Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,115,388 times
Reputation: 21239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strelnikov View Post
After talking to some of the aforementioned Neo's, I get the feeling that their views have more to do with modern politics than history. Disenchanted or frustrated with the modern government and society, they seem to be using their carefully constructed image of the Confederacy as some sort of rebellious proxy.
Yours was a thoughtful post. I've also had some experiences with Civil War reenactors, and while not all were alike, I did meet several who behaved as you have described and advanced views which suggested that their participation was not merely recreating the past, but also advertising an existing mentality.

In the late '90's I was invited to do a presentation at a Civil War weekend seminar in South San Francisco. On my day, in the morning there was the major presentation in the hotel's convention room, followed by a lunch, and then the gathering broke up for smaller presentations in the afternoon, the guests selecting which ones to attend. That was me...one of the small presentation lectures.

At the lunch, I notcied that there were numerous people there in Civil War uniforms and after inquiring, learned that they were members of a South Bay reenactor group. Among them were two women in their '30's all decked out in full Scarlett O' Hara rig with immense skirts and bonnets. I also noticed that the pair of Bells were drinking pretty hard, and were already getting loud and a bit obnoxious.

When it came time for my show, I was pleased that around 40 folks had shown up. About five minutes after I began, the door banged open and in strolled the Scarletts, babbling away with a thousand apologies for being late and doing this sickeningly coquettish pouting act.

I don't know what I might have done to the History Gods to displease them so much, but their retribution was severe. The Scarlets found some seats in the back and instantly began to chatter away to one another at concert pitch. I had to stop and ask them to please be quiet...which triggered another coquette fest of "Oh you just have to forgive sweet little old us we do go on sometimes and a gal has to speak her mind and...blah blah."

I began again, got a few more minutes into it and they went right back to their high volume chit chat. Another request for their cooperation..another orgy of coquette apologies.

When they did it again a few minutes later, I finally had to ask them to leave, telling them that it was obvious that they had no interest in the lecture and that they could conduct a private conversation in the lobby without disturbing anyone.

Well.....Huff Puff...Indignant..Oh dare you..they were just two little ol southern gals having a little fun and didn't I like fun and how rude and where was I brought up to speak to ladies that way and my mama would be ashamed..etc etc.."

This caused some of those attending the presentation to take my side and tell the women that they were being jerks...which made them ever more defiant and they stopped to argue with several people as they made a slow and dramatic show of taking their leave, dripping with contempt all the way...and just before the first one reached the door, she suddenly got sick and treated us all to a technicolor yawn all over the carpet.

By the time custodians could be located to come clean up, half of my presentation time was gone, and when we were ready to resume, I had lost about 15 audience members. Trying to jam my entire presentation into half the time, I was terrible...I would have walked out on me.

I've never seen the Scarletts since, but if I ever do, I hope it is when I am in my car and they pedestrians crossing in front of me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Santa FE NM
3,490 posts, read 6,509,504 times
Reputation: 3813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strelnikov View Post
I am a Southerner and have quite a few ancestors who fought ( and some died) for the Confederacy.
As am I, and as do I, though not for the reasons many may expect. Though it should be obvious by now, I still think it needs to be said that not everyone who willingly fought for the Confederacy did so to protect slavery. Heck, a large number of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, and most of them couldn't spell "slavery". (For that matter, neither could a large portion of the Union troops.)

Many of my own ancestors, although they fought on the Confederate side, did not do so to protect & defend slavery or the Confederate States of America. They were, however, strongly AGAINST the Union: a government that, approximately 30 years earlier, took their homelands away and moved large numbers of them along what later became known as The Trail of Tears.

How's THAT for motivation? ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend.")

-- Nighteyes (Choctaw)

Last edited by Nighteyes; 10-11-2011 at 06:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,378 posts, read 5,008,559 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
As am I, and as do I, though not for the reasons many may expect. Though it should be obvious by now, I still think it needs to be said that not everyone who willingly fought for the Confederacy did so to protect slavery. Heck, a large number of the Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, and most of them couldn't spell "slavery". (For that matter, neither could a large portion of the Union troops.)

Many of my own ancestors, although they fought on the Confederate side, did not do so to protect & defend slavery or the Confederate States of America. They were, however, strongly AGAINST the Union: a government that, approximately 30 years earlier, took their homelands away and moved large numbers of them along what later became known as The Trail of Tears.

How's THAT for motivation? ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend.")

-- Nighteyes (Choctaw)
I agree, it is the same thing which drove the Cherokee (excluding the Ross faction that left after Pea Ridge, and in turn put Watie in charge) into the Confederacy. I'm aware of the Cherokee leadership at the time, but almost none of the Choctaw. Who were the movers and shakers of the Choctaw in the Indian Nations in that time? I only know that the tribe officially sided with the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Santa FE NM
3,490 posts, read 6,509,504 times
Reputation: 3813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
I'm aware of the Cherokee leadership at the time, but almost none of the Choctaw. Who were the movers and shakers of the Choctaw in the Indian Nations in that time? I only know that the tribe officially sided with the south.
'Tis a topic for another thread and time, my friend. Too, and just like their White counterparts, the Choctaw (and the Cherokee, and the Creek, and...) did not universally side with the South. This ignited what amounted to another Civil War in the Nations, complete with strong public dissension/disagreements, and bloody internal raids/battles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,378 posts, read 5,008,559 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
'Tis a topic for another thread and time, my friend. Too, and just like their White counterparts, the Choctaw (and the Cherokee, and the Creek, and...) did not universally side with the South. This ignited what amounted to another Civil War in the Nations, complete with strong public dissension/disagreements, and bloody internal raids/battles.
While I know the sentiments were not universal for either party, the (the Cherokee at least) officially joined the CSA, causing dissention and conflict in itself. But I have interest in the Choctaw and Chickasaw roles as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,457,035 times
Reputation: 10165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strelnikov View Post
I agree. Most people do prefer "sound bites". The only Neo-Confederates I have any experience with are Neo-Confederate Civil War Reenactors, and while they are a definite minority within that hobby, they are a stridently vocal one. What I find ironic is that they are a group of people who love to tout their superior historical knowledge and dedication to "educating the public"; and who continually howl about "northern propaganda". Ironically, much of what they disseminate is little more than propaganda itself.
I find their simplistic image of all Southrons boldly standing shoulder-to-shoulder in stalwart defiance of the infernal Blue-coated foe to be much less interesting than the reality. At least in North Carolina, there were widely varying levels of commitment to the Confederate cause, ranging from dedicated to decidedly lukewarm. Opposition to the Confederacy ranged from actively subversive to passive, i.e. avoiding conscription, hiding supplies, harboring deserters, etc. Loyalty was a fluid thing, particularly as the war progressed. There were many complex dynamics, including family, local community, and economics. I suspect that many people just wanted to be left alone by both sides.
I am a Southerner and have quite a few ancestors who fought ( and some died) for the Confederacy. While I am intensely interested in their service, I feel no need to justify their actions or to revise history. They were who they were, not what I want them to have been. After talking to some of the aforementioned Neo's, I get the feeling that their views have more to do with modern politics than history. Disenchanted or frustrated with the modern government and society, they seem to be using their carefully constructed image of the Confederacy as some sort of rebellious proxy.
Indeed a thoughtful post, and I'll go so far as to say is the opinion of a large number of educated Southerners. When it comes to the Confederacy, the South, or any related issues, most Southerners are almost two different personalities. One is what comes out when the person perceives that his or her heritage, culture, accent, sports, food or other cherished aspects of life are being dismissed, mocked or insulted. The other is the version one meets when the individual feels like there is no need to defend those things from discourtesy and scorn. That side of many Southerners is quite candid about many issues related to matters Dixie, including flaws, errors and a tendency toward self-delusion.

I can actually empathize quite a bit, because the South is quite diverse in every way one could imagine, and no one likes being lumped together as though one has no personal or regional identity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 06:45 AM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,987,536 times
Reputation: 1379
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition".
-The Cornerstone Speech, delivered March 21, 1861 by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens
Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to know why the South seceded, all you have to do is look to what Southerners in power -- the ones who effected secession -- said.

Further information is available by googling the orders of secession of the Southern states. They each go on at great length about how the issue of slavery was the raison d'etre for the Confederacy.

How very inconvenient for historical revisionists!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,660,890 times
Reputation: 5661
No doubt that slavery was the reason for Southern succession and War.. but not for the North. The North's reasoning for War was to preserve the Union, PERIOD! Lincoln even said that if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do it. Still, Lincoln was an Abolutionist and when he saw his chance he took it with the Emancipation Proclimation.

He was killing two birds with one stone, Perserving the Union which he held as his highest duty and freeing the slaves was a moral imperative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Southeast Arizona
3,378 posts, read 5,008,559 times
Reputation: 2463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition".
-The Cornerstone Speech, delivered March 21, 1861 by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens
Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to know why the South seceded, all you have to do is look to what Southerners in power -- the ones who effected secession -- said.

Further information is available by googling the orders of secession of the Southern states. They each go on at great length about how the issue of slavery was the raison d'etre for the Confederacy.

How very inconvenient for historical revisionists!
While I wouldn't argue that slavery wasn't a cause (it was), there was ALOT more to the Cornerstone Speech than you show, and Stephens talks about more than slavery in it.

The Cornerstone Speech

Cornerstone Speech

It should also be noted that Stephens didn't practice the speech or anything, it was scribed, Stephens said it at the spur of the moment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Santa FE NM
3,490 posts, read 6,509,504 times
Reputation: 3813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert kid View Post
While I wouldn't argue that slavery wasn't a cause (it was), there was ALOT more to the Cornerstone Speech than you show, and Stephens talks about more than slavery in it.
I agree; Stephens talked about a LOT more than slavery in this speech. Arbitrarily citing Stephens' quotes [or anyone's, for that matter] out of context doesn't begin to capture the essence of what was actually said.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top