U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-14-2012, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Austin
18,175 posts, read 5,236,209 times
Reputation: 4037
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflight View Post
Why are some here calling the Confederacy traitors? Isn't the U.S. an illegitimate nation, which stole land from the natives and committed genocide against them?
Correct.

There is absolutely no moral difference between Robert E Lee and George Washington. Both fought for their country. One won, the other lost, and victors write the history books.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2012, 04:38 PM
 
4,381 posts, read 1,282,156 times
Reputation: 1431
I wonder if the Cherokee and Choctaw tribes honor Confederate military figures. Both tribes held thousands of black slaves.

edit: found this article!

Quote:
[SIZE=3]Many have no doubt heard of the valor of the Cherokee warriors under the command of Brigadier General Stand Watie in the West and of Thomas’ famous North Carolina Legion in the East during the War for Southern Independence from 1861 to 1865. But why did the Cherokees and their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws determine to make common cause with the Confederate South against the Northern Union? To know their reasons is very instructive as to the issues underlying that tragic war. Most Americans have been propagandized rather than educated in the causes of the war, all this to justify the perpetrators and victors. Considering the Cherokee view uncovers much truth buried by decades of politically correct propaganda and allows a broader and truer perspective.[/SIZE]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/scruggs4.html

As for myself, I do not honor Confederate holidays; I also am against flying the Confederate flag for the reason that there is so much badness associated with it due to the KKK and the like. Its a hurtful symbol to many people.

What I do object to is the phoney-baloney self-righteousness of those who follow simple narratives and and don't see larger perspectives.

Last edited by nightflight; 01-14-2012 at 05:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2012, 05:13 PM
 
6,225 posts, read 5,394,708 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
I have always said slavery is wrong. I've never defended slavery. But I am critical of Lincoln and others who killed 800,000 Americans when slavery could have been ended without bloodshed like it was in many other countries.
If the slaveholding interests in the South opposed even restrictions on the expansion of slavery, what makes you think they would have put up with efforts to ban it outright or let it die? In 1860, Lincoln opposed outright abolition, but wanted to halt its expansion Westward. Even so, his election brought about the secession of the deep south.

TexasReb, maybe you could add some of your knowledge to this? I'd be interested to get your thoughts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2012, 06:25 PM
 
Location: chattanooga
646 posts, read 456,866 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
What you need is a time machine. Why don't you find one and get your behind back to the 1850s?
Believe me I would if I could
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2012, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
8,694 posts, read 3,507,088 times
Reputation: 5084
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
My family has lived near Columbia, S.C. since 1741. They never owned any slaves, but they fought for the Confederacy. My GGGfather was wounded near Richmond on the way home from the Second Manassas.

I was raised by lily-white bigots who only had one word for any race that wasn't them, and my Gfather was a member of the klan.

"Confederacy" here still means racist (today it travels under the name "heritage"), and there are a lot of people I personally know who would love to see the South returned to its former "glory".

The Civil War belongs in a museum.
You sure have the qualifications for an opinion!

I don't have such deep connections, even though on one side of my family I'm related to the Booths, and on the other, some Quakers.
I feel the same way you do- the Civil War stained the nation on both sides equally, but when it ended we all became brothers and sisters again under one flag. And the south has paid it's due in blood and treasure ever since to keep that flag flying.

Southerners will never forget their heritage any more than Northerners, Midwesterners, or those from the far West. But remembrance is different than celebration. All areas of our country have their sorrows, where some part of our society lost big, and the other won big.

As a Westerner, I neither celebrate the Massacre at Wounded Knee nor the Massacre at the Little Big Horn. But I remember both as tragic mistakes in our history.
I consider the Civil War to be the worst mistake we ever had; it should be remembered, mostly so it never will happen again. I will not ever celebrate it, any more than I would celebrate a deep wound that resists healing.

The south has many accomplishments it should take pride in, and some should be nationally recognized. The Civil War is not one of them, and the north should not celebrate it's victory any more than the south should celebrate it's defeat. This ancient wound needs to be healed, not cherished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2012, 01:00 PM
Status: "Working some, taking off some" (set 14 days ago)
 
9,800 posts, read 10,951,932 times
Reputation: 4993
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackinac81 View Post
If the slaveholding interests in the South opposed even restrictions on the expansion of slavery, what makes you think they would have put up with efforts to ban it outright or let it die? In 1860, Lincoln opposed outright abolition, but wanted to halt its expansion Westward. Even so, his election brought about the secession of the deep south.

TexasReb, maybe you could add some of your knowledge to this? I'd be interested to get your thoughts.
This is an interesting question mackinac and since you asked my opinion in a civil and respectful way, I will be happy to give it in the same vein!. It might not square with yours, of course, but there is nothing wrong with a good debate/discussion among those type not so quick to judge others as to motivations. You see this type in this thread. That is, those who cry "racist" or "Stormfront" or whatever...without a shred of evidence to back it up.

On the other hand, you have men like DesertDetroiter who write common-sense and reasonable posts sans all the drama and emotion often associated with hot topics like this. He and I frequently disagree on many things...but we have developed a strong mutual respect for the other person's viewpoint.

But anyway (now that the preface is done! LOL), here is how I would answer your question...

First of all, unless one somehow believes that Southerners were somehow immune to/innoculated against...the the same factors of history and thinking that eventually prompted the abolition of slavery elsewhere in the Western World, then there is no reason it would have not died out eventually in the Southern states as well.

For one thing, it had pretty well reached its natural geographic limits somewhere in central Texas, anyway. Much further west, the climate was just not condusive for "plantation type" agriculture that demanded slavery.

For another, by around 1830, the general thinking among Southern politicans/thinkers/"men of letters"/ was that slavery was a "necessary evil" that was (rightfully) bound for eventual extinction. It was only after some radical abolitionists in the northeast began agitating for immediate emancipation without regard to economic reality that Southerners began to (understandably) adopt a harder line.

Plus, they saw (again correctly) a great deal of hypocricy wrapped up in it all. As it was, many of the rabid abolitionists came from families whose fortunes had been made off the slave trade! Here is a good link and excerpt:

***************************

Northern Emancipation

Edgar McManus, the historian of Northern slavery, finds that “abolitionists of the 1780's belonged to the business elite which thirty years before had reaped handsome profits from the slave trade. The precipitous decline of the trade after 1770 apparently sharpened the moral sensibilities of those who had formerly profited. ... The leaders of the abolition movement were honorable men who sincerely regarded slavery as a great moral wrong. But it is also true that they embraced antislavery at a time when it entailed no economic hardship for their class.”

**********************************

I mean, it is easy today sitting in the comfort of my den to think "well, why not do the right thing and just free all the slaves..?" Not withstanding that there is no reason to think the northern time line was the alpha and omega (and no northern state outright banned slavery at all), it is NOT so easy once getting past the emotive content of today...and have to actually take responsibility for the reality of the times and the economics involved. Things take time to happen.

Looking back at 200 years from today, makes it seem easy and simple. But looking at it from 200 B.C. to 1860 -- which is the only way to do it -- puts a reality on it that all too many moralists of today simply ignore in ignorance or self-righteousness. Hell, these people can't solve the moral problems of today...but dammned if they are smug in the belief they could have taken care of those of yesterday!

Slavery in the territories? Yes, that was the issue that kinda brought things to a head, so to speak...as in the final fracture between the Lower South states (South Carolina thru Texas) and the rest of the Old Union. But keep in mind, it was not a moral question, but an economic one.

The blunt truth is that objection to slavery in the western territories stemmed from the fact they didn't want blacks there. (some northern states had outright bans on black residency)/ Slavery would really have not been a consideration (as mentioned before, slavery really wouldn't have been profitable from about far west Texas on. The climate and rainfall amounts just wouldn't have worked for it). So, in a sense...a large one...while the winner history attempts to gloss over it as "objection to the spread of slavery"? What it really was was objection to the presence of blacks in the said territories.

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2012, 01:10 PM
 
11,544 posts, read 4,198,427 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Correct.

There is absolutely no moral difference between Robert E Lee and George Washington. Both fought for their country. .
Washington fought for the US, Lee fought against the US. One is the founding father, the other a traitor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2012, 01:29 PM
 
6,225 posts, read 5,394,708 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
This is an interesting question mackinac and since you asked my opinion in a civil and respectful way, I will be happy to give it in the same vein!. It might not square with yours, of course, but there is nothing wrong with a good debate/discussion among those type not so quick to judge others as to motivations. You see this type in this thread. That is, those who cry "racist" or "Stormfront" or whatever...without a shred of evidence to back it up.

On the other hand, you have men like DesertDetroiter who write common-sense and reasonable posts sans all the drama and emotion often associated with hot topics like this. He and I frequently disagree on many things...but we have developed a strong mutual respect for the other person's viewpoint.

But anyway (now that the preface is done! LOL), here is how I would answer your question...

First of all, unless one somehow believes that Southerners were somehow immune to/innoculated against...the the same factors of history and thinking that eventually prompted the abolition of slavery elsewhere in the Western World, then there is no reason it would have not died out eventually in the Southern states as well.

For one thing, it had pretty well reached its natural geographic limits somewhere in central Texas, anyway. Much further west, the climate was just not condusive for "plantation type" agriculture that demanded slavery.

For another, by around 1830, the general thinking among Southern politicans/thinkers/"men of letters"/ was that slavery was a "necessary evil" that was (rightfully) bound for eventual extinction. It was only after some radical abolitionists in the northeast began agitating for immediate emancipation without regard to economic reality that Southerners began to (understandably) adopt a harder line.

Plus, they saw (again correctly) a great deal of hypocricy wrapped up in it all. As it was, many of the rabid abolitionists came from families whose fortunes had been made off the slave trade! Here is a good link and excerpt:

***************************

Northern Emancipation

Edgar McManus, the historian of Northern slavery, finds that “abolitionists of the 1780's belonged to the business elite which thirty years before had reaped handsome profits from the slave trade. The precipitous decline of the trade after 1770 apparently sharpened the moral sensibilities of those who had formerly profited. ... The leaders of the abolition movement were honorable men who sincerely regarded slavery as a great moral wrong. But it is also true that they embraced antislavery at a time when it entailed no economic hardship for their class.”

**********************************

I mean, it is easy today sitting in the comfort of my den to think "well, why not do the right thing and just free all the slaves..?" Not withstanding that there is no reason to think the northern time line was the alpha and omega (and no northern state outright banned slavery at all), it is NOT so easy once getting past the emotive content of today...and have to actually take responsibility for the reality of the times and the economics involved. Things take time to happen.

Looking back at 200 years from today, makes it seem easy and simple. But looking at it from 200 B.C. to 1860 -- which is the only way to do it -- puts a reality on it that all too many moralists of today simply ignore in ignorance or self-righteousness. Hell, these people can't solve the moral problems of today...but dammned if they are smug in the belief they could have taken care of those of yesterday!

Slavery in the territories? Yes, that was the issue that kinda brought things to a head, so to speak...as in the final fracture between the Lower South states (South Carolina thru Texas) and the rest of the Old Union. But keep in mind, it was not a moral question, but an economic one.

The blunt truth is that objection to slavery in the western territories stemmed from the fact they didn't want blacks there. (some northern states had outright bans on black residency)/ Slavery would really have not been a consideration (as mentioned before, slavery really wouldn't have been profitable from about far west Texas on. The climate and rainfall amounts just wouldn't have worked for it). So, in a sense...a large one...while the winner history attempts to gloss over it as "objection to the spread of slavery"? What it really was was objection to the presence of blacks in the said territories.

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America”

Thanks, TexasReb. It's easy to be respectful and civil with people who are respectful and civil themseslves, so thanks for doing so throughout this thread. As I've said before on this forum, living in the South has changed my attitude some on this issue. I still very strongly disagree with the Confederate cause, but I stopped judging present day southerners on it. At first I was appalled at all the confederate monuments in town squares across North Carolina. Now, I'm sure there are plenty who are racist,but that wasn't everyone I met down there. Some--well, most--saw it as a way of paying homage to their ancestors--which I understand.

And while I really can't stand the leaders of the Confederacy, I can't exactly judge the soldiers themselves. They all fought for different reasons, though I do believe that many of them were poor boys fighting a rich man's battle. In that way I feel kind of sad for the ones who died.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic, but in short thanks for responding to my question. I got a good perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2012, 01:40 PM
Status: "Working some, taking off some" (set 14 days ago)
 
9,800 posts, read 10,951,932 times
Reputation: 4993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
Washington fought for the US, Lee fought against the US. One is the founding father, the other a traitor.
Did you know that George Washington is the central figure on the Seal of the Confederate States of America?

Those of your ilk are so abbreviated in your thinking and desperation to try and prove a difference that doesn't exist to the point it borders on pathetic. See post #349.

George Washington did not fight for the U.S. as we know it today. He offered his services to British Colonies in rebellion against the lawful government of England.

The fallacy of your argument is that you are arguing from result. As said in the above mentioned post, if Washington and the others had been defeated? Then history books (written from the British point of view) would have recorded them about the same way the yankee history of today falsely portrays the motivations of the South. That is, to back up their own version of it all.

Actually, even by your own "logic", the Southern states (operative term here!) had more justificiation to declare their independence than did the 13 British colonies.

To wit? The colonies were just that and never considered anything other than belonging to the British empire.

On the other hand? The states of the South (and North, far as that goes), were recognized as soveriegn STATES, independently by the Treaty of Paris. Read again: The said (surrender)agreement did NOT recognize them as a collective nation as in "United States." Rather, as 13 individual states...with all the powers implied by the term. The said states later banded together in a (con)federation of their own...not out of love for one another, but a pragmatic recognition that, alone, none were strong enough to compete -- militarily or economically -- with the "states" of Europe. In fact, in the early writings the term used on foriegn policy statements of the new Republic was "THESE united states", not "The United States."

The whole principle of this new country was founded upon that government derives its powers from the consent of the governered. For many reasons, the Southern states withdrew their consent to be governed by one dominated by the interests of a section with very different outlooks and ideas of their own. Thus, they sought peaceful withdrawl and formed another nation. In doing so, they had no desire to rebell against the ideals of the DOI or original Constitution....but only to sever connections with northern states (who kept the name "United States" only by default).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2012, 01:43 PM
 
6,225 posts, read 5,394,708 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
The south has many accomplishments it should take pride in, and some should be nationally recognized. The Civil War is not one of them, and the north should not celebrate it's victory any more than the south should celebrate it's defeat. This ancient wound needs to be healed, not cherished.
This is a great post. But does anyone think the wound will ever be healed? Of course its impact will always be there, but I'm always astounded that these Confederate threads go on and on (40 pages on this one now) You'd think that after 150 years, we wouldn't still be debating it so fiercely, that the passion would have cooled. But even today we have southerners who call Lincoln a tyrant and northerners who say the South committed treason. Fascinating if you just step back and ponder it. I Wonder what Lincoln, Davis and that whole generation of soldiers, generals and politicians would think if they saw this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top