PDA

View Full Version : Confederate Flag



bizzilizzit
10-30-2007, 12:30 PM
Will they EVER give up???

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/30/cheney.hunting.ap/index.html

Malingerer
10-30-2007, 12:56 PM
Well now, I'm certain that the folks in that New York gun club were merely paying homage to their Confederate heritage. Yup, just a nod to their past. No modern poitics. Nosiree.

Pvt Schnapps
10-30-2007, 03:27 PM
No they won't give up. Not till every attorney in the state of Texas is peppered with birdshot.

Malingerer
10-30-2007, 03:41 PM
No they won't give up. Not till every attorney in the state of Texas is peppered with birdshot.
Peppered with birdshot in the face.

sbl
10-30-2007, 05:05 PM
http://imgthumb.delcampe.com/20070327/showview/162216333554.jpg

reb64
10-30-2007, 05:22 PM
al sharpton andhis democrat un-american anti- free speech facists can't stand the confederate flag but love the rainbow one. give them the boot if you want to protect our right to fly it!

jthlmnn
10-30-2007, 06:51 PM
Mr. Sharpton was merely honoring his heritage, his ancestors, and their experiences in the presence of that flag, during and long, long after the war.

(I'm not sure how the rainbow flag got into this, but if you know of reports or images where it was present at whippings, lynchings or cross-burnings, please post or cite them. I, for one, will gladly jump on your bandwagon.)

reb64
10-30-2007, 07:50 PM
Mr. Sharpton was merely honoring his heritage, his ancestors, and their experiences in the presence of that flag, during and long, long after the war.

(I'm not sure how the rainbow flag got into this, but if you know of reports or images where it was present at whippings, lynchings or cross-burnings, please post or cite them. I, for one, will gladly jump on your bandwagon.)


People who have influence that fly off the handle at the mere sight of something like the battle flag are dangerous to our pastime and heritage. I have a basement full of paintings etc. south and north flags. would i be labeled if he saw it? Do I covr all the batleflag depictions for certain company as a collector, amatuer historian entusiast and member of scv and suv?

flattop32355
10-30-2007, 08:42 PM
Anything Al Sharpton says or does will have little or nothing to do with us.

Let him be pissy: It keeps him off the streets and from doing anything of substance that could be truly harmful to our society.

The only way he "wins" is if enough of us hand him a victory.

8th TexCav
10-30-2007, 09:38 PM
Mr. Sharpton was merely honoring his heritage, his ancestors, and their experiences in the presence of that flag, during and long, long after the war.

(I'm not sure how the rainbow flag got into this, but if you know of reports or images where it was present at whippings, lynchings or cross-burnings, please post or cite them. I, for one, will gladly jump on your bandwagon.)

Just playing devil’s advocate here. All of those things happened under our national flag as well (granted, not all legal, but did happen). Prior to the Civil War, slavery was legal and were under the national colors. Prior to the civil rights laws passed in the 1950’s and 1960’s the legal discrimination was also under our current flag. Perhaps he should protest that flag as well.

Just a thought.

sbl
10-30-2007, 09:47 PM
"....Perhaps he should protest that flag as well."

Well no Barry, because this country got "better" under the flag of the United States. We progress AS the United States. I can't see the Confederate flag in any of it's variations as anything but a interesting relic symbolizing the past.

jthlmnn
10-31-2007, 07:20 AM
People who have influence that fly off the handle at the mere sight of something like the battle flag are dangerous to our pastime and heritage. I have a basement full of paintings etc. south and north flags. would i be labeled if he saw it? Do I covr all the batleflag depictions for certain company as a collector, amatuer historian entusiast and member of scv and suv?

The flag in question was not present in any kind of historical, collector or memorial context. (Nor did it have "The Charlie Daniels Band" inscribed beneath it. ;)) Most of the above questions are, therefore, irrelevant.

As to covering for the arrival of certain company, and I assume you mean someone like the Vice President, good manners and minimal political savvy would suggest the removal of objects that could prove to be an embarassment. This would be particularly important if the object of the invitation and visit is the relaxation of the guest.

Mr. Sharpton, in my opinion, has already done a service by reminding all of us that there are many American citizens whose historical experience with that flag has been very different from ours. For them, it carries very different meaning and they will respond to it with very different emotions.

Malingerer
10-31-2007, 08:53 AM
al sharpton andhis democrat un-american anti- free speech facists can't stand the confederate flag but love the rainbow one. give them the boot if you want to protect our right to fly it!
Well....ok, but why bring Larry Craig into this?

sbl
10-31-2007, 09:58 AM
I'm taking a wide stance on that subject. :)

tompritchett
10-31-2007, 10:20 AM
Mr. Sharpton, in my opinion, has already done a service by reminding all of us that there are many American citizens whose historical experience with that flag has been very different from ours. For them, it carries very different meaning and they will respond to it with very different emotions.

If any other person had made that protest, I would agree with you. However, Mr. Sharpton lost all credibility several years ago when he suborned perjury in a supposed rape case all so that he could create controversy and headlines for himself. More than likely the only reason that he was not arrested and sentenced to jail would have been that emotions were so high at the time that his arrest would have likely caused NYC to explode into major race riots. The case against him was rock solid. IMHO, this is just another case of him making a mountain out of a mole hill all for the purpose of generating headlines for himself.

Malingerer
10-31-2007, 10:24 AM
I'm taking a wide stance on that subject. :)
Scott,
If you think this might be just another attack on our heritage then tap your foot three times and wiggle your fingers beneath your computor screen.

jthlmnn
11-02-2007, 10:42 AM
If any other person had made that protest, I would agree with you. However, Mr. Sharpton lost all credibility several years ago when he suborned perjury in a supposed rape case all so that he could create controversy and headlines for himself. More than likely the only reason that he was not arrested and sentenced to jail would have been that emotions were so high at the time that his arrest would have likely caused NYC to explode into major race riots. The case against him was rock solid. IMHO, this is just another case of him making a mountain out of a mole hill all for the purpose of generating headlines for himself.


I wasn't arguing the nobility of his motives, merely the effect of his actions.

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 11:26 AM
Mr. Sharpton was merely honoring his heritage, his ancestors, and their experiences in the presence of that flag, during and long, long after the war.

(I'm not sure how the rainbow flag got into this, but if you know of reports or images where it was present at whippings, lynchings or cross-burnings, please post or cite them. I, for one, will gladly jump on your bandwagon.)


I am REALLY curious...Should we stop flying the US Flag , since it was present at "whippings, lynchings or cross-burnings" too?

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 11:29 AM
The flag in question was not present in any kind of historical, collector or memorial context. (Nor did it have "The Charlie Daniels Band" inscribed beneath it. ;)) Most of the above questions are, therefore, irrelevant.

As to covering for the arrival of certain company, and I assume you mean someone like the Vice President, good manners and minimal political savvy would suggest the removal of objects that could prove to be an embarassment. This would be particularly important if the object of the invitation and visit is the relaxation of the guest.

Mr. Sharpton, in my opinion, has already done a service by reminding all of us that there are many American citizens whose historical experience with that flag has been very different from ours. For them, it carries very different meaning and they will respond to it with very different emotions.

The only "service" Al Sharpton has ever done for anybody is to be a "race pimp" and stir up hatred between the races.

jthlmnn
11-02-2007, 01:29 PM
I am REALLY curious...Should we stop flying the US Flag , since it was present at "whippings, lynchings or cross-burnings" too?


Already asked & answered. See Barry's & Scott's post above.

HighPrvt
11-02-2007, 02:21 PM
This is the best the libicraps could come up with this week. What with the tide turning in Iraq, and their Iranian allies quaking in their sandals since their Russian Air defense network ( same as Syria had) failed miserably against western technology....

I wonder how Hitlery's Chicom handlers are feeling about their A-D network?
I'm guessing Taiwan is safer than many expected!!!

jthlmnn
11-02-2007, 02:56 PM
The only "service" Al Sharpton has ever done for anybody is to be a "race pimp" and stir up hatred between the races.

You may have a low opinion of the messenger, but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of the message. After all, even the most self-selving, self- aggrandizing, publicity-seeking politicians have, at one time or another, said something wise, or truthful, if only by the combination of the sheer volume of verbage and the laws of chance and probability.

The point being, that Mr. Sharpton's response, inflated though it may be, represents millions of people whose historical experience has shaped their perception of that flag in a very different way from yours or mine. The symbolism of the Confederate flag, for them, holds no warm fuzzies of noble motives, valor, or respected foes.


Put it this way: There are three elements to any form of communication
1) The message that is intended
2) The objective form of the message (words-spoken or written, images, gestures, etc.)
3) The message as it is understood by the receiver

If I want someone to accurately understand what I am trying to communicate, then I need to take into account their understanding of the form and the meaning(s) they attach to it. If I don't, the results can range from frustrating to dangerous.

So, understand that the Confederate flag represents many positive values to you (for good reasons), but it also represents many despicable values to some others (also for good reasons). If you want your understanding to be respected and understood, then respect and understand theirs.

Malingerer
11-02-2007, 03:05 PM
Wow John, that was just supurb. And now, having said that, I will almost certainly plagarize it.:cool:

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 04:12 PM
You may have a low opinion of the messenger, but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of the message. After all, even the most self-selving, self- aggrandizing, publicity-seeking politicians have, at one time or another, said something wise, or truthful, if only by the combination of the sheer volume of verbage and the laws of chance and probability.

The point being, that Mr. Sharpton's response, inflated though it may be, represents millions of people whose historical experience has shaped their perception of that flag in a very different way from yours or mine. The symbolism of the Confederate flag, for them, holds no warm fuzzies of noble motives, valor, or respected foes.


Put it this way: There are three elements to any form of communication
1) The message that is intended
2) The objective form of the message (words-spoken or written, images, gestures, etc.)
3) The message as it is understood by the receiver

If I want someone to accurately understand what I am trying to communicate, then I need to take into account their understanding of the form and the meaning(s) they attach to it. If I don't, the results can range from frustrating to dangerous.

So, understand that the Confederate flag represents many positive values to you (for good reasons), but it also represents many despicable values to some others (also for good reasons). If you want your understanding to be respected and understood, then respect and understand theirs.


I can see your point, so how do we solve the problem? My idea has always been education. I find the majority of blacks that I have met who are EDUCATED, don't have a problem with the flag, if they know the context in which you fly it.

It is the others, that seem to be the problem.:rolleyes:

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 04:15 PM
Already asked & answered. See Barry's & Scott's post above.


So are you suggesting that the Battle Flag not be flown anymore?:confused:

huntdaw
11-02-2007, 05:33 PM
Sharpton is just one of a plethora of idiots on the political scene. But, in my opinion he is more racist than those he screams racism against.

By the way, Charlie Daniels always used a big Tennessee flag I believe and not a Confederate. Was it Lynrd Skynrd that used it? One of those Southern Rock bands from the '70's did I believe.

TexConfederate
11-02-2007, 06:37 PM
Sharpton is just one of a plethora of idiots on the political scene. But, in my opinion he is more racist than those he screams racism against.

By the way, Charlie Daniels always used a big Tennessee flag I believe and not a Confederate. Was it Lynrd Skynrd that used it? One of those Southern Rock bands from the '70's did I believe.
It was Lynrd Skynrd....and I agree with you. :)

jthlmnn
11-02-2007, 07:28 PM
I stand corrected: Lynyrd Skynyrd, not Charlie Daniels. (I drifted away from top 40 music in the 70s. I stuck with 60s R&B and Doo-Wop. Didn't start catching up until my 80s bartending days.)

Doug Cooper
11-02-2007, 07:30 PM
You may have a low opinion of the messenger, but that doesn't necessarily negate the value of the message. After all, even the most self-selving, self- aggrandizing, publicity-seeking politicians have, at one time or another, said something wise, or truthful, if only by the combination of the sheer volume of verbage and the laws of chance and probability.

The point being, that Mr. Sharpton's response, inflated though it may be, represents millions of people whose historical experience has shaped their perception of that flag in a very different way from yours or mine. The symbolism of the Confederate flag, for them, holds no warm fuzzies of noble motives, valor, or respected foes.


Put it this way: There are three elements to any form of communication
1) The message that is intended
2) The objective form of the message (words-spoken or written, images, gestures, etc.)
3) The message as it is understood by the receiver

If I want someone to accurately understand what I am trying to communicate, then I need to take into account their understanding of the form and the meaning(s) they attach to it. If I don't, the results can range from frustrating to dangerous.

So, understand that the Confederate flag represents many positive values to you (for good reasons), but it also represents many despicable values to some others (also for good reasons). If you want your understanding to be respected and understood, then respect and understand theirs.

Well said John. We need to remember that the average black american has no more appreciation of history than the average white american. We are all victims of an educational system that values little the times that have come before, the decisions made and the consequences thereof. It dang sure never attempts to put the student back in the shoes of those who lived it (except my kid's school, which is another thread). If you are taught that the past is not a teacher, you learn from the present - and the distorted message from politicians/leaders/hacks/hate groups with an agenda.

Two personal incidences occur to me everytime we have this discussion. Once was at the premier of Glory, when 3 young black americans (20's) behind me laughed as the 54th Mass was slaughtered on the slopes of Fort Wagner. When I asked them why they were laughing they said - "because its just Hollywood - we were just slaves (victims)." The other was having to be restrained at rushing forward to yank the CS battleflag from the hands of a KKK idiot waving it in our faces. When I asked them why they waved it (after so many heroes died under it), one idiot said "because it makes them mad" among other less printable responses. They had no clue of what it means to us, anymore than the minority groups they taunted with it.

CheeseBoxRaft
11-02-2007, 08:53 PM
Cheney's visit did stir up a bit of controversy when a New York Daily News photographer snapped a picture of a small Confederate flag hanging inside a garage on the hunt club property. Hmmmm... the article doesn't mention that Cheney's Ohio ancestors fought at Chickamauga and did a heap of shootin' at that flag. :rolleyes:

- John Steadman

TexConfederate
11-05-2007, 11:11 AM
No....they will NOT. Not until every Confederate Battle Flag is in a museum. But then again, neither will those of us who revere our heritage. :)

flattop32355
11-11-2007, 08:55 AM
Here's a link to a letter by Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard concerning the origin of the Confederate battle flag, published in 1872.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E00E1D9113EEE34BC4F52DFB4668389669FDE&oref=slogin

It is close to an account given by Carlton McCarthy in his book "Detailed Minutiae of Solder Life in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865", the last chapter quoted here:

http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/OriginofConfederateBattleflag.htm

Prior to reading Mr. McCarthy's book (just finished), I was unaware of the specifics of the origin of the flag.

sbl
11-11-2007, 09:47 AM
Bernard,
Thanks for the links. I remember one of the TV movies, North And South or Class of 61, where the incident of the unrecognizable flag at Bull Run, was dramatized.

The publishing of Beauregard's letter also show that the "losers" were allowed to write the history of that war.

bob 125th nysvi
11-11-2007, 10:09 AM
to ANYTHING Al Sharpton says needs to be nuetered, then killed and then have their progeny destroyed to allow the IQ score of the gene pool to go up.

It is well known that Al takes stands and makes statements only when it is of personal benefit to him. In this case playing the 'race oppression' card to maintain his power base.

If anyone can point to one substantive long term thing he has ever done to enhance the life of his supporters I'd love to see it.

But you also have to remember American Journalism is not about 'truth' but it is about spreading the viewpoint of the own/editors and making money.

And controversy makes money.

TexConfederate
11-13-2007, 01:01 PM
to ANYTHING Al Sharpton says needs to be nuetered, then killed and then have their progeny destroyed to allow the IQ score of the gene pool to go up.

It is well known that Al takes stands and makes statements only when it is of personal benefit to him. In this case playing the 'race oppression' card to maintain his power base.

If anyone can point to one substantive long term thing he has ever done to enhance the life of his supporters I'd love to see it.

But you also have to remember American Journalism is not about 'truth' but it is about spreading the viewpoint of the own/editors and making money.

And controversy makes money.



Amen to that, Brother! :)

tompritchett
11-13-2007, 01:16 PM
Anybody Who Listens
to ANYTHING Al Sharpton says needs to be nuetered, then killed and then have their progeny destroyed to allow the IQ score of the gene pool to go up.

It is well known that Al takes stands and makes statements only when it is of personal benefit to him. In this case playing the 'race oppression' card to maintain his power base.

If anyone can point to one substantive long term thing he has ever done to enhance the life of his supporters I'd love to see it

As much as I agree with you extremely low opinion of Al Sharpton, aren't you being a little extreme about those that actually listen to the idiot?

sbl
11-13-2007, 01:28 PM
You have to give Al Sharpton Credit. By not showing up for a debate with Tom Delay at Oxford in the UK, he forced Delay to debate himself and lose. :)

Malingerer
11-13-2007, 01:52 PM
Scott,
I'll be the first to admit that Sharpton is a skilled manipulator of angry people, but he has done more to harm the Civil Rights Movement than just about anyone I can think of. When White Bubbas, who might be at least borderline receptive to the notion of treating Blacks with dignity and respect, see this guy in action, it confirms all their worst stereotype fears. He has done for us, what Pat Robertson has done for Christian Conservatives - made us all look like nut-jobs.

sbl
11-13-2007, 03:00 PM
Peter,

I have no use for Sharpton. He sure isn't dull. It would have been fun seeing him debating Hot Tub Tom Delay, kind of like watching a war between two countries you don't like.

Delay sours my deep respect for Texas.

Malingerer
11-13-2007, 03:19 PM
Peter,

I have no use for Sharpton. He sure isn't dull. It would have been fun seeing him debating Hot Tub Tom Delay, kind of like watching a war between two countries you don't like.

Delay sours my deep respect for Texas.
Well, come to that, I have Tom Delay's arrest mugshot as a screensaver. He was a real piece of work. Kind of miss him though, in a perverse sort of way.

TexConfederate
11-14-2007, 04:42 PM
Well, come to that, I have Tom Delay's arrest mugshot as a screensaver. He was a real piece of work. Kind of miss him though, in a perverse sort of way.


I hate to tell you this (not really), but Tom Delay hasn't been convicted of ANYTHING. Not to mention he was one of the best friends in Washington that Texas ever had.:rolleyes:

TexConfederate
11-14-2007, 04:44 PM
You have to give Al Sharpton Credit. By not showing up for a debate with Tom Delay at Oxford in the UK, he forced Delay to debate himself and lose. :)


Al Sharpton would have been totally destroyed if he had showed up.
Tom Delay is one sharp guy.

TexConfederate
11-14-2007, 04:47 PM
Peter,

I have no use for Sharpton. He sure isn't dull. It would have been fun seeing him debating Hot Tub Tom Delay, kind of like watching a war between two countries you don't like.

Delay sours my deep respect for Texas.


The problems with Tom Delay were political in nature.
He hasn't been convicted of anything.

sbl
11-14-2007, 04:55 PM
"....Tom Delay hasn't been convicted of ANYTHING.."

Yet.

tompritchett
11-14-2007, 05:06 PM
Al Sharpton would have been totally destroyed if he had showed up.
Tom Delay is one sharp guy.

Ah, but you are assuming that the debate would have involved logical discussion of the issues and respectful participation instead off the wall emotionally charged rants, constant interruptions, and shouting that seem to be the format for so many "news" talk shows.

TexConfederate
11-14-2007, 11:00 PM
Ah, but you are assuming that the debate would have involved logical discussion of the issues and respectful participation instead off the wall emotionally charged rants, constant interruptions, and shouting that seem to be the format for so many "news" talk shows.



Ah...That is a good point! :)

TexConfederate
11-14-2007, 11:04 PM
"....Tom Delay hasn't been convicted of ANYTHING.."

Yet.


Ronnie Earl, the dimwit Travis County DA from the "People's Republic of Austin" doesn't have a chance.

Trust me, being here, I get a lot of insider info. Delay will never be convicted of a thing.

Miss Dixie
11-15-2007, 07:13 AM
I rank Sharpton with Jessie Jackson, thaey will be where the free publicity and a smell of money are, for example, Jackson sitting next to Nagin after Katrina demanding help for New Orleans, but has he ever been photographed actually working to clean anything up?

Diane Gipson

sbl
11-15-2007, 07:17 AM
Rio Bravo (1959)

Nathan Burdette: Just what have I done?

John T. Chance: You're a rich man, Burdette... big ranch, pay a lot of people to do what you want 'em to do. And you got a brother. He's no good but he's your brother. He committed twenty murders you'd try and see he didn't hang for 'em.

TexConfederate
11-15-2007, 11:36 AM
Rio Bravo (1959)

Nathan Burdette: Just what have I done?

John T. Chance: You're a rich man, Burdette... big ranch, pay a lot of people to do what you want 'em to do. And you got a brother. He's no good but he's your brother. He committed twenty murders you'd try and see he didn't hang for 'em.


Either a man is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, or he is not.
What is YOUR opinion?

TexConfederate
11-15-2007, 11:40 AM
Here's a link to a letter by Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard concerning the origin of the Confederate battle flag, published in 1872.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E00E1D9113EEE34BC4F52DFB4668389669FDE&oref=slogin

It is close to an account given by Carlton McCarthy in his book "Detailed Minutiae of Solder Life in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865", the last chapter quoted here:

http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/OriginofConfederateBattleflag.htm

Prior to reading Mr. McCarthy's book (just finished), I was unaware of the specifics of the origin of the flag.


Great article......

TexConfederate
11-15-2007, 11:43 AM
"The publishing of Beauregard's letter also show that the "losers" were allowed to write the history of that war."


I haven't seen any Southern Textbooks about the "Late Unpleasantness"
from that time period, so I disagree.

Doug Cooper
11-15-2007, 02:47 PM
The flag in question was not present in any kind of historical, collector or memorial context. (Nor did it have "The Charlie Daniels Band" inscribed beneath it. ;)) Most of the above questions are, therefore, irrelevant.

As to covering for the arrival of certain company, and I assume you mean someone like the Vice President, good manners and minimal political savvy would suggest the removal of objects that could prove to be an embarassment. This would be particularly important if the object of the invitation and visit is the relaxation of the guest.

Mr. Sharpton, in my opinion, has already done a service by reminding all of us that there are many American citizens whose historical experience with that flag has been very different from ours. For them, it carries very different meaning and they will respond to it with very different emotions.

Well said!!!

Poor Al is like many other politicians who can't stand not being the center of attention or "leading" public opinion. They exist in all colors and political persuasions, home and abroad. If he goes too long not being in the news he risks being marginalized and no longer relevant. His job in life is a "polarizer", which he has confused with "leader." Pretty common actually.

But look at how some of us on the forum go nuts in response. There is an interesting symbiotic relationship here at every level. Without the KKK and idiots of that bent and their use of the flag, Al, Jesse and the NAACP might have long ago morphed into a more progressive and effective leaders and an organization that ignores said idiots and puts ALL their muscle into actually improving the lives of the membership.

Ditto a famous Confederate descendents organization. If not for fighting flag haters and defending flag flyers (including some of the idiots cited above), imagine how much more battlefield and grave preservation work might get done? That of course is the real lasting legacy of the heroes who wore gray.

Its never good being defined by one's "enemy"...but it sure is cheap theatre...

As for Southern Textbooks - I distinctly remember my Junior High and High School textbooks on the CW in Virginia (late 68-70). They were very long on lost cause themes and states rights, but made very little mention of slavery as a cause, black union soldiers or the real cause of defeat. Confused the heck out of me because my outside reading was so more balanced.

TexConfederate
11-15-2007, 03:26 PM
Well said!!!

Poor Al is like many other politicians who can't stand not being the center of attention or "leading" public opinion. They exist in all colors and political persuasions, home and abroad. If he goes too long not being in the news he risks being marginalized and no longer relevant. His job in life is a "polarizer", which he has confused with "leader." Pretty common actually.

But look at how some of us on the forum go nuts in response. There is an interesting symbiotic relationship here at every level. Without the KKK and idiots of that bent and their use of the flag, Al, Jesse and the NAACP might have long ago morphed into a more progressive and effective leaders and an organization that ignores said idiots and puts ALL their muscle into actually improving the lives of the membership.

Ditto a famous Confederate descendents organization. If not for fighting flag haters and defending flag flyers (including some of the idiots cited above), imagine how much more battlefield and grave preservation work might get done? That of course is the real lasting legacy of the heroes who wore gray.

Its never good being defined by one's "enemy"...but it sure is cheap theatre...

As for Southern Textbooks - I distinctly remember my Junior High and High School textbooks on the CW in Virginia (late 68-70). They were very long on lost cause themes and states rights, but made very little mention of slavery as a cause, black union soldiers or the real cause of defeat. Confused the heck out of me because my outside reading was so more balanced.

Well, I don't deny what you are saying regarding the History Books in your school. I was referring to textbooks published in the 1870's-1880 or so.
Directly related to the off-the-cuff rant about "losers" getting to publish their history.:rolleyes:

sbl
11-15-2007, 09:43 PM
Jaye,

He might be found not guilty, but not innocent. I look at his involvement with the sweat shops on Saipan, the Terri Schiavo case, his charity funds going for Party use, Jack Abramoff, etc........ This guy's trail of debris is long.

bob 125th nysvi
11-15-2007, 10:59 PM
As much as I agree with you extremely low opinion of Al Sharpton, aren't you being a little extreme about those that actually listen to the idiot?

PC and maybe a little harsh but quite honestly we were a lot smarter as a race when the person who left the cave to pet the 'pretty kitty' wound up inside kitty as dinner.

Al and his views are a modern day saber-tooth tiger but the people stupid enough to buy the bull don't have to pay any personal consequences. And unfortunately neither does Al.

History is replete with demigogs leading a people down the path they were too stupid to avoid. The German people following Hitler was only the latest and most horrific example of mass stupidity.

Do I think Al is the next Adolf, no I don't. But in 1925 nobody thought Adolf was anything other than a street corner rabble rouser.

I see it everyday. As a species (culture?) we get dumber and that doesn't bode well for the future (fortunately we'll all be long gone before the inevitable happens).

TexConfederate
11-16-2007, 02:40 AM
Jaye,

He might be found not guilty, but not innocent. I look at his involvement with the sweat shops on Saipan, the Terri Schiavo case, his charity funds going for Party use, Jack Abramoff, etc........ This guy's trail of debris is long.


I have never heard of these things you accuse him of.
However, the bottom line here is this: If you believe in our Justice System, the man is innocent until proved otherwise.

sbl
11-16-2007, 07:48 AM
"I have never heard of these things you accuse him of."

Jaye,

These things and more are right there on the "Google."

"If You Aren't Outraged You Aren't Paying Attention." as the Bumper sticker goes.

"If you believe in our Justice System, the man is innocent until proved otherwise."

Yes I do and I agree. Again, he might be found Not Guilty, but he won't be found Innocent.

Again, I don't have any use for Al Sharpton but I'm sure he would have trounced Tom Delay in the debate at Oxford. Too bad it would have been in front of foreigners.

jthlmnn
11-16-2007, 01:43 PM
"The publishing of Beauregard's letter also show that the "losers" were allowed to write the history of that war."


I haven't seen any Southern Textbooks about the "Late Unpleasantness"
from that time period, so I disagree.

Look for a copy of "A Southern School History of the United States of America, from the Earliest Discoveries to the Present Time" by W.N. McDonald & J.S. Blackburn, Baltimore, George Lycett, 1869. If you can't find that, check with your local public or university library to see if they have any late 18th to early 20th century history texts that were used in any states of the deep South in their collections. (I believe several, Texas foremost, had or still have textbooks ordered on a statewide basis. It gave/gives them purchasing power, which translates into editorial power.)

You might also be interested in looking for "Free Speech and the 'Lost Cause' in Texas: A Study of Social Control in the New South",
Southwestern Historical Quarterly 97 (January, 1994): 453-458; as well as "The Textbooks of the 'Lost Cause': Censorship and the Creation of Southern State Histories", Georgia Historical Quarterly 75 (Fall 1991): 507-533; both by Fred Arthur Bailey.

For those who are interested on the impact of the war and its aftermath on children, North and South, I highly recommend "The Children's Civil War", James Marten, 1998, University of North Carolina Press. Great notes and a phenomenal bibliography that includes all the primary sources used.

sbl
11-16-2007, 09:40 PM
I don't know about textbooks but as for popular history..

Battles and Leaders of the Civil War : being for the most part contributions by Union and Confederate officers.

Based on "The Century war series" published from Nov. 1884 to Nov. 1887 in the Century magazine and edited by Robert Underwood Johnson and Clarence Clough Buel of the editorial staff of "The Century Magazine"

New York : The Century Co., 1887-1888.

(it's on-line, check some of the authors)

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/battles/index.cfm


Hard cover volumes are available everywhere.

TexConfederate
11-18-2007, 12:48 PM
I don't know about textbooks but as for popular history..

Battles and Leaders of the Civil War : being for the most part contributions by Union and Confederate officers.

Based on "The Century war series" published from Nov. 1884 to Nov. 1887 in the Century magazine and edited by Robert Underwood Johnson and Clarence Clough Buel of the editorial staff of "The Century Magazine"

New York : The Century Co., 1887-1888.

(it's on-line, check some of the authors)

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/battles/index.cfm



Hard cover volumes are available everywhere.

Yes, I have them actually. You will also notice in these books, which were obviously edited in the North, the war is referred to as the "War of the Rebellion"......I somehow don't think the Southern Generals approved.

sbl
11-18-2007, 03:35 PM
"...Southern Generals..."


Jaye,

In other countries those gents would be dead or in the salt mines. Now your tin-foil kepi is too tight.

jthlmnn
11-18-2007, 06:07 PM
I haven't seen any Southern Textbooks about the "Late Unpleasantness" from that time period, so I disagree.

I've already suggested where you can find some of them, but this question has nagged me: How can you disagree with something you have not yet looked at?


Yes, I have them actually. You will also notice in these books, which were obviously edited in the North, the war is referred to as the "War of the Rebellion"......I somehow don't think the Southern Generals approved.

How about addressing the content, beyond the name for the war? Did anyone whose writings appeared in those volumes complain about alteration of their writing? Was anyone quoted out of context? Can you demonstrate an editorial bias beyond the name given to the war?

TexConfederate
11-19-2007, 08:46 AM
:confused:
I've already suggested where you can find some of them, but this question has nagged me: How can you disagree with something you have not yet looked at?



How about addressing the content, beyond the name for the war? Did anyone whose writings appeared in those volumes complain about alteration of their writing? Was anyone quoted out of context? Can you demonstrate an editorial bias beyond the name given to the war?


1. I just read your response yesterday (I was at a reenactment), so no I haven't investigated it as of yet.

2. The content of the series of books in question is excellent. I am simply pointing out that if they had been published in the South, the "name" of the war might have been different. The name by the way IS important. To the South, there was no rebellion. A fundamental difference.

TexConfederate
11-19-2007, 08:57 AM
"...Southern Generals..."


Jaye,

In other countries those gents would be dead or in the salt mines. Now your tin-foil kepi is too tight.


I think you need to be civil here. No need to be insulting. I could give you plenty of reasons why those "Generals" WOULDN'T be dead or in salt mines. I would remind YOU that they were given terms of surrender that more or less guaranteed that would not happen. If those terms had NOT been given, I can almost guarantee that the Federals would have had a guerilla war on their hands that would have lasted for many years, and would have made the war in Ireland look like a sporting event.

sbl
11-19-2007, 10:54 AM
"...To the South, there was no rebellion.."

Jaye,

Why were they called Rebels and called themselves Rebels?

sbl
11-19-2007, 11:14 AM
"No need to be insulting."

Jaye, You are right on that, but your answers frustrate me.

hanktrent
11-19-2007, 11:38 AM
The name by the way IS important. To the South, there was no rebellion. A fundamental difference.

And yet, during the war, in the south, in the southern army and on the southern patriotic homefront, they called themselves "rebels." :confused:

Edited to add: just saw Scott beat me to it. That'll teach me to open a reply window and then do something else before replying!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

sbl
11-19-2007, 01:06 PM
"..Scott beat me to it..."

That's OK Hank. Many of my posts are silly. This was one time great minds thought alike.

Maybe if the South had had more men like Jaye, defending his position........

tompritchett
11-19-2007, 03:51 PM
Maybe if the South had had more men like Jaye, defending his position........

while not deliberately inflaming the issue with emotional rhetoric. The best of solutions would have been a few highly regarded Southern statesmen who deliberately sought out Lincoln during the election to determine what his true views were rather than relying on all the yellow journalism on both sides of the issue. Imagine what the reaction would have been if Jefferson Davis had done so prior to the election and then spoke at the various secession conventions on Lincoln's conviction that preserving the Union was more important to him than abolishing the practice of slavery in the current slave states.

8th TexCav
11-19-2007, 07:51 PM
"...Southern Generals..."


Jaye,

In other countries those gents would be dead or in the salt mines. Now your tin-foil kepi is too tight.


I would have to agree. I have always been amazed that the government and military leadership of the Confederacy was not executed or imprisoned. It has nothing to do with the legality of secession but all to do with being on the losing side. If you look at the history of rebellions or civil wars, it really is unprecedented. One only has to look at our own Revolution. Had we lost, the King of England would have surely demanded the necks of the leaders. General Clinton was looking forward to delivering General Washington to London for just such such a fate. The Continental Congress knew that as well. Great motivation to win!

The only thing that saved them was winning at Yorktown. General Washington specifically struck out General Cornwallis's demand for amnesty for his Loyalist troops. Washington would not grant that and wanted them hanged. Most managed to escape with the British troops. The Loyalists in New York had time to escape with Clinton or they would have been hanged. No amnesty there!

There is a long history of the losers of these types of wars ending up dead, English Civil War, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and even more into the 20th and 21st century. It is not pretty. The former Confederates were not only not shot or hanged, they were able to become leaders in politics and a few became generals in the US Army again. Remember Wheeler and Fitz Lee in Cuba?

I am not complaining, I am just amazed!

Scott, Now your tin-foil kepi is too tight was not nice or needed!

sbl
11-19-2007, 09:29 PM
Barry,

In the CW/WBTS the Confederates still in the field notably Lee and Johnston parleyed with Union commanders who had fought them and respected them. Sherman and Grant took their orders from Lincoln who had made the "let them up easy" statement. Lincoln's assassination nearly ruined the that. I think that the idea was for the United States to "get back to business" rather than hunt down and punish the Confederate leaders. Reconstruction was a punishment but was over by the 70s.
Jefferson Davis sufferings in prison even earned him sympathy. (Even though his capture unfairly earned him ridicule.)


BTW other incidents no amnesty in the War of Independence were the Boston Loyalists had to split with the British fleet after Dorchester Heights was taken by Washington. Banastre Tarleton, who led Tory Cavalry, though a British officer, had to surrender to the French at Yorktown as the American would have rightfully hung him. (He was d!ck!)

As for Tin-Foil Kepi...

reb64
11-19-2007, 10:05 PM
[QUOTE=8th TexCav]our own Revolution. Had we lost, the King of England would have surely demanded the necks of the leaders. General Clinton was looking forward to delivering General Washington to London for just such such a fate. The Continental Congress knew that as well. Great motivation to win!

QUOTE]

Can you imagine trying to control the colonies after a execution of george Washington? It might have led to a French and Indian war II.

8th TexCav
11-19-2007, 10:50 PM
One of these days I am going to actually get around to expanding on the research that I did on my masters and write a book on General Greene and the Southern campaigns of the Revolution. It will show just how "civilized" our Civil War actually was. Most would be amazed at this little known history of our country. No quarter was not at all unusual and retribution was definitely covered in many of the surrender terms. Loyalists were often not covered by the British. They tried, but it was often rebuffed, especially at the end.

TexConfederate
11-19-2007, 11:37 PM
"No need to be insulting."

Jaye, You are right on that, but your answers frustrate me.


Scott:

Sometimes yours irritate me as well, but remember, we are simply debating.
No need to lose cool. I may disagree with you, but if you have the guts to reenact, then you are ok in my book :)

TexConfederate
11-19-2007, 11:40 PM
"...To the South, there was no rebellion.."

Jaye,

Why were they called Rebels and called themselves Rebels?


I don't believe they used that term until AFTER the war, when it became part of the vernacular.

TexConfederate
11-19-2007, 11:42 PM
And yet, during the war, in the south, in the southern army and on the southern patriotic homefront, they called themselves "rebels." :confused:

Edited to add: just saw Scott beat me to it. That'll teach me to open a reply window and then do something else before replying!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net


Hank,

I don't mean to be a pain, but could you point out some documentation of that fact? I was under the impression that the term wasn't used until AFTER the war. (by the South)....

TexConfederate
11-19-2007, 11:53 PM
while not deliberately inflaming the issue with emotional rhetoric. The best of solutions would have been a few highly regarded Southern statesmen who deliberately sought out Lincoln during the election to determine what his true views were rather than relying on all the yellow journalism on both sides of the issue. Imagine what the reaction would have been if Jefferson Davis had done so prior to the election and then spoke at the various secession conventions on Lincoln's conviction that preserving the Union was more important to him than abolishing the practice of slavery in the current slave states.


Tom:

I have never at anytime tried to "inflame" anything. I am a vigorous defender of the Southern position, but I have always tried to do so in a respectful manner. To some, any defense of the Confederacy is inflammatory. :shock:

tompritchett
11-20-2007, 08:13 AM
I have never at anytime tried to "inflame" anything. I am a vigorous defender of the Southern position, but I have always tried to do so in a respectful manner. To some, any defense of the Confederacy is inflammatory.

Actually I was contrasting your behavior with the firebrands back then such as Yancy of Alabama. Had the debates back then been of the nature of much of what has been in this thread (there are a few exceptions), we might never had to go to war over Lincoln's election.

flattop32355
11-20-2007, 09:37 AM
I have never at anytime tried to "inflame" anything. I am a vigorous defender of the Southern position, but I have always tried to do so in a respectful manner. To some, any defense of the Confederacy is inflammatory. :shock:

Yeah, sometimes you can come across as a bit strong on the party line. While admiring your dedication, it does tend to raise some hackles by those of us who are glad the Union was preserved.

Tom: Did I say that nicely enough? ;)

Member, "Debate, not argue" Mess

Malingerer
11-20-2007, 10:58 AM
Tom:

I have never at anytime tried to "inflame" anything. I am a vigorous defender of the Southern position, but I have always tried to do so in a respectful manner. To some, any defense of the Confederacy is inflammatory. :shock:
So what, exactly is the"Southern position"? Would it be:
A. Slavery was worth destroying the Union for and not to mention the loss of 620 000 lives.
B. OK, "The Cause" was a poor one, but the average guy in the ranks didnt give a whit about slaves and just wanted to defend his community.
C. (My personal favorite) Slavery had very little to do with the war. The South simply felt that her "way of life" was threatened by constant Northern aggresion and had no choice but to exercise her legal right to leave the Union.
D. Ashley Wilkes whistfully explaining to Melanie that he feels completely at peace on his 'Twelve Oaks Plantation' (while hundreds of slaves toil for no pay in the fields and prop up his 'way of life) and he dreads the notion of the comming war. But, if war must come, he will fight to protect his 'way of life'.

hanktrent
11-20-2007, 11:02 AM
And yet, during the war, in the south, in the southern army and on the southern patriotic homefront, they called themselves "rebels."
I don't mean to be a pain, but could you point out some documentation of that fact? I was under the impression that the term wasn't used until AFTER the war. (by the South)....

No problem! Glad you asked. Here are a few examples.

From the Southern Confederacy newspaper published in Atlanta, Georgia, March 23, 1862:


The Yankee papers furnish us abundant evidence that the presence of the armed mercenaries of Lincolndom have not caused the ladies of Nashville to abate one jot in their patriotic devotion to the sacred cause of their own South...As confirmatory of this, we are permitted to make the following extracts from a private letter from one of the most charming, intelligent and fascinating belles of that city to a lady friend here. She writes:
Nashville, March 15, 1862.
The Yankees are as thick as blackbirds in May, here now. I could annihilate them, soul and body! Thank Heaven, there are no Union men here, and the Yanks are very sorry to see how bitter every one is. Ladies especially, give it to them right and left. They have the audacity to call upon me, and I have the independence to send them word that I am a rebel, and have no desire to see Vandals! When we meet them on the streets we invariably cross over, lower our veils and hurrah for the Southern Confederacy.

From the same newspaper, an advertisement, published July 2, 1862:





Fashionable.

We had as well be out of the world as out of the fashion. We are all "rebels," and it is proper that we appear in the garb of rebels. Therefore, go round to McPherson's and buy a rebel hat--price 50 cents. They are made in South Carolina, and are genuine rebel productions. We admired the taste of our worthy Postmaster, Col. Howard, who bought one of these "rebel hats," and made a "hatband" (about as strong as Caesar's) of a coarse hemp twine, tied around the hat with a hangman's knot. Hooray for the rebellion!

There was a newspaper called the Chattanooga Rebel. "Little is known of Franc M. Paul, publisher of the Chattanooga Rebel, one of the most influential newspapers published in the South during the Civil War... While on this visit he decided to publish a newspaper for circulation in the Southern army. The first issue of the Rebel appeared in August 1862. It was aimed at the troops but soon proved to be popular with civilians as well. At one point its circulation reached 8,000 daily in spite of the difficulty in getting paper and other supplies." That's from http://www.cci.utk.edu/~jem/TNHF/Paul.html where there's more information.

A letter from J.H. Cochran of Virginia to his mother, Feb. 14, 1861. Full text is at the Valley of the Shadow website.

I am a man who knows my rights and knowing dare maintain. One of those rights is secession but if the convention refuses to give us that there is another which I will maintain even at the foot of the gallows and that is rebelion . Rebelion has its [unclear: horrows ] so [ does] has any other war. But like that gallant Henry who rose in rebellion aginst the mightiest empire on earth my words are "give me liberty or give me death."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

sbl
11-20-2007, 11:17 AM
Jaye,

If I lost my cool I'd capitalize everything and put it in bold with more icons. :)

"...guts to reenact.."

I'm 55 now. It takes guts to get out of bed. :)

tompritchett
11-20-2007, 01:02 PM
I'm 55 now. It takes guts to get out of bed.

That and a lot of Alieve. :)

tompritchett
11-20-2007, 01:13 PM
Yeah, sometimes you can come across as a bit strong on the party line. While admiring your dedication, it does tend to raise some hackles by those of us who are glad the Union was preserved.


I might add that there are a few arguing down here the Northern side whose comments can do more than raise hackles. Sometimes their posts can be as inflammatory as any editorial or speech that occurred in the years leading up to the war.


Tom: Did I say that nicely enough?

Bernard, while I appreciate the sentiment, down here it is SGT Pepper that calls the shots, not me.

billwatson2
11-20-2007, 04:31 PM
"So what, exactly is the"Southern position"? Would it be:
A. Slavery was worth destroying the Union for and not to mention the loss of 620 000 lives.
B. OK, "The Cause" was a poor one, but the average guy in the ranks didnt give a whit about slaves and just wanted to defend his community.
C. (My personal favorite) Slavery had very little to do with the war. The South simply felt that her "way of life" was threatened by constant Northern aggresion and had no choice but to exercise her legal right to leave the Union.
D. Ashley Wilkes whistfully explaining to Melanie that he feels completely at peace on his 'Twelve Oaks Plantation' (while hundreds of slaves toil for no pay in the fields and prop up his 'way of life) and he dreads the notion of the comming war. But, if war must come, he will fight to protect his 'way of life'."


How about "All of the above?" except, maybe, C. And a hundred more positions as well. One of the reasons there was a war was people insisted on monolithic interpretations that led to polarization and made reconciliation impossible. To borrow Eric Tipton's phrase, there was no "common ground" where people could stand despite their differences.

Why do it all over again? For the sake of an argument that is moot?

Speaking generally: The thread was about the battle flag. For every one person you can find who can articulate the thought that the flag was a soldier's flag, that it stood for duty under duress, that it was a symbol of fighting men bonding under desperate conditions, you can find 100,000 people who know it only as the flag waved by xenophobic bigots. I'd say those are mighty long odds to overcome.

8th TexCav
11-20-2007, 04:44 PM
So what, exactly is the"Southern position"? Would it be:
A. Slavery was worth destroying the Union for and not to mention the loss of 620 000 lives.
B. OK, "The Cause" was a poor one, but the average guy in the ranks didnt give a whit about slaves and just wanted to defend his community.
C. (My personal favorite) Slavery had very little to do with the war. The South simply felt that her "way of life" was threatened by constant Northern aggresion and had no choice but to exercise her legal right to leave the Union.
D. Ashley Wilkes whistfully explaining to Melanie that he feels completely at peace on his 'Twelve Oaks Plantation' (while hundreds of slaves toil for no pay in the fields and prop up his 'way of life) and he dreads the notion of the comming war. But, if war must come, he will fight to protect his 'way of life'.

Peter,

I cannot speak for Jaye, but here are my thoughts on the choices you gave.

For the leaders and firebrands of the Confederacy who pushed for secession A would be the answer. Keep in mind that no one North or South had any idea that the possible war would be anything more than a short affair. The resulting deaths were horrific but that was not part of the equation in 1860 or 1861.

For the average soldier or citizen of the South, I think B is the answer. I cannot find much fault with that. I think that is the point that Jaye is trying to make. These people fought with honor. They do not deserve to be condemned for the choices their leaders made. I think we see that now. Many do not agree with the current war and do not think it is just. Does that make the sacrifices that the servicemen and women are making wrong?

Sorry Peter but I have to disagree with you here.

Malingerer
11-20-2007, 04:56 PM
Actually, Barry, B is the only acceptable answer for me (although I think its a whole bunch more complicated than that -many 'average joes' thought slavery was a great system) but, that means we agree that 'The Cause' was indeed a poor one, and not deserving of the sacrafice of so many brave men. Barry, I honor the Confederate soldier but I have no use for the Confederacy. And the Confederacy is what Texconfederate said he defends. I would be proud to be a colorbearer at an event but I do believe that we need to be careful and sensitive with regard to public display of the Confederate flag.

TexConfederate
11-20-2007, 07:30 PM
Actually I was contrasting your behavior with the firebrands back then such as Yancy of Alabama. Had the debates back then been of the nature of much of what has been in this thread (there are a few exceptions), we might never had to go to war over Lincoln's election.


I agree. :)

TexConfederate
11-20-2007, 07:33 PM
Yeah, sometimes you can come across as a bit strong on the party line. While admiring your dedication, it does tend to raise some hackles by those of us who are glad the Union was preserved.

Tom: Did I say that nicely enough? ;)

Member, "Debate, not argue" Mess


Yes, I understand. My position is that the Union would have been stronger, if the South had left in peace. I think we would have rejoined, and would have been better for the experience. :)

TexConfederate
11-20-2007, 07:37 PM
So what, exactly is the"Southern position"? Would it be:
A. Slavery was worth destroying the Union for and not to mention the loss of 620 000 lives.
B. OK, "The Cause" was a poor one, but the average guy in the ranks didnt give a whit about slaves and just wanted to defend his community.
C. (My personal favorite) Slavery had very little to do with the war. The South simply felt that her "way of life" was threatened by constant Northern aggresion and had no choice but to exercise her legal right to leave the Union.
D. Ashley Wilkes whistfully explaining to Melanie that he feels completely at peace on his 'Twelve Oaks Plantation' (while hundreds of slaves toil for no pay in the fields and prop up his 'way of life) and he dreads the notion of the comming war. But, if war must come, he will fight to protect his 'way of life'.

Sir:

I will say this as respectfully as I can. I believe you hate the South that gave birth to you, and for that reason, I will decline to debate you further.

Good Luck to you.:|

TexConfederate
11-20-2007, 07:42 PM
No problem! Glad you asked. Here are a few examples.

From the Southern Confederacy newspaper published in Atlanta, Georgia, March 23, 1862:



From the same newspaper, an advertisement, published July 2, 1862:



There was a newspaper called the Chattanooga Rebel. "Little is known of Franc M. Paul, publisher of the Chattanooga Rebel, one of the most influential newspapers published in the South during the Civil War... While on this visit he decided to publish a newspaper for circulation in the Southern army. The first issue of the Rebel appeared in August 1862. It was aimed at the troops but soon proved to be popular with civilians as well. At one point its circulation reached 8,000 daily in spite of the difficulty in getting paper and other supplies." That's from http://www.cci.utk.edu/~jem/TNHF/Paul.html where there's more information.

A letter from J.H. Cochran of Virginia to his mother, Feb. 14, 1861. Full text is at the Valley of the Shadow website.


Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net


Hank,

Thanks for the documentation, I stand corrected. For whatever reason, that term was used, no matter that it was incorrect. :)

TexConfederate
11-20-2007, 07:45 PM
Jaye,

If I lost my cool I'd capitalize everything and put it in bold with more icons. :)

"...guts to reenact.."

I'm 55 now. It takes guts to get out of bed. :)


I understand. I am 46, and feel the same way sometimes.:D

flattop32355
11-20-2007, 09:42 PM
Yes, I understand. My position is that the Union would have been stronger, if the South had left in peace. I think we would have rejoined, and would have been better for the experience. :)

I respectfully disagree. Once disunion occurred, we never would have come together for the same reasons we would have fallen apart; hotheads and special interests who wanted to run the show, and consequences be damned.

We'd have fought repeated wars over western expansion, possibly Cuba and Mexico, maybe even into the Pacific. There's no telling what would have happened when Europe burst into WW1. Would both have sat it out, or chosen sides? Same or different sides?

I think reunion would have been a pipe dream.

jthlmnn
11-20-2007, 10:09 PM
I respectfully disagree. Once disunion occurred, we never would have come together for the same reasons we would have fallen apart; hotheads and special interests who wanted to run the show, and consequences be damned.

We'd have fought repeated wars over western expansion, possibly Cuba and Mexico, maybe even into the Pacific. There's no telling what would have happened when Europe burst into WW1. Would both have sat it out, or chosen sides? Same or different sides?

I think reunion would have been a pipe dream.

Harry Turtledove wrote a series of "alternative history" novels based on just such speculations. The first one or two were interesting, after that it got tedious.

TexConfederate
11-20-2007, 10:12 PM
I respectfully disagree. Once disunion occurred, we never would have come together for the same reasons we would have fallen apart; hotheads and special interests who wanted to run the show, and consequences be damned.

We'd have fought repeated wars over western expansion, possibly Cuba and Mexico, maybe even into the Pacific. There's no telling what would have happened when Europe burst into WW1. Would both have sat it out, or chosen sides? Same or different sides?

I think reunion would have been a pipe dream.


It is really hard to know, in retrospect...........:|

Malingerer
11-21-2007, 10:00 AM
Sir:

I will say this as respectfully as I can. I believe you hate the South that gave birth to you, and for that reason, I will decline to debate you further.

Good Luck to you.:|
Not even close. What I hate is the moonlight and magnolias nonsense that continues to be propogated by the lost causers who refuse to stop drinking the coolaid. It reflects badly upon all of us and I resent it. The South continues to be harmed and held back by this attitude. I dont need to cloak the history of my section in mythology in order to love it - I love it for what it is - warts and all. Playing amature psycologist is always a risky proposition and I would suggest caution in the future before telling someone what they feel. I've never left the South for more than a few weeks and I intend to die here. I love the landscape and I love her people - even the ones who upset me. Best of luck to you as well.

flattop32355
11-21-2007, 10:09 AM
Harry Turtledove wrote a series of "alternative history" novels based on just such speculations. The first one or two were interesting, after that it got tedious.

I read them. Fairly entertaining, but as you say, they got tedious.

5 th Alabama Infantry
11-24-2007, 06:34 AM
"The Confederacy....its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, 1861


It seems that when anyone wants to attack the Confederate States of America, they pull out that tired old quote of Vice President Stephenís .

I venture to say that in 1861, 80 to 90 % of the country, North and South, held similar views. They rarely quote General Lee on the wrongness of slavery, recall the comments of Sherman on the negro, quote Lincolnís views on negro equality in the Lincoln - Douglas Debates, or recall the New York draft riots of 1863 and Union units that threaten to go home rather then fight for the negro.

sbl
11-24-2007, 11:16 AM
"It seems that when anyone wants to attack the Confederate States of America, they pull out that tired old quote of Vice President Stephenís..."


5,

They do that because the quote by Stephens on the record. It doesn't matter what Lincoln or any Northerners thought. Stephens was articulating what the Confederacy was all about.

jthlmnn
11-24-2007, 11:41 AM
"The Confederacy....its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, 1861

It seems that when anyone wants to attack the Confederate States of America, they pull out that tired old quote of Vice President Stephenís .

Several of the Southern states had that as their #1 priority in their articles of secession. The others had it high on their list. This skips over the arguments during the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, when the Southern states threatened to go home if slavery wasn't left alone. Mr. Stephens statement would appear to be quite representative.


I venture to say that in 1861, 80 to 90 % of the country, North and South, held similar views.
Tough numbers to back up. I could grant that a majority would not have considered African-Americans to be their social equal. This nation as a whole had done too good a job of rationalizing race-based slavery. Between active abolitionists, abolitionist sympathizers, those who did not care for slavery but were too apathetic to do anything, and the number of states that had abolished slavery, your numbers would seem rather inflated.


They rarely quote General Lee on the wrongness of slavery,...
Because he owned slaves. I have read his commentary on the evils of slavery, as well as Thomas Jefferson's. Each lacked the courage to put their convictions into action, so their words on this subject can reasonably be taken as just so much hot air. (Less so Lee's words. He at least advocated recruiting slaves for the Confederate cause with the promise of manumission at the end of service. Too little, too late, however.)


...recall the comments of Sherman on the negro....
Sherman was a bigot. Thats been covered here, to my knowledge, a number of times. I have yet to read a contemporary historian worth his/her salt that has not covered that. Now, what in his actions promoted or extended slavery?


...quote Lincolnís views on negro equality in the Lincoln - Douglas Debates...
Let's qualify that by saying "accurate quotes", as opposed to the proof-texting and out of context hack-jobs done by some disreputable authors, lately. Lincoln consistently opposed slavery. On racial equality, I believe it could be said that he started with some of the prejudices that prevailed at the time. His actions, however, between the time of the debates and his death, go well beyond his words in the 1850s. He took action on his developing beliefs in the evils of slavery, and the equality of all.


...or recall the New York draft riots of 1863...
Again, to my knowledge, this has received plenty of ink. Racism was never, and is not now, exclusive to the South. It has its roots in the rationalizations for, and tolerance of, slavery. Now, if you want an in-depth examination of how people coming from an 800 year anti-slavery tradition in their homeland traded their anti-slavery beliefs for political power (with the pro-Southern elements of the Democratic party), I refer you to Noel Ignatiev's work, "How the Irish Became White" (1996, Routledge). His writing style can be sluggish and redundant, at times, but the research and documentation make it worth the slog.


...and Union units that threaten to go home rather then fight for the negro.
No secret here, either. Consistent with a point I have twice made above (words vs. actions), I would ask, "How many actually went home?". If 30%, 20%, or even 10% of the Union Army went home, rather than "fight for the Negro", you might have a point.

To my reading and experience, the assertion of hypocrisy fails on all fronts.

sbl
11-24-2007, 12:54 PM
Another factor is that while many OR most white people back then believed that blacks were inferior, they did not believe in enslaving them.

tompritchett
11-24-2007, 01:10 PM
It has its roots in the rationalizations for, and tolerance of, slavery.

While I agree with most of your other points, I have challenge this one. Yes, racism for the blacks may have been heavily influenced by "the rationalizations for, and tolerance of, slavery", but I believe that it had a more fundamental root - that of a sense of superiority of the white race over all races. One only has to look at the doctrine of Manifest Destiny and our treatment of the Native Americans to see what I am referring to. I would submit that it was this initial sense of superiority over all races that then allowed the white race to further their particular feelings of superiority over the black race as it developed because of our acceptance of slavery.

Malingerer
11-26-2007, 11:38 AM
Sir:

I will say this as respectfully as I can. I believe you hate the South that gave birth to you, and for that reason, I will decline to debate you further.

Good Luck to you.:|
For the record, I was never debating with you - I was remonsterating against you.

jthlmnn
11-26-2007, 09:18 PM
While I agree with most of your other points, I have challenge this one. Yes, racism for the blacks may have been heavily influenced by "the rationalizations for, and tolerance of, slavery", but I believe that it had a more fundamental root - that of a sense of superiority of the white race over all races. One only has to look at the doctrine of Manifest Destiny and our treatment of the Native Americans to see what I am referring to. I would submit that it was this initial sense of superiority over all races that then allowed the white race to further their particular feelings of superiority over the black race as it developed because of our acceptance of slavery.

Humbly conceded. In my zeal to respond I did not follow the root to a sufficient depth. I agree that the notion of inherent White & Christian (versus "godless savages") superiority rationalized many deeds, including the introduction and maintenance of race-based slavery, and the racism that has lingered long after its abolition.

flattop32355
11-26-2007, 11:10 PM
Since this is the whine cellar:

Let's not forget that slavery was not limited to only the black race; they were just the most "successful", ie, lasted longer and did more work.

Let us also not forget that the white race is not the only one to have enslaved others, and that it still exists today.

Rob Weaver
11-26-2007, 11:40 PM
I have only one word to say about slavery: Sudan.

Bushwhacker Bo
12-19-2007, 06:19 AM
I really hate to do ths, being a veteran of the US Navy and a rebel re-enactor, but many lynchings occurred under the US flag on courthouses all across the nation before and after the war. I'm not advocating one side over the other, but we must always be completely factual in making an argument, and the fact is that just as many attrocities have occurred under "Old Glory" as under any flag ever to fly. What do you think our Native Americans think of the US flag? (Actually many have served proudly and with honor under it as well!)

sbl
12-19-2007, 06:44 AM
Bo,

That's all been covered here already.

Bushwhacker Bo
12-19-2007, 08:39 AM
Sorry to rehash what was already done. Just got here and didn't realize how many pages there were! I'll just sit back and read now.:wink:

Bo