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.
Agreed. Aside from the many other factors involved, the fact the idea of the 'common good' embraced by antebellum society meant doing what benefitted a small percentage of the people was problematic. This distortion of the concept (common good) delayed or retarded the need for public institutions such as public schools, libraries & the like.
Indeed, alot of things in the education system were delayed. Aside from Virginia, most of the South didn't have any good universities. New Hampshire got a college before Georgia or Mississippi did. The South had a lesser population than the North, but more adults(in raw numbers) were illiterate in the South than in the North. Schools were few, and southerners tended to have less education.
And then resources. Birmingham could have been a giant steel producing region much earlier than it did. Iron, coal, and limestone were all in short distance. And when I say in short distance, I mean within 10 miles of each other. The Birmingham area didn't get any steel out until long after Pittsburgh did, in the 1880s. Industry was disdained by the southern aristocracy.
The South functioned similar to a banana republic. Economy centered around a plantation economy, specializing in one crop or two. In the South's case, it was cotton and sugar cane.
Indeed, alot of things in the education system were delayed. Aside from Virginia, most of the South didn't have any good universities. New Hampshire got a college before Georgia or Mississippi did. The South had a lesser population than the North, but more adults(in raw numbers) were illiterate in the South than in the North. Schools were few, and southerners tended to have less education.
And then resources. Birmingham could have been a giant steel producing region much earlier than it did. Iron, coal, and limestone were all in short distance. And when I say in short distance, I mean within 10 miles of each other. The Birmingham area didn't get any steel out until long after Pittsburgh did, in the 1880s. Industry was disdained by the southern aristocracy.
The South functioned similar to a banana republic. Economy centered around a plantation economy, specializing in one crop or two. In the South's case, it was cotton and sugar cane.
Yup. (Didn't know about some of the interrelated factors.)
I know this is probably mixing metaphors but the Confederacy 'put all their eggs in one basket' by banking on enslavement & that lame 'Colton is king' delusion:
Quote:
Cotton's central place in the national economy and its international importance led Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina to make a famous boast in 1858:
Quote:
Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us, we could bring the whole world to our feet... What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years?... England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her save the South. No, you dare not to make war on cotton. No power on the earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king.[3]
Confederate leaders made little effort to ascertain the views of European industrialists or diplomats until the Confederacy sent diplomats James Mason and John Slidell in November 1861. That led to a diplomatic blowup in the Trent Affair.[4]
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings
Ah, the favorite "black Confederates". It's like the fake news of the past. It's obvious you were not familiar with the Fugitive Slave Act, or the Confederate's Constitution.
Otherwise you would understand that if the Confederacy successfully seceded, those black soldiers would go right back to their plantations. There was no earning of freedom in the Confederacy. Blacks had no rights, period. So even if a slave master decided free a slave, any white person could kidnap and put them right back to work. There were no trials, no equal rights under the law.
So do you want to discuss this further? Or are you going drop and run?
Sell it to the black confederate soldiers ancestors. I'm not the one that needs to be convinced, they are.
I doubt very much that the only reason a statue of Lee or some other confederate generals were erected as a "FU" to the Government. 360,000 union soldiers had just been killed by the confederates. That's an enormous number of Fathers,brothers,sons,uncles, cousin's........etc. If those people were tolerant of the statues being erected who are we to protest to the point they will be taken down? Lee for instance was respected by many of his adversaries. Lee himself stated he was fighting for his home state. We can manufacture all these present day feelings but where does the "adjustment" of history end?
One hundred years from now are we going to dismantle the "wall" in DC because some future generation feels it was an unjust war??
I think this is a good point. I'm not a southerner nor a descendent of confederates, but I am an American who has some knowledge of and respect for American history. These monuments to me are tributes to the men who fought and died - fathers, sons, brothers. Their people who survived wanted to honor them. That should be good enough to let them stand.
And I guarantee you the average soldier in the north didn't have in his mind that he was fighting primarily against slavery. That was a very macro level thing.
There's honor in the destruction of historical artifacts? We're not so different from others after all ...
Re: bold: this is a faulty or flawed premise at best, & disingenuous at worst. There is no documentary or reality-based evidence regarding an intention to 'destroy historical artifacts'. Moving them from public places to museums actually evidences the intention to carefully preserve & protect historic artifacts. Moving them to graveyards is not dishonorable or disrespectful either, after all, isn't that what the original idea was supposed to be? To honor & respect those who lost lives?
The original idea was not to distort the historical record by littering public American spaces with 'Lost Cause' ideological artifacts.
Re: underlined: uncertain what is meant here? Our lives are our own, we are free to evidence 'sameness' or 'differentness' as each one of us sees fit. Loyalty or love, is not as 'valuable' if coerced, if given freely & mindfully, these are the most valuable gifts one can give.
'Loyalty to, & love for, our ancestors, doesn't have to include loyalty to, or love for, their mistakes.'
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 05-18-2017 at 05:28 AM..
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Re: bold: this is a faulty or flawed premise at best, & disingenuous at worst. There is no documentary or reality-based evidence regarding an intention to 'destroy historical artifacts'. Moving them from public places to museums actually evidences the intention to carefully preserve & protect historic artifacts. Moving them to graveyards is not dishonorable or disrespectful either, after all, isn't that what the original idea was supposed to be? To honor & respect those who lost lives?
The original idea was not to distort the historical record by littering public American spaces with 'Lost Cause' ideological artifacts.
Re: underlined: uncertain what is meant here? Our lives are our own, we are free to evidence 'sameness' or 'differentness' as each one of us sees fit. Loyalty or love, is not as 'valuable' if coerced, if given freely & mindfully, these are the most valuable gifts one can give.
'Loyalty to, & love for, our ancestors, doesn't have to include loyalty to, or love for, their mistakes.'
The first part, I'll give you that, (yet there is still an obvious) but the last part ... There are cards, letters and diaries written by the men both black and white from the civil war era, that tell the story beyond (the most common narrative) history books. Their family members; those with that information have found a platform for their voice on the web. Find them, talk to them and tell them, they made a mistake. Tell them (those that have received compensation for their service in the war) they should give their check back, because they made a mistake in serving, for a 'lost cause'.
For the Love of God, I'm not in this. I do not have a dog in this fight, but they do ... all I'm doing is informing that they exist and the common narrative may be (is) a lie, that has been kept alive for centuries. When I read the Confederate States documents, I could see and understand who was being railroaded and why. When I first began I thought, omg, they're right, then as I continued, then I understood ... there is nothing any one can say or do, that will change my mind, any more than any one can change yours.
Good day ...
btw: right and wrong does not change, only the outcome may differ in opinion.
Largely forgotten, though, is that Beauregard also was an early proponent of equal rights in Louisiana, serving as the outspoken leader of the short-lived and ultimately failed unification movement.
The movement was a coalition made up of prominent white and black New Orleanians that called for integrated schools, public places and transportation and voting rights for black men, two years before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 and nearly a century before the enactment of major civil rights legislation in the 20th century. Beauregard was the group's chairman.
"I am persuaded that the natural relation between the white and colored people is that of friendship," Beauregard said in an address published in July 1873 in papers including The New Orleans Republican and The Daily Picayune. "I am persuaded that their interests are identical; that their destinies in this state, where the two races are equally divided, are linked together; and that there is no prosperity for Louisiana which must not be the result of their cooperation.
"I am equally convinced that the evils anticipated by some men from the practical enforcement of equal rights are mostly imaginary, and that the relation of the races in the exercise of these rights will speedily adjust themselves to the satisfaction of all."
...
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.
