes down to erroneous education that the war was all about slavery and one's feelings about slavery. The concept disgusts me, but it doesn't make me blind to the facts. I think it’s a tough call; Southern legislators blocking expansion, North using South’s money to build their half of the nation unequally, northern legislators wanting economic supremacy, southern legislators wanting to continue things the way they were, slavery being the cause of their supremacy and industrial supremacy giving the North availability of superior fire power.

So who started what? There are usually many things behind a government’s or state’s actions, and there you encounter the shades of grey which make blaming one side or the other unilaterally difficult, if not impossible.

Mike, "where I'm from that's called an invasion" a totally unnecessary snark. Can you give specifics of the South attacking the North on the North’s territory? I didn’t know there were “invasions” of the North by the South and would like to learn more. I'm not sure I would consider them "invasions", tho', because there was no desire to conquer, only to win their battle for secession. I'd still like to know.

By the way, has anyone yet twigged to the comparisons with today’s Tea Party and what’s going on in the country right now? The parallels are, to me, very noticeable...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Thanks Niki, for alla that.

I had to cut that shorter than I woulda liked last night cause I hadda run off and go relieve one of my guys, who's gonna be out for a while cause I told him not to show his face to me for six weeks, in a pretty harsh fashion.

LOL, no, it's not what you might think - his wife dropped the bomblet last night and he's now a daddy, and I was like "Dude, that's half your fault, YOU go do half the work!" - he's a devoted gaurd, but shit man, you don't lay the whole rap on your wife, not when your boss offers you a month and a half of maternity leave, so I hadda give him a lecture on responsibility to his marriage, etc etc...

He cares, it's just that he's mortally terrified of being outta work or even away from work cause the last company he was with, he took his weeks vacation and they called him demanding he cut it short (and lose the other four days) and when he refused, fired him on the spot - so his fear is not getting bills paid and food on the table, and he got insistent, and I snarled at him - he'll get over it, I'm sure, especially when I take all the junk we rounded up over there tonight to present him with, crib, stroller, baby bag, diaper pail, alla that kinda thing.

Annnyhowsss, to the point at hand.
=============================

Lincoln was, as is any politician, basically fulla shit, he didn't give a shit about slavery any more than a modern republican really gives a shit about gay marriage or abortion, it was just a wedge issue to start some shit in an effort to further the Federalist agenda of a strong central super-government which trumped both state governments and the will of the people, and to do that he had to get rid of that pesky mutual consent thing.

Mutual consent means also, the right to STOP consenting, to NOT consent, and it was this that the southern states wished to do, they wanted to LEAVE the union, peaceably go their own way, and Lincoln wasn't havin none of it.

As pointed out, it was far more politics and economics than anything else, and consider well that most southern folk didn't own slaves, so what were THEY fighting for ?

And don't even shine me, they were not the poor deluded ignorants you can try to make them out to be, any more than the farmers of the whiskey rebellion were, they knew, mostly, WHY they were picking up arms, and they *did* for the most part see it as self-defense, especially once Sherman got rolling with his reign of terror - deliberately attacking civilian infrastructure was one of the things that, while not "officially" a war crime, was prettymuch considered the like, as was shooting troops trying to surrender (See also: Tarletons Quarter) looting, and prettymuch everything Sherman DID while down there - and yes, armies and soldiers do such things, but it's one thing for your troops to get a bit out of hand, which in that era was both more common and a hell of a lot more difficult to settle without modern communication technologues... and fully another to ORDER them to do it!
Sherman was a bastard for sure, but as he himself stated, he was a bastard following his issued orders, rather than explicitly bloodthirsty himself.

Grant on the other hand - ok, how do you reconcile the Union being "anti slavery" when they forced their own citizens to fight their brethren at gunpoint via conscription, shelled civilian populations for noncompliance, and then waged a war of attrition seeking to "bury them in bodies" uncaring of how many died, since they could just conscript more ?

Is not gunpoint military service a form of slavery, and a worse one at that ?

1776



1863



I ain't seein a lotta difference there, save for what color the folks gunnin down the citizenry wore.

And my opinion on Lincoln is founded primarily on his behavior, much of which is patently inexcusable, and the strong evidence that much of his and Grants behavior was due to them taking Blue Mass, despite Lincolns claim to have stopped taking it soon after assuming the presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_mass#Blue_Mass_and_Abraham_Lincoln

In fact, a common theory even at the time was that his own political faction staged his assassination because we was becoming increasingly unstable and thus a detriment and a liability to them.

Still, none of that excuses a complete disrespect for the constitution and repeated, fully impeachable, blatant violations thereof, a lot of them more for personal reasons without even the lame excuse of military necessity, the worst of which was the Merryman case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Merriman
Even worse was the threat (whether an actual warrant was written is in dispute, but the threat to do so isn't) to arrest Taney for daring to rule against him - which, in combination with his arrest of the Maryland legislature, and of any newsman who dared not toe the line, has left the state of Maryland hostile to him to this very day, as mentioned in a previous discussion related to certain lyrics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland,_My_Maryland
Umm, yeah, you can say they're kinda holding a grudge, neh ?

And yes, I will admit a certain bias, because of that, and because my family, bein appalacian hills folk, got to fight the really, REALLY unpleasant part of that war, it got ugly up there in typical blood feud fashion, with northern sympathizers willing to burn out whole families and salt the very earth of their fields, and those wounds still run pretty deep cause grudges last a LONG time up in the hills - and the very worst of it is that mosta the folk who were slaughtered and burnt out, were no more Union sympathizers than they were Confederate, as a rule not giving a shit about anything that happened off the mountain, but patriotic fervor makes folk do some pretty awful things, and that happens be to one reason *WHY* I despise such fervent nationalism or religiousity, cause my family lines have a damned lot of personal experience with how much needless bloodshed comes of it.

As for buyin off the slaves - well, some of you might recall I pointed out the financial cost effectiveness of simply putting a contract "hit" on Osama Bin Laden, and/or buying off the Talitubbies - which, given all that has passed, damn well *would* have been a better idea, wouldn't it now ?

The better course woulda been to let em secede, refuse to repatriate escaped slaves (the importation of any new slaves was, mind you, outlawed in 1808) and then outcompete them with industrialization, offering incentives for the abolition of slavery and return to the Union while appealing to the southern pride and dignity (while portraying slavery as undignified and unworthy of a gentleman) which would have ended the practice in about the same amount of time with less loss of life...

But it wasn't about Slavery, it was more about power, politics and economics, and primarily about the Federalist push to get the entrenched oligarchy and Federal super-government with full control which is what they had wanted in the first place - remember John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts ?

Hell, in essence, those asshats have been one long unbroken chain from Adams Alien and Sedition Acts to McCarthy and the McCarran-Walter Act, to the fucking Patriot Act, they were bent on Fascism before the term had even been invented, seeking a new aristocracy with themselves at the head of it, and they meant to have it no matter how they had to twist, ignore, or distort the Constitution to get it - John Jay was particularly helpful in exploiting the deliberate loopholes they were busy telling the Anti-Federalists no one would dare take advantage of...
In fact that is what turned the idealistic Madison against them during the Nullification crisis, as the true horror of their intentions came clear to him and he jumped ship onto Jeffersons side of things.

It also spawned Aaron Burr, who meant to become another Robespierre, and level his own Reign of Terror against the Federalists, but other than blowing Hamilton away (which no doubt saved us much pain and sorrow) he never really got it off the ground.

Anyhows, the issue is very bloody complicated, but even the most cursory of inspections will reveal quite clearly that slavery wasn't a very important or even a primary factor whatever, it was just a convenient wedge issue for the politicians and all but an afterthought to the real causes and motives.

And yes Niki, I see the fracture lines too - but that "25% Casualties" thing rears it's head every time I think about it as well, and I am lookin for a third option to hold things together till a new social fabric can be patched, cause if things get nasty, it'll be like nothing this continent has ever seen before - you think Somalia, South Africa, Darfur... that's bad ?

It'd be worse here, as deep as the fractures have become, and for a fact the liberals will actually win, not for the reasons you think, but they would, only at so tremendous a cost they ought to have not bothered, and only to have it fall completely apart as the survivors mow them and their ideology down once their supremacy provokes them to arrogance.

We're trying to provoke a minicosm of that on a political scale, and wash these assholes out of power before it comes to that, however - and if people can just get it through their thick heads not to LISTEN to these morons and take orders from em, it don't have to happen at all.

Hope and dreams is all fine and dandy, and so are words of comfort, but for the love o mercy keep both hands workin while ya do it, yanno ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I can’t find any information on racism by state, tho’ I tried every word combination I could come up with...



Try checking hate crimes by state.

Here's one. showing hate crimes in general.

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/appendix-d.html

And here's one showing hate crimes based on race.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hat_cri_rac_rel-crime-hate-crimes
-race-related


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 11:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


'Fraid I can't accept that, Geezer. Hate crimes don't necessarily reflect racism, and the racism can go many ways--here the biggest race problem is hispanices. I don't see that it breaks down per capita, either, and we're a very populous state. The idea of California being #1 I just don't accept, given how little racism I see in the state. Can't speak for So. Cal., but up here, it's just not that evident.

But we can agree to disagree, I'm happy with that. I don't think it can be done, actually, as there's a problem with people admitting their racist OR even knowing consciously they are. So...


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 10, 2010 2:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
'Fraid I can't accept that, Geezer.



Then I don't know what to tell you. I have no idea why you think folks in the South are more racist. maybe you could tell me where you got the information that makes you think this.

It seems to me that if there are very few racial hate crimes (mostly in single digits) in the Deep South states (The Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi) that that reflects pretty well on racial attitudes.

Organized hate groups, like the Klan, seem to be pretty well distributed coast-to-coast, per the ADL.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/active_group_2006.asp?learn_cat=ex
tremism&learn_subcat=extremism_in_america&xpicked=4&item=kkk


Madame Geezer and I just completed a three week road trip through the South from Galveston to Apalachicola along the Gulf Coast, and we saw black people and white people working together and socializing and dining with each other - from a Sunday Brunch at the Peabody Hotel in Memphis to a seafood shack in Lake Charles, to the Varsity in Atlanta. We saw plenty of bi-racial couples who were treated just like anyone else.

I grew up in the South and was there when segregation was in full swing, I also spend a good bit of time there now, and the change is remarkable. If you won't take the word of someone who lived through it, then I guess we do have to "agree to disagree".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Sun, May 26, 2024 21:03 - 21 posts
Love Kevin Spacey, as an actor, but he's
Sun, May 26, 2024 18:12 - 55 posts
Another dude wins a girls sport
Sun, May 26, 2024 15:47 - 3 posts
"Racism is dead in America." Bullshit
Sun, May 26, 2024 15:28 - 256 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, May 26, 2024 15:03 - 3775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, May 26, 2024 14:21 - 6552 posts
James Carville figures out on his 80th Birthday that he doesn't matter
Sun, May 26, 2024 13:50 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, May 26, 2024 12:53 - 2553 posts
America's own "color revolution" brought to you by George Soros. And Georgia (nation) a 2024 example of another color revolution in the making.
Sat, May 25, 2024 20:53 - 31 posts
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, 3rd Wave Feminism and The Regressionist Left
Sat, May 25, 2024 20:08 - 36 posts
India
Sat, May 25, 2024 17:22 - 85 posts
More MASS SHOOTINGS ! 2 killed, 13 wounded
Sat, May 25, 2024 14:16 - 61 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL