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.
You haven't presented any history that wasn't taught in middle school. You started a thread because you're tired of hearing that blacks were the only people that were affected by slavery, although I didn't see anyone say that except you. What is there to refute? What is there to present a fact or opinion about? Anybody with a ounce of common sense knows that other people were affected by slavery....so I'm still waiting for the history lesson.
So tell me about this "common sense." Tell me how quickly the government came to assist the rapacity practiced upon these geographic areas? Or was the government busy building emcampments to dominate over its recently acquired territory?
We all know the Civil War was much to do about money. Yet the resources were maintained by wealthy persons--both north and south. What exactly was done to assist these geographic areas? Are these areas still requiring of reparations?
So tell me about this "common sense." Tell me how quickly the government came to assist the rapacity practiced upon these geographic areas? Or was the government busy building emcampments to dominate over its recently acquired territory?
We all know the Civil War was much to do about money. Yet the resources were maintained by wealthy persons--both north and south. What exactly was done to assist these geographic areas? Are these areas still requiring of reparations?
You tell me. You're the one giving the history lesson. Provide some unknown facts. It seems to be that your foundation here is that black people were not the only people that suffered from the affects of slavery. I don't think anyone has contested that statement. Most people know that.
So from the information (or lack of information) in your OP I'm guessing that your real topic here is :Black people need to stop complaining about how much slavery affected them because they weren't the only ones who were affected.
Then you went on to say "Just like to add that I don't recall those living in Appalachia every complaining in large scale about the attrocities they experienced." So are you implying that some other group of people complained in large scales about the attrocities they expereinced?
You stated your position (which I didn't disagree with) you listed your sources to back you up (which I am still not disagreeing with) but what lesson have you taught? Maybe I'm not understanding because I'm not racist...maybe it's only racists who thought that blacks were the only people affected by slavery.
Its the far left I've heard it from, and very few others.
It reminds me of the far right folks doing the same thing calling any questioning of GWB as "Unpatriotic". Oh wait, that was ALMOST THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Very few are calling the questioning of President Obama as racist, I've seen it a couple of times, and not many more.
All kinds of liberals have called me racist because I refused to vote or Obama. His race, or lack of it, had nothing to do with my refusal to vote for him. I saw through him and his long before the election and decided I didn't want the kind of fighting we have if he got in with a heavily leaning Congress. I still don't want that.
I have been called a racist because I am also called a "birther" because I want to see a copy of his birth certificate. I want to see what name and citizenship he entered Occidental College under. I want to see some of his written papers in both Columbia and Harvard. I want to know what country's passport he traveled to Pakistan with since the US wasn't allowing its people to go there that year.
If wanting all those things is racist then I am certainly a racist, and have been called just that time after time.
After reading this whole thread in one huge piece I have some things that may or may not be germane to the topid, but will put them down to see how people feel.
The Civil War was fought, largely, by the common men of both sections. In the Union men could buy their way out of the draft with $300 and very few common types had the money to do that.
The more common men of the Confederacy were willing to take part in the war, I think, because all of them considered themselves to be superior to the blacks. They were fighting to keep slavery going although most of them didn't really profit from slavery. The part of that that has always bothered me is that they were willing to give life and limb (and in that war limb usually meant limbs) just to keep the black people enslaved. I would discuss with anyone who doesn't accept that.
I see the people of the Appalachians as a long line of people who largely descended from white people who had been indentured servants, most of whom weren't well educated. Those who managed any education got out of that region so as not to have to live as they still do.
Someone here mentioned Sherman's long wade throught Georgia. Many people consider his pillaging and burning methods to have been inhuman and even racial when those mountain people were pushed around. Only fools can't see that he had no other choice than that scorched earth policy to make sure that no following army managed to get behind him. His troops had to eat, hence the pillaging and they didn't want to have to be surrounded by an army that could replenish its supplies from the countryside. Sherman said "War is Hell" and set out to prove it with the victory he earned.
Now Grant was for what Sherman did because it allowed them to force Lee to surrender or lose his whole army which would have happened and Lee knew that so he stopped what would have been a hopeless slaughter.
I think that most of the young, common men of both sides were fighting for a reason and the reason of the Rebels was one of the kind that makes them fight better. They didn't want their way of life torn away from them. Most of those in the Union were trying to do what Lincoln wanted, and until the "victory" at Antietam he had to shy away from doing anything about the slaves. I think that Lincoln said he wanted to keep the nation from splitting and he meant that. Yes, he eventually brought slavery into the thing but not until it appeared the Union might win and that took till Lee went too far in trying to win at Gettysburg.
OP, I must ask if the Appalachian people were really treated a lot different at that time than they have been since that time. I realize all the things you say happened but it has never been a lot different for them before or after the Civil War.
Thanks for some insight on the topic. Sherman's March...we can discuss this at length... can we get some more facts out first? All comments on the topic are appreciated.
Here's some more common sense, the type not taught in middle school.
A Native America urged that the gateway to the mountains be closed, he even petitioned the Confederate President. Ultimately this Native American pulled together a band of Native Americans and mountain folk to defend the mountain passes. Shortly thereafter the conflageration of mountain folk and Native Americans was dispatched to defend other territory. It wasn't long thereafter that the attacks on specific geographic areas and the raping of the mountain people began.
Since there are quite a few here in this thread that profess that no lesson is being taught, they speak of knowing all, then please do reference the above event and tell me the name of the Native American and which side was represented (Union or Confederate.) Or would you just as soon dismiss this post as fiction?? Hmmm, fact or fiction??
Could it be that the Union was racist? That the war itself was little more than an economic battle? No, you say....hmmm? Then explain why most of the wealth from the war went North. Yet little went to repair the damage done to those peaceful citizens who lived in the mountains. (I believe someone else added to the thread indicating the mountain folk were comprised largely of indentured servants from Europe. So, after paying for their indenture the government, more aptly the Union, took it away from them.)
Lincoln plagerized a New Jersey citizen when he proposed sending the slaves back to Africa. Of course he also proposed buying them back....gee whiz, so on the one hand they are humans but on the other they could be bought by the government to be freed? Lincoln the first in a long line of political flipper-floppers.
Although neither of Lincoln's two proposals, as stated above, never happened I'm sure there are plenty of mountain folk who agreed and paid a price well beyond what money could compensate.
You tell me. You're the one giving the history lesson. Provide some unknown facts. It seems to be that your foundation here is that black people were not the only people that suffered from the affects of slavery. I don't think anyone has contested that statement. Most people know that.
So from the information (or lack of information) in your OP I'm guessing that your real topic here is :Black people need to stop complaining about how much slavery affected them because they weren't the only ones who were affected.
Then you went on to say "Just like to add that I don't recall those living in Appalachia every complaining in large scale about the attrocities they experienced." So are you implying that some other group of people complained in large scales about the attrocities they expereinced?
You stated your position (which I didn't disagree with) you listed your sources to back you up (which I am still not disagreeing with) but what lesson have you taught? Maybe I'm not understanding because I'm not racist...maybe it's only racists who thought that blacks were the only people affected by slavery.
Discussion of such an inference is beyond the scope of this thread, can we keep to the topic.
Rather than bring tangental points, are you aware of mountain folks complaining in large scale about the butchery they experienced? I'm not aware of such.
Discussion of such an inference is beyond the scope of this thread, can we keep to the topic.
Rather than bring tangental points, are you aware of mountain folks complaining in large scale about the butchery they experienced? I'm not aware of such.
So when you make a comment during your history lesson it cannot be questioned or asked to be explained in further detail?
So when you make a comment during your history lesson it cannot be questioned or asked to be explained in further detail?
Now you know you were grinding more than a question or asking for clarification. Don't attempt to spin this one with the usual flipper-flopper stuff. Ah, on second thought, do whatever you want, if at a minimum if could be entertaining.
Why haven't you contributed to the thread in a substantial manner? I've seen you say over and over that you know all there is to know about this topic so maybe you can enlighten us, just a bit.
Last edited by checking out; 08-19-2009 at 07:19 AM..
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.
