First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Should U.S. make April 9 (end of Civil War) a national holiday?
32003 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17
I could definitely use another day off every year, so why not?
4432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17
I mean. why bother after all this time?
28828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17
That's fine.

Fact remains Republicans won civil war, Democrats formed KKK to "resist". Republicans still producing firsts for black community, Democrats still using racism as talking point 50 years after LBJ did a good thing despite controlling congress for the majority of the time.



When Obama says he'll considering it an insult if blacks don't vote for someone who called young black men super predators...

Demanding obedience while offering nothing but empty promises in return...

Yep gives you results like this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/07/republicans-are-winning-the-support-of-black-americans-this-election-was-a-turning-point/?utm_term=.3a0ba1eb80e2

Which translates to this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.ab639532c500

Barry Goldwater did a number on black republicans but turns out the grass isn't always greener.
30098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17
nah
26393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

MysticGon wrote:

That's fine.

Fact remains Republicans won civil war, Democrats formed KKK to "resist". Republicans still producing firsts for black community, Democrats still using racism as talking point 50 years after LBJ did a good thing despite controlling congress for the majority of the time.



When Obama says he'll considering it an insult if blacks don't vote for someone who called young black men super predators...

Demanding obedience while offering nothing but empty promises in return...

Yep gives you results like this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/07/republicans-are-winning-the-support-of-black-americans-this-election-was-a-turning-point/?utm_term=.3a0ba1eb80e2

Which translates to this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/?utm_term=.ab639532c500

Barry Goldwater did a number on black republicans but turns out the grass isn't always greener.


It is a bit more complicated, but from what I understand, the ideological differences and changes happened gradually. It seems to be a mistake to compare the parties separated by a 150 year time gap, nor is it useful to compare the history when most people haven't even been born during the Lincoln Era in the first place. Parties are not an amorphous immortal entity, because people die and are replaced by the young, rather then elderly politicians changing their mind.

Blacks have always voted liberal in large masses.

It may depend on what you are inferring.

I claim as follow:

-Blacks have voted for traditionally liberal policies.
-The party names stayed the same, the policies change.
-The heads of the parties did not reform their strategies to appeal, they simply died off over a 60+ gap between the end of the civil war and the beginning of FDR's administration.
-The Democrats were never consistently the party of big government or liberal policies
-The Republicans were never consistently the party of small government or conservative policies

In addition:
-Southern states were traditionally conservative. Blacks moved north where there were far less restrictions on voting.
-South people tend to display the Confederacy Battle Flag.
-South people are Republican these days.
-Southerners are often depicted as being butthurt over the civil war

Thus, current Democratic affiliates would not be butthurt, but the current Republican affiliates over the loss of the Civil War as per your quote. In any case, none would be butt hurt, and you are just making a politically charged statement to vent frustration about parties, instead of the ideologies they purportedly stand for. I believe complaining about parties, labels, and such, is the death of critical thinking.

In addition, the South and Democratic Politicians of the era supported slavery under state rights as well as the concept of being traditional, in addition to protecting business interests. They saw Lincoln's conduct as unconstitutional (Lincoln did enact the 13,14,and 15th Civil War amendments protecting said rights for freed blacks.)

Same name, but hardly the same group. They cannot reasonably be said to any closer than current Republicans are to current Democrats, due to an extremely large variance of ideology, which is explained by the political shift followed the Westward expansion, ending with Hoover mowing down the Veterans in front of the White House to pave FDR's victory. That is just judging by the standards of the era they were in. (Cause FDR locked up the Japanese.)

Trying to attach a label to old policies is a bit too...undue, especially current interpretations and past eras.

Whether or not they were original Republicans ideas does not really matter now. Ideologies have always survived under one name or another, doubly so in Political intrigue.

28828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17
lol using participation trophies to blur lines.

That's like saying "You know, the Americans that declared their Independence from the British Empire are completely different from the ones today. You can't claim that heritage!"

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it accept history.
26393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

MysticGon wrote:

lol using participation trophies to blur lines.

That's like saying "You know, the Americans that declared their Independence from the British Empire are completely different from the ones today. You can't claim that heritage!"

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it accept history.


Not sure if I understand.

I explained how the demographics are today, and how they came to be. I explain the root ideological differences that transcends party names. In essence, the Democrats have no set ideology that would connect them to the past eras, and have no reason to bitch. They are neither the same democrats before, who did not as much as change their mind as simply died off or retired. Conflicting interests had smaller schisms, which promoted by the establishment of the two major parts, cause a split up and later joining ups.

What essentially has not changed as much are the demographically separated ideology differences, especially in regions like the South or New England.

I may be misunderstanding you, but it reasons to me that based on this post.


MysticGon wrote:

Yeah I agree but you know how Democrats handle losses. You can't just have a day celebrating one of their biggest. It's insensitive. Plus there aren't enough shop windows in the world to satisfy the resulting rage.


You are putting too much emphasis on party names rather than the ideological changes of the party or the consistent ideology that stayed strong in areas, which is especially dangerous when applied to the historical developments. Democrats were not always the party of liberal ideas, nor were Republicans always conservative. It is faulty to define Democrats as the inherently liberal party, but just currently, same for Republicans

In essence, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. However, this verges into the philosophical concept of identity. Are they the same parties if they switches their platforms? It did not develop from the party heads in a year, but a gradual shift over a lifetime, which is where the debate lies.

Especially since the liberals in the Virginia have petitioned the removal of Robert E. Lee from the Monument Avenue in the first place. Do those people sound like they would be butthurt over losing the Civil War?

I did post sources concerning the History. You did post some historical facts, but they were not in context, because they did not account the circumstances or era.

http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Keeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/
http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Essays/Temporary-Farewell/Party-Realignment/
http://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html


A great deal of the concern by other posts is concerned about your apparent party biases, something you displayed several times over I believe.
29920 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

MysticGon wrote:


jeffcoatstephen wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Yeah I agree but you know how Democrats handle losses. You can't just have a day celebrating one of their biggest. It's insensitive. Plus there aren't enough shop windows in the world to satisfy the resulting rage.


Those who would be insulted would be the Southern Republicans because back during the Civil War they were Democrats. It's all confusing how the parties swapped citizens.


Just because you are not proud of your party's past doesn't mean you can just disown it and pass it on to the party you don't like.


I'm not passing it on. Read some US History and you'll see that Civil War Democrats became today's Republicans and how Civil War Republicans became today's Democrats. Also I'm from the North so we beat those Southern bastards. lol
28828 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

jeffcoatstephen wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


jeffcoatstephen wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

Yeah I agree but you know how Democrats handle losses. You can't just have a day celebrating one of their biggest. It's insensitive. Plus there aren't enough shop windows in the world to satisfy the resulting rage.


Those who would be insulted would be the Southern Republicans because back during the Civil War they were Democrats. It's all confusing how the parties swapped citizens.


Just because you are not proud of your party's past doesn't mean you can just disown it and pass it on to the party you don't like.


I'm not passing it on. Read some US History and you'll see that Civil War Democrats became today's Republicans and how Civil War Republicans became today's Democrats. Also I'm from the North so we beat those Southern bastards. lol


lol it's a popular and convenient talking point among democrats and revisionists, yes... I'm familiar with it.
26393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17
Well, assuming a Democrat is strictly a member of the Democratic party, you are right in that sense. I cannot exactly figure out your other claims.

The concept of identity is a pretty interesting one though. Theseus' ship, so to say.

When we apply it to definitions, even more so.


In essence, what defines the democratic party, and can definition stay the same if the name has changed?
15100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/11/17

MysticGon wrote:

lol using participation trophies to blur lines.

That's like saying "You know, the Americans that declared their Independence from the British Empire are completely different from the ones today. You can't claim that heritage!"

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it accept history.


You are acting like a child. Yes the democratic party that voted for the confederacy is technically the same as the one that supported the confederates. That is historical fact. What your claim does is to pretend that means that the democrats would be upset at losing it even though the two parties definitely hold different positions and the support of neo-confederates has long since drifted over to the Republican party. Which makes no sense.

Am I American and thus does my identity have a continuity with the America of the 18th century? Yes. Do I thus have views, values, and would react in such a fashion as though I were an American in the 18th century? No. Because then is not the same thing as now. This is doing nothing but demonstrating your own historical illiteracy. You keep brushing off that Lyndon B Johnson thing as though the democrats weren't the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act? Were they still confederate sympathizers then? And by the way the civil rights movement did not magically fix racism in America cause that's not how society works. And which is the party currently in favor of stronger civil rights protections again? Which side is still supported by the majority of the black vote?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Yes that stark difference is really indicative that blacks are turning republican. And the Republicans are definitely supporting policies indicating continuing support for civil rights:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/us/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-voter-id-law.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/23/503182773/republicans-renew-push-for-more-voting-restrictions

Which is on top of electing a presidency supported by and in some cases populated with known white nationalists and former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan David Duke. But I suppose the democrats are the real racists because of the super-predators remark which in context while offensive is not nearly as racist as the right has made it sound to the point I rolled my eyes when i found out THAT was the extent of it:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/

On top of things like apparently not fixing the wage gap when they were in control of congress, as though a failure necessarily implies lack of effort, intention to do harm, or that the other side would've been pursuing policies to close the wage gap. You keep doing this you keep making arguments and presenting evidence with huge logical holes in them. You forward evidence as proof when it isn't actually proof, and does not support the assumed and flimsy premises your argument is founded upon nearly as well as you think it does.

Let's circle back again to your original claim. Which really has enough wrong with it on it's own merits. You say that the democrats would be upset over losing the civil war, because historically the conservative democrats supported the confederacy. This is in spite of the fact and please for the love of God don't tell me you're going to reject this, that the modern day democratic party is on the liberal end of the political spectrum, more likely to advocate for a larger federal government and progressive reform. For this claim of yours to be true it would have to be the case that modern democrats on the whole are so petulant that they would get upset over losing a conflict when it's outcome is actually a good thing in light of their present day political philosophies, or that the democrats secretly still hold the same positions they did during the confederacy and are pretending otherwise for some unclear reason in spite of the fact that the south these days tends to vote more republican and the bulwark of democrat support is in the liberal north.

Your original claim, regardless of anything else you want to make about the topic, is therefore patently ridiculous. You specified a certain reaction democrats would have in response to the celebration of the confederacy's defeat, but for this assertion to work party affiliation would have to determine belief instead of belief determining party affiliation. If the premise that the modern day democrats are ideologically liberal and hold positions largely incompatible with historical confederate beliefs, then the claim that persons who earnestly believe in and support those positions view the defeat of said incompatible confederate beliefs as a bad thing would seem to be false. The only way this makes sense is extreme pettiness on the part of the democratic party which is just a juvenile insult, or for the majority of democrats to be insincere in their beliefs.

So either it's just you childishly characterizing the democrats in a certain way because you don't like them and based on how you'd think they react, or again you're saying that people who support the democratic party are mostly insincere about their political beliefs and values. And again if you're going to make that latter case there's no point in discussing anything with you, because it's basically asserting that your party's major ideological opponents are acting in bad faith not because of real ideological differences.

What people believe in the present is a better indicator of how they will react to past events then their party affiliation. You can claim that the people arguing with you are historically illiterate all you want but if present day democrats are so opposed to the confederacy to the point we resent and disavow it so strongly would not that indicate that present day democrats are't mad that it lost, to the point of being upset that you even suggested they would be?
1292 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Chattanooga TN
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/12/17
Jefferson Davis.
Sorry ,That is who I meant, I should have verified my facts.
I stand corrected.

that said. and I know that this might seem far fetched to some..but here is the simple truth.
For most people 150+ years is Far removed from their modern lives.
.
but, My Paternal Great grandfather fought in the Civil war on the side of the South.
His daughter, who is my grandmother, was born in 1886, and still had the Kentucky long Rife he used in that war, My father was her 7th child, born in 1930 ( yes she was 44 years old and had one more son a year and a half later)
I was born in 1963 and I'm now 54 and I now have the rifle. and his story.

So its still real for me and my entire family... all 1127 of us. So those of us that still care about our families back stories, Do indeed have "feelings: on this subject, and it will never be fair to say that those feelings should just be invalidated because we were on the "losing side" our family shed blood over that cause even if we were wrong... blood is still blood.

that war was bitter fought and Pres. Lincoln Politically spun the issues in order to turn public opinion against the South for reasons that were not part of what the South was originally fighting for. the south was cornered on a single point that was only a small part of the real issues and yeah many are still a little butt hurt about it. Our Fed. Government made a patsy out of the South in order to push a political agenda.
that has all come to light now and the real issue is, many of those same issues still exist for these same Southern states today.
The rights of a state to govern itself as its own people see fit has MANY examples today.
the NATIONAL 55 mph speed limit is one. Most states no longer adhere to that idea. and they post they're own speed limits AGAINST Fed Government law.
State income and sales taxes are being "round about" regulated by Fed government in some states... many believe thats not right.
Now some new health care issues are popping up. and a few other odd things like water rights ( a big issue in Atlanta who is currently fighting with TN about gaining access to the TN river at Chattanooga because they have drained Lake Alatoona and can no longer support their population with their current water source. TVA which is a branch of the FED government was created to manage the TN River water source in 1927. So why was nothing done for Atlanta years ago? why does TN now have to help out a city that simply outgrew its resources? is that not a state/local planning issue? the Fed should not have the right to come into any state and say you must do "X" in order to solve another states poor planning issues. obviously an issue that needs addressing.

My city IS the geographical Center of the south by Any U.S. map. Yet Atlanta became the booming town with the huge economic increase while Chattanooga Suffered for over 100 years in poverty, simply because Atlanta got burned by General Sherman and was then given more Fed reconstruction funds after the war!? why?

Chattanooga was laid Treeless and barren by the Union army before AND AFTER the war.. it took decades for the land to recover after the 4 battles PLUS all the Military activity that took place here for the next 30 years!.

My city still has civil war cannon in the front yards of houses that can be seen today. they stand as memorials to the CONFEDERATES that fell there. there is only 1 memorial here for the union soldiers. and worse, the Union spies that hijacked a train known as Andrews raiders has a memorial. while not one sole knows the story of a true hero William Allen Fuller, who chase that train down, first on foot and then by hand car and then by locomotive running backwards! from Kennesaw to Ringgold ( 77 miles) and then ran and jumpped onto a burning box car and release the brake and moved the car off the bridge thereby stopping Andrews Raiders from completing their mission of burning the train bridge at Ringgold.

now of course just a few miles south, in Chickamauga GA there is the Chickamauga battlefield which has equal Union and Confederate memorials.
but, my point is, in THIS city, the Civil war is not forgotten.. It can't be... its all around us here.

So If I seem butt hurt, Sorry, thats just how it is, the injustices that sparked that war... still exist..
48653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/12/17


I think the most simplistic reason for why Atlanta experienced the growth it has and Chattanooga did not would have to be geography. It was simply easier to route railroads through Atlanta since it is flatter and the railroads made it a hub in the 1830s. As I recall it was the terminating point for the railroad in the early 1800s, so it gave access to the rest of the developed areas along the coast and to the north. The rise of large corporations like Coca Cola, and the confluence of three large interstates (I-20, I-85, I-75). The worlds busiest airport. I mean if you really wanted to break it down there would be a lot of reasons, and even without the Civil War it would be much larger than Chattanooga.
Ejanss 
17089 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/12/17

Mastersluthier wrote: Chattanooga was laid Treeless and barren by the Union army before AND AFTER the war.. it took decades for the land to recover after the 4 battles PLUS all the Military activity that took place here for the next 30 years!.


I'll put aside the obvious thread-drift "Okay, I've missed a few posts since the first page, so Myst, what the hell are you raving on about?? " aside (having made one already), to say:

Sherman's strategy, though ruthless, was to "demoralize the South's will to fight", to end the cycle of mounting casualties in one sweep. Today, we'd call it "Shock and Awe", although back then, it worked.
When we get Confederate apologists mourning "Southern grace" by saying "The Yankees came in like locusts and burned everything to the ground!", the Northern response, even a hundred and fifty years later, tends to be "Yyyyyyyep...And cut the railroads, too--Sucks, don't it? "
15100 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/11/17 , edited 4/12/17

Mastersluthier wrote:

Jefferson Davis.
Sorry ,That is who I meant, I should have verified my facts.
I stand corrected.

that said. and I know that this might seem far fetched to some..but here is the simple truth.
For most people 150+ years is Far removed from their modern lives.
.
but, My Paternal Great grandfather fought in the Civil war on the side of the South.
His daughter, who is my grandmother, was born in 1886, and still had the Kentucky long Rife he used in that war, My father was her 7th child, born in 1930 ( yes she was 44 years old and had one more son a year and a half later)
I was born in 1963 and I'm now 54 and I now have the rifle. and his story.

So its still real for me and my entire family... all 1127 of us. So those of us that still care about our families back stories, Do indeed have "feelings: on this subject, and it will never be fair to say that those feelings should just be invalidated because we were on the "losing side" our family shed blood over that cause even if we were wrong... blood is still blood.

that war was bitter fought and Pres. Lincoln Politically spun the issues in order to turn public opinion against the South for reasons that were not part of what the South was originally fighting for. the south was cornered on a single point that was only a small part of the real issues and yeah many are still a little butt hurt about it. Our Fed. Government made a patsy out of the South in order to push a political agenda.
that has all come to light now and the real issue is, many of those same issues still exist for these same Southern states today.
The rights of a state to govern itself as its own people see fit has MANY examples today.
the NATIONAL 55 mph speed limit is one. Most states no longer adhere to that idea. and they post they're own speed limits AGAINST Fed Government law.
State income and sales taxes are being "round about" regulated by Fed government in some states... many believe thats not right.
Now some new health care issues are popping up. and a few other odd things like water rights ( a big issue in Atlanta who is currently fighting with TN about gaining access to the TN river at Chattanooga because they have drained Lake Alatoona and can no longer support their population with their current water source. TVA which is a branch of the FED government was created to manage the TN River water source in 1927. So why was nothing done for Atlanta years ago? why does TN now have to help out a city that simply outgrew its resources? is that not a state/local planning issue? the Fed should not have the right to come into any state and say you must do "X" in order to solve another states poor planning issues. obviously an issue that needs addressing.

My city IS the geographical Center of the south by Any U.S. map. Yet Atlanta became the booming town with the huge economic increase while Chattanooga Suffered for over 100 years in poverty, simply because Atlanta got burned by General Sherman and was then given more Fed reconstruction funds after the war!? why?

Chattanooga was laid Treeless and barren by the Union army before AND AFTER the war.. it took decades for the land to recover after the 4 battles PLUS all the Military activity that took place here for the next 30 years!.

My city still has civil war cannon in the front yards of houses that can be seen today. they stand as memorials to the CONFEDERATES that fell there. there is only 1 memorial here for the union soldiers. and worse, the Union spies that hijacked a train known as Andrews raiders has a memorial. while not one sole knows the story of a true hero William Allen Fuller, who chase that train down, first on foot and then by hand car and then by locomotive running backwards! from Kennesaw to Ringgold ( 77 miles) and then ran and jumpped onto a burning box car and release the brake and moved the car off the bridge thereby stopping Andrews Raiders from completing their mission of burning the train bridge at Ringgold.

now of course just a few miles south, in Chickamauga GA there is the Chickamauga battlefield which has equal Union and Confederate memorials.
but, my point is, in THIS city, the Civil war is not forgotten.. It can't be... its all around us here.

So If I seem butt hurt, Sorry, thats just how it is, the injustices that sparked that war... still exist..


It's not far fetched it's just willful revision of history.

I'm sorry but I am heartily sick of this grand lie that Slavery was somehow not the defining element of the Civil War. I mean I suppose you could argue it was actually about the south's slave based economy, or about the states' right to hold slaves. I'm sure there are other reasons and maybe you'd even be able to find them if the people writing at the time would ever shut up about how awesome slavery is, how much better southern society is because of slavery, how slavery needs to be defended against vile abolitionists, etc. etc. long enough to talk about anything else for two minutes. The slavery debate was massive in the era leading up to the Civil War, the south seceded because it was becoming clear the North could gain an electoral lead over it, which afforded the possibility that slavery could one day be ended. So the slave states threw a hissy fit and seceded because a fair election chose a Republican for president. And by the by the Republicans were not abolitionists. Their goal wasn't to abolish slavery in the states where it already existed, it was to prevent slavery's extension into the territories. Which makes this whole state's rights claim very interesting.

In the Antebellum period it was more or less agreed upon that the federal government had no authority to regulate or abolish slavery in states where it already existed. The use of federal power to abolish slavery in the states was never a serious option put on the table during the antebellum period, not in the least because the south had already made antislavery a taboo talking point in politics by that point. The major point of contention was that federal power was understood not to be able to interefere in the states, but retained power over the territories. The primary reason for the formation of the Republican party wasn't abolitionism becoming in vogue, so much as it was the free states becoming concerned by a more aggressive proslavery actions which undermined that. The missouri compromise had essentially split the territories saying that slavery could never spread into territories north of the 36 30 line, but slave states could be admitted south of that line. However later decisions favored by proslavery advocates would quesiton and eventually annul this, for instance teh famous Dredd Scott decision. There were actually three major points the ruling in this case brought about. The first is the one teh case is most known for. the black man has no rights a white man is entitled to respect. this is the one most often discussed and it's the one most troublign to us today, but the north was actually more upset over points two and three. Namely that the federal government had no right to regulate slavery in the territories, and the federal government had a constitutional obligation to protect slavery and slaveowners property rights. This got many northerners upset because they distincitly didn't want slavery to creep into the northern territories. Also because that constituional obligation (which is ridiculous by the way as the constitution contains no references to slavery) interacted with the fugitive slave act in such a way that private citizens could be forcibly deputized in order to help return fugitive slaves. Which constitutes by the way the federal government interfering with state government. See the south wasn't actually upset with affirmative federal power if it was used to further their own agenda. And nor were these fears unjustified as the democratic proposal for a federal slave code, which would have used federal power to legalize slavery in all of the territories thus ensuring any future states admitted would be slave states, demonstrates.

This is easily explained by how crucial and centrally important the institution of slavery was to the southern economy, culture and society. From the 30s onward the south had abandoned the previous "necessary evil" defense of slavery into one that read slavery as a positive good. They viewed the principles of hierarchical inequality as being part of an ideal and enlightened society far better than that which existed in the free north, and the racial inferiority of Africans was a cornerstone of this belief. It was so important and crucial that proslavery advocates in the north and south like Cartwright and Nott came up with extremely forced pseudoscientific metnal and physical diseases to explain why slaves became depressed or seemed to be acting rebelliously because they couldn't admit that it might be an act of conscious rebellion or dissatisfaction. Because enslavement was viewed as being the natural condition of Africans and thus anything that wasn't satisfaction with their lot had to be abberant behavior born of some ailment rather than the natural result of another human being chafing at life as another person's property. This was part of a large complex and oftentimes self-contradictory mosaic of legal, religious, social, political, and economic arguments designed to insulate and protect slavery which often included efforts to silence and quell any questioning of slavery.

Southern plantation owners liked to think that their hierarchical system was superior to one of equality. They viewed themselves as having a paternalistic relationship with their slaves which was superior to the colder capitalistic relationship between northern workers and their superiors. However while the conditions of northern free laborers were undenaibly terrible this doesn't change teh fact that the south's paternalism paradigm was nothing shy of a self-serving fabricated romance. Masters were not caring and devoted patriarchs in the majority of cases, nor was theirs a father child relationship. It was just as much exploitation as in the north, but using this myth of paternalism southern slaveholders were able to both fool themselves and condition their slaves into accepting these terms as the truth. which probably explains why the south was so virulently and oftentimes explosively defensive of slavery to the point where the South probably did more to generate the emergence of the Republican party than the abolitionists did. The Confederacy was founded out of the fear that slavery would eventually be ended. You can try and come at this from as many angles as you want but southern antebellum society was so enmeshed with slavery on every level that trying to talk about any aspect of the south's reasons for fighting the civil war inevitably tie back into it.

The confederacy was not born out of some noble rebellion against federal tyranny, it was the south's petulant outrage at the election of a president who had no immediate interests in ending slavery in the states, because they viewed this as a threat to the vile inhumane institution that they had enshrined as central to their culture. The emancipation proclamation was a use of the president's war powers and constitutes a use of federal power, came only after the Civil war had already been going on and the south had been repeatedly given warnings to cease and desist over their rebellion and illegal secession from the union. Slavery was a doomed institution and it was becomign clear that at some point it's number was goign to come up, the south couldn't handle that and rebelled. And lost.

Apparently the north wasn't as dependent on southern cotton as the south liked to think it was.

I do not think the confederate soldiers who died in the war deserved it, nor do I take any pleasure or satisfaction in the loss of life the Civil War caused to either side. However I will not pretend I think they died for a valiant or worthy cause, they didn't. The Confederacy took up arms to defend slavery, a morally wrong cause. I am sorry to hear about your town's economic woes, but your current gripes with the government's exercise of federal power do not change what the confederacy was. An illegal union founded by treason and petulance for the sake of preserving racial slavery, founded on the belief in the racial inferiority of blacks as touted by many of the seceding states charters and countless contemporary sources (Yes I can provide them if you want). I spit on the confederacy and it's stupid flag, on the memory of everything it stood for because what it stood for was nothing short of racism and enslavement.

So whatever the veracity of your current frustrations you've chosen an unworthy symbol and legacy to rally behind.

The lost cause of the south is a revisionist fable spun up after the war, to the point where in present day people say that slavery was a minor part of the civil war in spite of it being dominant in the political discourse of the time. Slavery was if not the only, the defining point of contention in the Civil War. If you say otherwise I'm sorry but you don't know your history as well as you think you do.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.