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.
Well, you call it whatever you like. Firing on Fort Sumpter and making war on the United States of America constitutes treason to me. And sadly, those in the South are still proud of it, and continue to wave their little rebel flags as though they represented something honorable.
Do you even have the slightest inkling on why the South fired on Sumter and the pain and difficulty that went into the decision to do so? I'm wagering you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
And yes, the South is more racist than the north. Hell, they institutionalized their racism for a hundred + years after the Civil War with their Jim Crow laws. It took federal troops to get black students into Southern universities in the 1960's (note, that's nineteen-sixties, not eighteen-sixties). The University of Mississippi got their first black football player in 1972!
Well, considering that we are discussing racial feelings in 1860 and 1861, the 1960s and 1970s are a bit irrelevent to the point that was being made... No doubt the South had an EXTREMELY difficult time adjusting to slave labor becoming "equal" citizens.
The thing that makes this discussion rediculously difficult is that you speak of it with the mind of a 21st century northerner. Said it before and I'll say it forever. You simply CANNOT apply the morality of today to occurences in the 1860s and try to draw the conclusion that the South was simply "evil" and leave it at that. It's extremely ignorant to do so.
Beyond that, I'd put a northern racist up against a southern one ANY day these days.... Another past point that I'll bring up again; In the South, when you see someone flying a Confederate Flag it can mean a few different things depending on the person. When you see a Confederate Flag flying in the North, it only means ONE thing.....
Perhaps that's why northerners don't think it CAN mean anything else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
So if you want to call it 'The War of Northern Aggression', be my guest.
My only point was that re-naming the war based on your own perspective serves only to antagonize. I think the topic can get heated enough with out adding unnecessary fuel to the fire. Again, I fear, my point there was lost on you.
It seems that the previous post touched on one of the most difficult challenges of writing and understanding history: How to interpret history in a way that makes sense without doing it so by contemporary standards.
I greatly admire writers who can do this successfully. They are so well versed in their craft that they can spin a captivating story around a given situation. You actually feel that you are right there.
Another observation: If Abe Lincoln was to return to the earth today, I bet he would not understand anything that would be said to him. Not only has the language changed but the whole frame of reference.
Do you even have the slightest inkling on why the South fired on Sumter and the pain and difficulty that went into the decision to do so? I'm wagering you don't.
[/b]
Oh, I'm sure it was extremely difficult. Treason is a big step, and I'm sure there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Not enough to prevent them from committing treason, of course. Way too many visions of slavery dancing in their dumb heads to ever make them think twice.
Well, considering that we are discussing racial feelings in 1860 and 1861, the 1960s and 1970s are a bit irrelevent to the point that was being made... No doubt the South had an EXTREMELY difficult time adjusting to slave labor becoming "equal" citizens.
Gee - do ya think? I feel so sorry for those poor southerners and the 'difficult time' they experienced in adjusting to the new reality. Not nearly as difficult a time as the blacks they were continuing to subjugate and humiliate, of course.
The thing that makes this discussion rediculously difficult is that you speak of it with the mind of a 21st century northerner. Said it before and I'll say it forever. You simply CANNOT apply the morality of today to occurences in the 1860s and try to draw the conclusion that the South was simply "evil" and leave it at that. It's extremely ignorant to do so.
There's nothing particularly difficult about this at all. This just in - slavery was evil. Jim Crow was evil. Lynching was evil. Has the South yet come to that realization, or are they all still living in the fantasy world of 'Gone With the Wind'? Judging by your comments - and your name - I'd guess they are.
Beyond that, I'd put a northern racist up against a southern one ANY day these days.... Another past point that I'll bring up again; In the South, when you see someone flying a Confederate Flag it can mean a few different things depending on the person. When you see a Confederate Flag flying in the North, it only means ONE thing.....
Perhaps that's why northerners don't think it CAN mean anything else?
Of course for every Confederate Flag you see flying in the North, you see a thousand in the South. Hell, you people (and I'm assuming you're a southerner) wave it at football games like it's some badge of honor. It isn't. It's shameful.
My only point was that re-naming the war based on your own perspective serves only to antagonize. I think the topic can get heated enough with out adding unnecessary fuel to the fire. Again, I fear, my point there was lost on you.
Your point was lost on me. You are attempting to justify the civil war, and by extension, slavery. You are dismissing your appalling history of Jim Crow with a shrug of the shoulders and an explanation of 'well, it was so hard for us'. It's a point I will never accept.
Your point was lost on me. You are attempting to justify the civil war, and by extension, slavery. You are dismissing your appalling history of Jim Crow with a shrug of the shoulders and an explanation of 'well, it was so hard for us'. It's a point I will never accept.
Yup, just as I suspected.
The ole, "Everything I know about the Civil War I learned in a northern High School classroom." ...
Do the world a favor and don't speak on topics you are not versed on. There are points to be made from your perspective, but it's clear you've made ZERO effort to really look into this subject at all and simply operate from the attitude of "North good. South bad"...
If you aren't going to bother educating yourself I can't see any purpose in discussing this further with you.
Just for you information, I actually have a BA degree with a minor in history. Of course, it's from a Northern College, not from one of your fine institutions like Jeff Davis U. or The Beford Forest Institute.
I even lived in the south for a thankfully short period of time in the early 70's.
But I can see why you are unwilling to discuss your shameful history. I couldn't defend making war on the United States of America for the purpose of keeping slavery active either. Nor would I be able to defend my 110 + years of oppression and subjugation of black people through a combination of laws and terror.
Keep reading those revisionist history websites, and don't, under any circumstances, read any actual history books not fully approved by the Daughters of the Confederacy.
Rhett -- H.L. Mencken used a standard reply to people who disagreed with him. "You may be right," his letters said. He felt that he did not want to argue with his inferiors.
That was H.L.
Exactly! This revisionist history is something dreamed up by unreconstructed rebels to try and obscure the fact that they made war on the United States of America, and for the worst reason imaginable- the right to own other human beings. As you said, you only have to read the Secession Declarations enacted by the state legislatures to understand what the war was about.
You read some of these Rebel Websites and you'll come away convinced that the South really opposed slavery and it was those nasty Yankees that forced them into it. These people live in their own little dream world and nothing anybody can say will convince them otherwise. A lot of them are now in secessionist movements throughout the country.
Just like you cant convince a black man that black Africans were sold into slavery by other black Africans. So yes, people do create their own version of history.
Well, you call it whatever you like. Firing on Fort Sumpter and making war on the United States of America constitutes treason to me. And sadly, those in the South are still proud of it, and continue to wave their little rebel flags as though they represented something honorable.
And yes, the South is more racist than the north. Hell, they institutionalized their racism for a hundred + years after the Civil War with their Jim Crow laws. It took federal troops to get black students into Southern universities in the 1960's (note, that's nineteen-sixties, not eighteen-sixties). The University of Mississippi got their first black football player in 1972!
So if you want to call it 'The War of Northern Aggression', be my guest.
My problem with most of your posts is you make it seem that IN THIS DAY AND AGE only Whitey is racist. Sorry. Racism is a 2 way street. Always has been and always will be.
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.
An observation
