Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good post, but I don't get the Rhett Butler reference. Rhett Butler was the one with the unpopular view that the South was doomed to lose the war from the beginning and made his fortune selling southern goods to the Yankees instead of running it to England as he was supposed to be doing.
My attitude towards the South, and southerners in general, has been formed by reading history and by personal experience.
I've also found that Southern defenders, especially those who aren't actually from the South, tend to be the most irrational of all. There are some southerners who are capable of saying that the South was wrong, that slavery was an abomination that deserved to be ended any way it took, and that southern history in the 100+ years following the Civil War was an embarassment that should be apologized for at every opportunity. I actually served with a couple of them in the military.
Really not sure how many 's I can fit into one reaction.. Let me know when you find a southerner, or a "southern defender" (as I guess you're labelling me) here who has:
A) Defended slavery
or
B) Defended Jim Crowe laws, or Black Codes or anything of the like.
You can't... The fact that you think I am defending any of these things underscores a vast deficiency in your reading skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
But hardly any 'Pseudo-Southerners' take that position. To them, the South was the Camelot of America and the Civil War was some glorious enterprise that the wrong side won. Maybe they see themselves as Rhett Butler. They remain stauch believers in 'The Cause' and make it their life's work to offer up Revisionist History on message boards like this. They even start threads pretending that black soldiers served in the Confederate Armies in significant numbers, when any reading of any credible history dispells that notion immediately.
Actually I haven't claimed anything about black Confederate soldiers either, but it's a good way to get back on topic....
Blacks fought for the Confederacy, but I think the fact is being misused here.... Many of the wealthier southerners brought their personal servants with them as well as a ***** Load of personal baggage and such. So when the time came to dig latrines, or build fortifications, cook meals, put up tents etc... came around they had their servants doing much of this for them when possible..... (and before you go off on it, the overall percentage of Confederate soldiers who did this was quite small.).
I think the bottom line is that a LOT of these personal servants got caught up in battle from time to time...
Were they Confederate Soldiers? No
Were they fighting for the South? No, not really.
Did the South raise these men as troops? Definately not.
None of this really proves anything except that the implication that blacks fighting for the South is somehow a paradox that proves that blacks didn't mind their plight, or fought for their home instead of for their freedom or whatever is a fallacy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
Anything that contradicts their view of history is obviously something put out by 'Damn Yankees', who got all their information at 'northern' schools (which I guess is any school not located in the Confederacy).
Not true. I only think that of people that don't grasp the intracies of the politics of the time and think that the Civil War is simply the "Good Guys in Blue" VS. the "Evil Guys in Gray"...
That attitude reflects a very rudimentary and one-sided understanding of one of the most complicated times in our history. And yes, having been educated in a northern high-school classroom, I feel quite comfortable with stating that this is EXACTLY what is/was taught as late as 1990.... Or at the very least they had so little time to cover it that this is the impression that they leave for those who never care to delve any deeper into researching the conflict on their own....
Again, you miss the point. Slavery was so evil that nothing else matters. It doesn't matter whether there were issues of tariffs or free navigation of the Mississippi or anything else. Ultimately the southern states seceded over the issue of slavery - surely one of the worst causes anybody has ever gone to war over - and then made war on the United States. They saw Lincoln as a threat to slavery and they would have done anything to preserve it.
That makes the 'gray guys evil'. Nothing else matters. I've never claimed 'the blue guys' were good. However, if opposing evil makes you good, then they were good.
Again, you miss the point. Slavery was so evil that nothing else matters. It doesn't matter whether there were issues of tariffs or free navigation of the Mississippi or anything else. Ultimately the southern states seceded over the issue of slavery - surely one of the worst causes anybody has ever gone to war over - and then made war on the United States. They saw Lincoln as a threat to slavery and they would have done anything to preserve it.
That makes the 'gray guys evil'. Nothing else matters. I've never claimed 'the blue guys' were good. However, if opposing evil makes you good, then they were good.
You're confounding the secession and the war itself IMO...
One did NOT have to equal the other. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee (and I believe) Arkansas didn't secede until Lincoln raised troops to invade the South and made it clear that he intended to go to war over secession. These states had no intent to secede prior to that.
How things turn out differently if Lincoln doesn't make a call to raise volunteers to "Put down the rebellion", or doesn't re-enforce Sumter and, for the sake of time and maybe letting cooler heads prevail, pulls Anderson out??
I'm not sure. However I think the Confederacy without Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee or Arkansas would have had some serious struggles and may have eventually negotiated a return to the Union... But who knows?
Bottom line is that you cannot simply slap the word "Slavery" on the South and discount everything else that led up to the war IMO... Don't forget that Lincoln had no intent on freeing slaves in Maryland, Delaware or Kentucky.... Do you not have a beef with that?
Either way, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's so much more to all of it IMO than, "Slavery, ergo, South is evil." as an analysis of secession and the war. Overly simplistic. Sorry.
You're right. We could not disagree more. And I choose not to deal with 'what if's'. I prefer to deal in 'what was'.
Slavery is such an integral part of the ante-bellum South and so tied into secession that it is impossible to separate it from the Civil War. Without slavery there is no secession; without secession there is no Civil War.
Could Lincoln simply have allowed the Southern states to secede? Yes. But had he done that, the United States was finished as an entity. The fact that the South seceded over slavery made Lincoln's decision easier.
I consider the entire Secession movement and the reasons for it to be evil. Sadly it was prompted in part by a feeling on the part of Southerners that somehow they were 'special', and that they could do whatever the hell they wanted. That they were allowed to get away with this nonsense for 70 years is the fault of the North.
You're right. We could not disagree more. And I choose not to deal with 'what if's'. I prefer to deal in 'what was'.
No, the problem is that you are ignoring 90% of "what was" IMO. Slavery was the hot button issue, but to try to link EVERYTHING else that has to do with the war and the South in particular is rediculously over-simplistic.
THAT is why we disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
Slavery is such an integral part of the ante-bellum South and so tied into secession that it is impossible to separate it from the Civil War. Without slavery there is no secession; without secession there is no Civil War.
Without driving, there'd be no automobile accidents. Without automobile accidents nobody would die on the road...
Driving doesn't have to equal an accident, secession didn't have to equal war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
Could Lincoln simply have allowed the Southern states to secede? Yes. But had he done that, the United States was finished as an entity. The fact that the South seceded over slavery made Lincoln's decision easier.
Ahhhhhh, "allow"??? NOW you're starting to get into one of those 800 Lbs gorillas known as "Other issues" that I've been trying to draw to your attention.
Who ever said secession was illegal? Show me where it is/was written? Slavery had next to NOTHING to do with why Lincoln chose to fight this war. He fought it because it was his opinion that secession was NOT a right afforded the states. THAT question can be argued 'till the cows come home (and has been here ad nauseum). Fact is that the Civil War is what more or less established it as a FACT that secession wasn't a legal option, before that it was VERY much a question that hadn't been answered...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
I consider the entire Secession movement and the reasons for it to be evil. Sadly it was prompted in part by a feeling on the part of Southerners that somehow they were 'special', and that they could do whatever the hell they wanted. That they were allowed to get away with this nonsense for 70 years is the fault of the North.
Don't forget (of course you actually need to know something in order to forget it) that the first time secession was proposed was by some of the New England States around the time of the War of 1812 (don't know the exact time and don't feel like looking it up at the moment).
Secession was a ploy states had used pretty much since the inception of the United States Constitution...
The question I'll leave you with on this is that the Constitution mentions NOTHING about states not being allowed to leave the Union. Do you think the states that agreed and signed the Constitution that were heavy into states' rights would have done so if it was made clear that they were permanently ceding their sovereignty to a new Federal Government?
I doubt it. And yes, when it became clear (they thought) that the Federal Government was moving to impede their autonomy on the slavery issue, SOME of the Confederate states chose to secede (again, avoiding the issue that four of the Confederate states left because of Lincoln's hostile reaction, NOT to preserve slavery).
This is the kind of thinking that goes into this issue. It isn't so simple as, "Slavery..... South bad.... 'Nuff said....", and yes, on that we disagree completely.
Look, why don't you admit it. You're one of those Revisionist Southern Wannabees who had decided he's discovered some great truth that thus far has eluded responsible and credible historians. The South was right, and the North was wrong. Secession was noble and entirely justified and - hey - slavery wasn't that bad. Keep reading those racist confederate websites - I'm sure you can find all the support you want there.
Your comments about secessionist movements in New England are irrelevant. Only in the south did it matter, and we're still paying the price for that.
And you finally reveal your true motives - it's that evil Federal Government that we all have to be afraid of! I can see why you hate Abraham Lincoln so much. He remade the United States, thanks to an enormous amount of help from ignorant southern rednecks.
At heart, you're just another defender of slavery and racism. You cloak it in some psuedo-intellectual crap, but that's really what it is. Your mentality is exactly what led to secession, the civil war, and the problems with racism that we still experience today. I don't know whether you're a racist or not, but you sure don't seem to have much of a problem with it.
You and your ilk would be amusing, were it not for the fact that you're now showing up at meetings carrying assault weapons and wearing Timothy McVeigh T-shirts.
Last edited by Angus Podgorny; 10-18-2009 at 10:26 AM..
Look, why don't you admit it. You're one of those Revisionist Southern Wannabees who had decided he's discovered some great truth that thus far has eluded responsible and credible historians. The South was right, and the North was wrong. Secession was noble and entirely justified and - hey - slavery wasn't that bad. Keep reading those racist confederate websites - I'm sure you can find all the support you want there.
Why don't you admit that you're too lazy to look into it any further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
Your comments about secessionist movements in New England are irrelevant. Only in the south did it matter, and we're still paying the price for that.
Actually it's very relevent if you're going to call people who seceded "traitors"... It's pretty significant to note that your ilk had certainly contemplated the same kind of "treason" which leads one to wonder whether they REALLY thought it WAS "treason"....
But that would require critical thinking which doesn't appear to be one of your strong suits...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
And you finally reveal your true motives - it's that evil Federal Government that we all have to be afraid of! I can see why you hate Abraham Lincoln so much. He remade the United States, thanks to an enormous amount of help from ignorant southern rednecks.
And you reveal (though not "finally" as you have already done so) yourself to be one who likes to throw around labels and stereotypes...
I don't fear the Federal Government. States' Rights was a MAJOR ISSUE of the time, but since you don't bother to read up on anything more I guess you wouldn't be aware of that. I didn't say what side was right, only that it was a question that hadn't been answered... I also didn't say a word about hating Lincoln. In fact I respect most of what he did. But again, you're one of those who attempts to prove points by labelling the poster instead of actually addressing any points directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
At heart, you're just another defender of slavery and racism. You cloak it in some psuedo-intellectual crap, but that's really what it is. Your mentality is exactly what led to secession, the civil war, and the problems with racism that we still experience today. I don't know whether you're a racist or not, but you sure don't seem to have much of a problem with it.
"Pseudo-intellectual"? No ace... I read and do research.
Oh, here's another question that I'm sure will go unanswered (as all of my previous one's have )... Can you tell me why the largest chapter of the KKK resides in Connecticut if racism is such a "southern thang" born out of slavery?
Nah.... Didn't think ya could...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
You and your ilk would be amusing, were it not for the fact that you're now showing up at meetings carrying assault weapons and wearing Timothy McVeigh T-shirts.
Again, attack the poster, but don't address the argument...
So let me sum this up, just to make sure...
I argue that the South may have had a right to secede. That four of the most significant states that seceded didn't do so because of slavery. That firing on Fort Sumter wasn't some snap decision born out of a desperate need to keep one's slaves. That I'm willing to discuss whether Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing first or not... I admit that slavery was the key cause of secession and at no point have I stated that I support slavery, but think that the extent of states' rights was an issue that was far from decided in 1860 and 1861....
You argue that because I think there may be a legitimate case for what the South did and that there was far more to the politics of the Civil War than just slavery, that I support slavery, am a racist, am a redneck, own assault weapons and worship Timothy McVeigh....
Do I have this about right Angus? If so we can stop now and just leave this post as a summary.
Angus Podgony--Do you have a job that you get paid for? Do/did you go to an integrated school? Can you vote? Can you own land? Do you have to be off the street before sunset? Do you have the opportunity to be elected to high office? Can you serve in the same regiment as white soldiers? I dont see how slavery or the Civil War [The War of Northern Agression] has effected you one way or the other. I dont think there is one colored person alive right now that was either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
's I can fit into one reaction.. Let me know when you find a southerner, or a "southern defender" (as I guess you're labelling me) here who has:
