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.
It's amazing how much things got back to normal, relatively, after the end of the civil war. No rebels fighting in the mountains for decades, no mass hangings of southerners, etc. Thank Lincoln for that, he understood what it needed to bring back the country, he really was a person of just amazing forsite - forgiveness and reconcilation. And even after his assasination his wishes were held to.
Well, I can't totally agree with that one. You are right of course that most Southerners voluntarily retuned to their homes and accepted the result. And that the majority of the northern populace had no desire to carry out mass executions. And I will even go so far as to grudgingly acknowledge that Lincoln (a man I blame for starting the War), after it was over, DID genuinely want to put the bitterness aside and be conciliatory towards the South. HOWEVER, where we part company is the idea that things got back to normal. It MIGHT have, had Lincoln lived, but Congressional Reconstruction, then later RADICAL Reconstruction took hold and it was that which really caused bitterness in Southern hearts and minds. Even Lee, a man who wanted nothing more than reconcilation, once said something like "had I foreseen the results of Reconstruction, I would have preferred to have died at Appomatox." And for many Southerners, it was not the result of the War, but the vindictiveness and hardships of Reconstruction that soured them. Again though, I note that those carrying out the policy were a minority in the North, albeit, a powerful sect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd7I4
That and, frankly, after 4 years, both sides were just too fought out and tired of bloodshed. Also thank leading Union generals such as Grant and Sherman.
.
Yes, both sides were damn tired of it. But it is too much for a Southerner to thank either of the two you mention (in Texas, it is Sheridan, who has the black mark! LOL). I WILL give them that both genuinely admired the Southern people and offered generous terms. But for their way of waging war, especially the latter, wellll, I will just leave it at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd7I4
I'm one of those people that think if the south remained divided from the north then the union - both north and south, would have fallen apart completely. We would have had 20, 30 or more different nations on this continent and the almost constant state of war that frequented Europe at that time would have been the curse of the North American continent. I am convinced of this beyond a doubt. Lincoln knew that to.
I honestly don't think it would have turned out that way. I'm no foriegn policy expert, but the fact of a threat from Europe might have prevented this, if nothing else. But again, speculations of the alternate history can go on forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd7I4
Wish I was involved in most of this discussion. 70 pages is just too much to go back through. Now I think this site needs a History Forum.
I think you might be right! LOL
Enjoyed reading and responding to the soft-spoken, reasonably put, and intelligently worded comments you made.
For me, I think it is about supper time. If I don't get back here this evening, everyone have a good one!
Even Lee, a man who wanted nothing more than reconcilation, once said something like "had I foreseen the results of Reconstruction, I would have preferred to have died at Appomatox." And for many Southerners, it was not the result of the War, but the vindictiveness and hardships of Reconstruction that soured them.
Lee was a deep-seated racist. Period. The Southern States were politically dominated by deep-seated racists. Period. Southern laws regarding slavery codified deep-seated racism. Period. Post-Civil War laws in the South still codified deep-seated racism. Period. The Southern churches coddled, and preached a religious justification for, deep-seated racism. Period. The war's outcome forced the South to change its legal basis for race relations. After the Civil War, the South later reverted to some extent (through the early 1920s), then anti-lynching laws and publicity and several white-instigated race riots (The Tulsa Race Riot Report, etc.) finally brought that chapter to an end as well, with the support of an accumulation of court decisions. WW2, with the participation of large numbers of blacks in the U.S. military, was the genesis of the post-war Civil Rights movement (almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War) whose benefits all Americans can see today.
There are "constitutional" arguments for secession and state's rights, and there is the reality of social life and its power relations. When there are "bad laws," it is the moral obligation of persons of conscience to endeavor to disestablish those laws. The Civil War, as are most wars, was the result of a failure of politics. In that case, the failure of politics was the failure to disestablish the institution of slavery in the Southern States. That institution favored an elite class of planters who became politically dominant, but it was also undergirded for all of Southern society by retrograde social and religious teachings of the racial inferiority of blacks that had been "outgrown" and tossed aside elsewhere in the United States up to that time as well as in Europe, from which the American civilization had originally sprung. By the 1860s, the South had become a social and political backwater in American history. It stupidly and recklessly picked a fight with a stronger foe, the industrialized Northern States, and eventually lost a war of material and personnel attrition. Going into early 1861, Lincoln (elected leader of the Northern political elites) had held his forces back until the time was both politically (post-secession) and militarily ripe, when the Southerners could no longer hold themselves back militarily and fired on the Federal battery being relieved at Fort Sumter. That was Lincoln's pretext (a common practice in American military history) for opening a full-scale war to militarily and politically vanquish the status quo of the Southern States. The South had met its destiny.
P.S. Every observer of this board should read the researched report (click on the link above) on the history of the Tulsa (Okla.) Race Riot of 1921. It is a chilling subject to digest. You will read about a white mob in action, fortified by the Tulsa police and the state National Guard. You will read about black families, including black professional persons in the community, either shot in and around their homes or escorted from them "for their own safety" so that their homes could be burned down with impunity. Interesting note: A nephew of the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright was the editor of the newspaper in Tulsa that fanned the flames of hatred among the white citizens that resulted in the torching and destruction of the entire black section of the city. He was also an elder in one of the prominent churches in the city.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 10-05-2007 at 06:39 PM..
There are some good, although mostly obscure, books which present the Southern viewpoint and, if you are interested, I will do a bit of looking and post some links for you.
Again though, if you really want the definitive case, I would highly recommend Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." BUT...as I mentioned earlier, it is NOT easy or entertaining reading (for one thing, Davis wasn't known for his sense of humor! LOL). It is very long, meticulous, and dry in style. But if one has the patience and time to get thru it, there is no better source.
Actually, my son turned me on to The Redneck Manifesto a few years ago. I still haven't completely recovered...
Even Lee, a man who wanted nothing more than reconcilation, once said something like "had I foreseen the results of Reconstruction, I would have preferred to have died at Appomatox." And for many Southerners, it was not the result of the War, but the vindictiveness and hardships of Reconstruction that soured them.
Lee was a deep-seated racist. Period. The Southern States were politically dominated by deep-seated racists. Period. Southern laws regarding slavery codified deep-seated racism. Period. Post-Civil War laws in the South still codified deep-seated racism. Period. The Southern churches coddled, and preached a religious justification for, deep-seated racism. Period. The war's outcome forced the South to change its legal basis for race relations. After the Civil War, the South later reverted to some extent (through the early 1920s), then anti-lynching laws and publicity and several white-instigated race riots (The Tulsa Race Riot Report, etc.) finally brought that chapter to an end as well, with the support of an accumulation of court decisions. WW2, with the participation of large numbers of blacks in the U.S. military, was the genesis of the post-war Civil Rights movement (almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War) whose benefits all Americans can see today.
There are "constitutional" arguments for secession and state's rights, and there is the reality of social life and its power relations. When there are "bad laws," it is the moral obligation of persons of conscience to endeavor to disestablish those laws. The Civil War, as are most wars, was the result of a failure of politics. In that case, the failure of politics was the failure to disestablish the institution of slavery in the Southern States. That institution favored an elite class of planters who became politically dominant, but it was also undergirded for all of Southern society by retrograde social and religious teachings of the racial inferiority of blacks that had been "outgrown" and tossed aside elsewhere in the United States up to that time as well as in Europe, from which the American civilization had originally sprung. By the 1860s, the South had become a social and political backwater in American history. It stupidly and recklessly picked a fight with a stronger foe, the industrialized Northern States, and eventually lost a war of material and personnel attrition. Going into early 1861, Lincoln (elected leader of the Northern political elites) had held his forces back until the time was both politically (post-secession) and militarily ripe, when the Southerners could no longer hold themselves back militarily and fired on the Federal battery being relieved at Fort Sumter. That was Lincoln's pretext (a common practice in American military history) for opening a full-scale war to militarily and politically vanquish the status quo of the Southern States. The South had met its destiny.
P.S. Every observer of this board should read the researched report (click on the link above) on the history of the Tulsa (Okla.) Race Riot of 1921. It is a chilling subject to digest. You will read about a white mob in action, fortified by the Tulsa police and the state National Guard. You will read about black families, including black professional persons in the community, either shot in and around their homes or escorted from them "for their own safety" so that their homes could be burned down with impunity. Interesting note: A nephew of the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright was the editor of the newspaper in Tulsa that fanned the flames of hatred among the white citizens that resulted in the torching and destruction of the entire black section of the city. He was also an elder in one of the prominent churches in the city.
It would take up far too much space to "muliti-quote" and reply to all the points presented here. So, I will just touch on the major points.
First of all, I will say there is some good historical information presented here. And even that the conclusions stem logically from the premise (which seems to be all the fault lies with the South, as well as every social evil which ever existed in this country). Of course, it burns with the self-righteous fervor of Thad Stevens or Charles Sumner, or the hypocrites such as, welll, the northern liberals who supported every "corrective measure" aimed at solving Southern "race problems", yet put their mouths and agendas in reverse, stuck their own kids in private schools, and fled to the suburbs when the birds came home to roost.
So, and I admit I can't fan away a fog with a whisk broom, nonetheless, we Southerners are fond of lost causes, so heeeeere we gooooo...
1. Lee was a deep-seated racist. The South was dominated by deep seated racists. All things in the South codifed deep seated racism. Etc, ad nauseum.
Who/what are any of the above being compared to in the day and age?. You have identified the sinners. Now identify the saints, as concerns the thundering righteous use of the term "racist". So easy it is to get on a moral high-horse when judging the standards of yesterday with those of today. Had you lived back then, I bet you would sent them racist oppressors out with an earful, huh? LMAO
Did I put a "period" after all this? *halo over head*
2. Race riots? Yeah, *yawn* most of us are familiar with what happened in Tulsa. The worst of the worst though was the "New York Draft Riot. Or later on, in Watts, Detroit, Newark, Boston. That which caused, in a latter day and age, to make Dr. King remark "If you want to teach a white Southerner to hate, send him to Chicago."
3. Please read the history of slavery in the North. Here is the link, in fact: Slavery in the North
If it is your studied opinion that slavery became a social evil to be cured only after the northern states abandoned it, then say so.
4. In THIS once case, I am going to quote" When there are "bad laws," it is the moral obligation of persons of conscience to endeavor to disestablish those laws.
Reply: This one really doesn't have much to do with slavery, as all today agree it was an evil. No, it is more an attitude which subscribes to the notion that there are those amongst us (historical or contemporary) who are so wise, morally superior, and anointed as to presume to tamper with other peoples lives, social arrangements, and established institutions. I have always wondered what it would be like to bear such a burden. The most visible example of this in our day are the activist federal judges who legislate from the bench. Funny thing is, though, they always seem to be of a social class inoculated from the mandates they force on others.
Bottom line is, some of your historical points might be well considered (even if not agreed with) if they were presented in a more respectful tone for the principles of others.
And I must say, with all due respect for those on the opposite side of the question who truly adhere to notions of civil and courteous debate, that it is/are those on the "anti-Southern/Flag" end of the equastion who seem to be the most intolerant and angry of all...
1) secession from the Union, which although at the time, they may have felt they were right, now - 142 years after the end of the civil war - it seems almost traitorous. I don't mean that as an insult, so please don't take that the wrong way, but hanging that confederate flag is like a foreigner hanging their flag here after we defeated them in war - as a sign of defiance.
.
Let me put this to you this way..... How would you feel about a flag that represents the Sioux, the Cherokee, the Iroquois or whatever Native American nation that was conquered under the flag of the United States???
Do you feel different because these were the bretheren of the United States that, in the end, felt like they had irreconcilable differences and wanted to leave you that they don't even deserve THAT respect for the country they created. Even if it's existence was so much shorter???
Just a thought. Can we not show what may have BEEN a sign of defiance and pride even though that entity may have been vanquished by bloodshed???
Who/what are any of the above being compared to in the day and age?. You have identified the sinners. Now identify the saints, as concerns the thundering righteous use of the term "racist". So easy it is to get on a moral high-horse when judging the standards of yesterday with those of today. Had you lived back then, I bet you would sent them racist oppressors out with an earful, huh? LMAO
.
If this wasn't the sledgehammer of the point, I don't know what is for those decrying "Southern Racism".
Even Lee, a man who wanted nothing more than reconcilation, once said something like "had I foreseen the results of Reconstruction, I would have preferred to have died at Appomatox." And for many Southerners, it was not the result of the War, but the vindictiveness and hardships of Reconstruction that soured them.
Lee was a deep-seated racist. Period.
Abraham Lincoln was a deep-seated racist. Period.
The man had no interest in freeing the black man, had no concern for the black man, and had no intention of being the friend of the black man. It simply fell upon him and he did what he did to preserve the Union. Period.
He was born in Kentucky and raised in Southern Illinois which was HEAVILY sympathetic to the South.
Edit: Oh, and I should add.... I'm a fan of Lincoln. I feel he was probably our greatest President ever for what he fought to preserve and the extraordinary (and sometimes extra-legal) ways in which he preserved it. We owe what we have now to him for sure, but won't stand to hear how the North was some angel of mercy while the South was the angel of death....
Snore..........yawn...............uh........wha'.. ..........is it time to get up? Nah, I was just dreaming. Or maybe it was a nightmare.
All I know is that 719 posts on this subject is 718 too many.
Well if you have one post that can sum it all up we're ALL EARS!!!
I'm sure those of us who have participated on either side of this debate will be waiting with baited breath for your end all, be all answer...
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.
