# Southern Secession/Heritage



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Today, while teaching Reconstruction to my eighth graders, a student asked me about the legality of Southern secession. He said, "If its what the people of the South wanted, and they didn't show any aggression directly towards the North, weren't they within their rights to secede when Lincoln took office?"

Now my mind went two places:

1. You're right. The North basically engaged in an illegal, and immoral invasion of a sovereign nation precluded by an unconstitutional change of rule that would have crippled a region if it didn't bow to their whim. I compared it to an ex stalking you until you begrudgingly got back together.

2. Well, no. The people who were able to speak wanted separation, but there were millions of voices that were not allowed to be heard, and the United States had a moral obligation to try and regain this lost land, and give voices to those muted by slavery.

I asked the class (an honors group) to think about it and get back to me. Personally, I love the South. I love the "Rebel" heritage and am a staunch supporter of the right for Southern states to fly the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of that heritage. I also abhor racism, and feel it is mankinds biggest challenge morally. I understand how that symbol may offend some, particularly African Americans, and find myself not sure what to think.

I'd be very curious to hear what you guys think, particularly our esteemed Southern Gentlemen. 

Indulge me...thanks.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The issue isn't "was it legal?" or even "was it right?"-- the question is "whose business was it?"

What if the South had conquered the North, and (assume) later justified it because women and immigrants were disenfranchised there?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Or, I guess I could be more clear--plenty of people have written about the "white man's burden"-- the civil-war-as-liberating-the-slaves justification is the exact same thing.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

The Federal government has the authority to suppress insurrections. That covers a lot of turf.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You might want to have your students read the secession resolutions, particularly that of South Carolina. Contrary to what you will hear from many posters here, it is clear that the reason they tried to secede was to preserve the right to own human beings. If you think it's decent and humane to honor that, go right ahead.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm looking forward to Jack's impassioned defense of Cortes's conquest of Mexico. They didn't just own human beings--they ate them!


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

It's an interesting historical and Constitutional question. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was an inviolable compact- once you were in you couldn't get out, therefore secession was illegal. Southern states would argue that under the 10th Amendment (as well as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves) they had the power since it was never prohibited by the Constitution.

This is the academic part of the debate, the practical reality was that the US government had several forts in Southern states and once the south started shooting at those the rest of the debate doesn't matter so much.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Your student echoed these thoughts:

". . .a union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare of mankind. If the union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence, will draw my sword on none."

--- General Robert E. Lee, CSA

Racism and Southern Heritage are severable. Racism exists everywhere, in the North and around the world, as well as in the South. Southern Heritage exists only in the South! And the heritage of the South has many redeeming qualities from honor, to a sort of bushido, to manners, etc. Actually, the North is more racist and segregated than the South, in my experience, without a lot of the redeeming qualities. I suspect that the "background radiation" of racism was no higher in the South than anywhere else.

Robert E. Lee's family owned no slaves going into the Civil War, but U.S. Grant's family owned slaves until slavery was outlawed by the XIII Amendment was adopted after the Civil War.

Blacks fought for the Confederacy, as did the Cherokee Nation.

An interesting aside, the anti-slavery movement took hold in New England primarily because it was the most sea-faring part of the country. Its population had become more aware of the evils of slavery because of the fact that so many of its mariners and occasional female passengers (see"odalisque") had been captured and enslaved by the Barbary Pirates (Moslems) in the first decades of the United States' history.

And remember this quote from an Irish born Confederate general as you sort through the generally available information on the South:

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."

--- General Pat Cleburne, CSA


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You might want to have your students read the secession resolutions, particularly that of South Carolina. Contrary to what you will hear from many posters here, it is clear that the reason they tried to secede was to preserve the right to own human beings. If you think it's decent and humane to honor that, go right ahead.


This is where the debate gets muddy. Whether slavery was right (obviously it wasn't) and whether secession was legal are two separate issues. The North's attempt to ban slavery is the reason that the South wanted to secede. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was legal.

One thing to keep in mind, by 1819 the South had lost any possibility of having control in the House of Representatives. With the Compromise of 1850, they lost parity in the Senate- an arrangement that had kept the peace for 30 years. In 1860 a President was elected who did not receive a single electoral vote from a Southern state- and was in fact not on the ballot in most Southern states. The increasing alliance between Northern and Western states had rendered the South politically irrelevant. The system was fairly well stacked against them.

Also, fundamentally, revolution is the right of any people. When a government does not meet the needs of the people it is the right of the people to rebel, or to removed themselves from that government.

Any talk about Southern invasions of the North is simply foolish. As Jefferson Davis said in his inaugural address "All we ask is to be left alone."
There was never any serious intent to invade the North.

As I said before, all of this becomes academic once the South begins firing at Federal forts- that was an act of war and the North responded in kind.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> Any talk about Southern invasions of the North is simply foolish. As Jefferson Davis said in his inaugural address "All we ask is to be left alone."
> There was never any serious intent to invade the North.


Too bad. We could use some more Southern Trad up here.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The issue isn't "was it legal?" or even "was it right?"-- the question is "whose business was it?"
> 
> What if the South had conquered the North, and (assume) later justified it because women and immigrants were disenfranchised there?


This is an excellent motivational question that I could pose to them. Also the fact that Lee owned zero slaves and Grant owned many is thought provoking.

My goal as their teacher is not necessarily to teach them right and wrong, as I know that 99.9% of the time history is far to complicated for that, but to get them to think about all of the complexities, major and minor, that create a situation. By allowing their minds to wander, they can get a better idea of their morals, their ideals, and their beliefs; therefore making a better educated, more learned, and hopefully enlightened group of future citizens who will one day run our country.

Turkey, back to your point about women and immigrants, i know that the South did embrace Jews, Scotch Irish and many other immigrant groups (check out_ The Jewish Confederates _by a Charlestonian named Rosen) but were women given equal standing and equal voice in the days of the Confederacy?

Also an interesting aside from the aforementioned book:

In Charleston before the civil war, there were about 1000 Jews living there. Those 1000 Jews owned fewer African slaves than did the Free Blacks living in Charleston, who numbered around 250. I know thats a drop in the bucket as far as statistics and slaves go, but it was very eye opening and quite shocking to me when I first read that free Blacks owned slaves in the South.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> This is where the debate gets muddy. Whether slavery was right (obviously it wasn't) and whether secession was legal are two separate issues. The North's attempt to ban slavery is the reason that the South wanted to secede. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was legal.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind, by 1819 the South had lost any possibility of having control in the House of Representatives. With the Compromise of 1850, they lost parity in the Senate- an arrangement that had kept the peace for 30 years. In 1860 a President was elected who did not receive a single electoral vote from a Southern state- and was in fact not on the ballot in most Southern states. The increasing alliance between Northern and Western states had rendered the South politically irrelevant. The system was fairly well stacked against them.
> 
> ...


Slavery is obviously central to all of this. And just as obvious, was the moral standing it had...none.

Your points about the West and North uniting politically to make the south irrelevant also are intriguing. Thats the very reason the electoral college was set up, to prevent any one state or region (specifically the smaller ones) from feeling irrelevant.

Ironically enough, the elction in 1876 that ended Reconstruction, had a Democrat, Tilden, win the popular vote, while Hayes won the E.C. In a compromise, Hayes acquiesced to Democrats, ended Reconstruction, and allowed the South to fall into the hands of some very devious people making the lives of African Americans "worse than when they were slaves" until as late as the 1960's. The effects of Reconstructions premature ending, in my opinion, are still felt today in the South with what is basically a very "segregated" society. In places like Savannah, and Charleston (part of the South that I've visited, and have grown to love), there are still very distinctive WHITE areas and BLACK areas. While its not forced segregation, its certainly still segregated.

As far as Confederate troops firing upon Yankee forts, it was bound to happen, as the Yankees were seen as an occupying force.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

The argument of whether the Union was constitutionally or morally justified to prevent the South from secession is really far too complex for a message board forum, at least from my perspective. Way too much detail to write. It really wasn't just about slavery, although a lot of our history books will surmise that it was indeed. Make no mistake about it though, slavery is this country's greatest sin looking back and racism is one of our biggest problems going forward.

As for our southern heritage, well its the thing I love most about the south. As liberty ship just said, racism is as big of a problem, if not more of one, in northern states as it is in the south today. The difference is we have this great heritage to look back upon. Like it or not, that confederate flag means more then just slavery to many of us.

I would make a suggestion to any umm....yankees?....who want to make a pilgrimage to learn more about and experience southern culture. Head to Charleston for shopping, but go to Savannah for your southern education. No southern city feels as genuinely untouched by time as Savannah.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It's a novel, but one book your students might find enlightening is _The Known World_ by Edward P. Jones.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> As far as Confederate troops firing upon Yankee forts, it was bound to happen, as the Yankees were seen as an occupying force.


It did happen. But it didn't have to happen. Had cooler head prevailed, there might have been a possibility of a negotiated settlement.

As for segregation in the South, it was there in the North. I grew up in NJ, my father was born in the Italian section of Philadelphia. Now I live in SC and teach high school history. A few days ago one of my students was picked up by his grandfather, an older African American gentleman, who was wearing a Philadelphia Phillies hat. When I asked him about it, he told me he grew up in South Philly. I told him my dad did too. He asked me where, and I told him. His response was "Oh, that's water ice territory, we never went down there." (The reference here is to Italian Water Ice, for those who don't know). I told my dad the story and he l said that whenever they went to the movies, which was in the African American neighborhood, they ran the risk of getting beat up. Whenever black kids went into the Italian neighborhood, they ran the risk of getting beat up. That was in the 1930s and 1940s and there are still vestiges of it in modern Philadelphia.

It's easy to oversimplify these things, the North was not the progressive, egalitarian, color blind society that people want to think. The slogan of the Democratic Party in the Northern Congressional elections of 1862 was something like "The Union as it was, the Constitution as it is and the {N-word} in their place." They wanted to make clear their opposition to Emancipation. There were several regiments that refused to fight after the Emancipation Proclamation. There was significant racism on both sides, and while many opposed slavery, few whites, even among the Boston abolitionist crowd saw Blacks as equal.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

What a weird dialogue. Craziness I say. The same posters who are pro-southern are also against Obama. Hmmm what to think of that. Why do opinions of the Civil War correlate to political ideologies? Ick at Confederate flag. Who would want to remember that heritage? I guess Germans would want to have Nazi flags to remember that heritage. With that being said I will take my Hitler award now please thanks.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

OK, now that's settled.....predestination vs free will.....


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

SkySov said:


> What a weird dialogue. Craziness I say. The same posters who are pro-southern are also against Obama. Hmmm what to think of that. Why do opinions of the Civil War correlate to political ideologies? Ick at Confederate flag. Who would want to remember that heritage? I guess Germans would want to have Nazi flags to remember that heritage. With that being said I will take my Hitler award now please thanks.


I guess that's aimed at least partially at me. And I will say for the record that I am not pro-southern. I am very happy the war turned out the way it did. I am also an historian, and I realize that historical debates are more complicated than which team you cheer for. I understand the Southern point of view, just as I try to understand the point of view of the Visigoths against the Romans (Anyone care for that debate?) This is a debate I've heard several times. It is usually very simplistic. It goes something like this: Slavery was bad, so the North was right. It's not that simple. Slavery was surely an issue, but it has very strongly influenced the debate in a direction that is fundamentally wrong. Slavery and secession are two separate issues. New England threatened to secede in 1815 over the War of 1812. South Carolina threatened to Secede in the 1830s because the Tariff of 1828 made imported goods too expensive and helped to ruin the economy of the South.

As to why there is a correlation between people's political opinions and this issue, most people who favor a limited federal government believe that power should rest with the states on most issues. That's the way the Constitution was set up, and that's why the 10th Amendment was adopted. If the Federal government is not given a power, if the states are not denied a power, and if no personal liberties guaranteed by other parts of the Constitution are at stake, then powers are supposed to rest with the states. So that line of reasoning leads us back to the issue of state's rights and responsibilities.

Lastly, it has always been my experience that when people use Hitler as an example in any debate it's only because they have nothing useful to say.

Oh, and I vote for free will.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

rgrossicone said:


> In places like Savannah, and Charleston (part of the South that I've visited, and have grown to love), there are still very distinctive WHITE areas and BLACK areas. While its not forced segregation, its certainly still segregated.


Sociologist David R. Williams, Norman professor of public health and professor of African and African American studies, has examined racial discrimination and health in the United States and elsewhere, including South Africa, where in 1991, under apartheid, the "segregation index" was 90, meaning that 90 percent of blacks would have had to move to make the distribution even. "In the year 2000," says Williams, "in most of America's larger cities-New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee-the segregation index was over 80." Only slightly lower, that is, than under legally sanctioned apartheid.​


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

You can see this on a micro-level in high school cafeterias. Even in racially mixed schools. I taught in a school in NJ that was about 30% African American and white and black students rarely sat together at lunch time. It was very odd to me.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> I guess that's aimed at least partially at me. And I will say for the record that I am not pro-southern. I am very happy the war turned out the way it did. I am also an historian, and I realize that historical debates are more complicated than which team you cheer for. I understand the Southern point of view, just as I try to understand the point of view of the Visigoths against the Romans (Anyone care for that debate?) This is a debate I've heard several times. It is usually very simplistic. It goes something like this: Slavery was bad, so the North was right. It's not that simple. Slavery was surely an issue, but it has very strongly influenced the debate in a direction that is fundamentally wrong. Slavery and secession are two separate issues. New England threatened to secede in 1815 over the War of 1812. South Carolina threatened to Secede in the 1830s because the Tariff of 1828 made imported goods too expensive and helped to ruin the economy of the South.
> 
> As to why there is a correlation between people's political opinions and this issue, most people who favor a limited federal government believe that power should rest with the states on most issues. That's the way the Constitution was set up, and that's why the 10th Amendment was adopted. If the Federal government is not given a power, if the states are not denied a power, and if no personal liberties guaranteed by other parts of the Constitution are at stake, then powers are supposed to rest with the states. So that line of reasoning leads us back to the issue of state's rights and responsibilities.
> 
> ...


Yes yes we all know I'm stupid. My brain cells commit suicide. I can't comprehend the difference between the Nazi flag and the Confederate flag because they both symbolize evil to me.



rgrossicone said:


> I understand how that symbol may offend some, particularly African Americans, and find myself not sure what to think.


Sure, only blacks can be offended. Empathy must be a genetic trait. And knowing my parents it skips a generation.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> Sociologist David R. Williams, Norman professor of public health and professor of African and African American studies, has examined racial discrimination and health in the United States and elsewhere, including South Africa, where in 1991, under apartheid, the "segregation index" was 90, meaning that 90 percent of blacks would have had to move to make the distribution even.


Are you, by any chance, German by birth? Your prose reads that way.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

> The argument of whether the Union was constitutionally or morally justified to prevent the South from secession is really far too complex for a message board forum, at least from my perspective. Way too much detail to write. It really wasn't just about slavery, although a lot of our history books will surmise that it was indeed. Make no mistake about it though, slavery is this country's greatest sin looking back and racism is one of our biggest problems going forward.


You have me right up until that very last bit about racism being one of our biggest problems going forward. While racism undoubtably exists today, I don't think it is all that strong or powerful anymore, as partially evidence by people not being able to discuss secession from the union in an academic sense because slavery is so repugnant.



> You can see this on a micro-level in high school cafeterias. Even in racially mixed schools. I taught in a school in NJ that was about 30% African American and white and black students rarely sat together at lunch time. It was very odd to me.


Regarding this and neighborhoods, how much is actual discrimination based and how much of it is just human nature? Most men will have guy friends because they find they relate to them more in life experiences, interests, etc just as women will have female friends. The nerds hang out with the nerds. The russians and chinese move to their own neighborhoods. We find comfort being around people that we feel we can relate to, people who we feel like have experienced like the way we have. I'm not a sociologist so I can't cite the studies that I'm sure are out there but I think sometimes we assume something is more sinister than it really is. I think many of us have an unrealistic expectation of how people need to show "diversity."

It also ignores the economic factors and a child's natural tendency to be influenced by their parents income and lifestyle. Moving out the largely black areas of a big city means that a kid is probably going to have to lead a more successful life than their parents and have more income to move into a different neighborhood. Statistically that is unlikely and I don't think its racism at work, we see the same thing in other demographics.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

You may want to just mutter something about the arch of American expansion. 

The United States could not continue pushing the Indians west, and then moving west to take that land and fight Indian Wars, while the South broke away. 

Right from the start, with the Whisky Rebellion, the government in Washington was ready to raise a military and shoot citizens who got uppity. 

In the Nullification Crisis, Southern planters argued that protectionist tariffs, which encouraged/protected Northern industry, made the price of manufactured goods more expensive in the South. South Carolina in particular used this as an opportunity to nullify federal law. Andrew Jackson threatened to personally hang anyone in South Carolina who wanted to get silly and spill blood over this. 

You may want to add that on several occasions, Connecticut/New England bandied about the idea of sucession. As early as 1804, Connecituct Yankees thought about seperating from the rest of the country. Look up the Hartford Convention, where it was argued that the rest of the country should fight England in the War of 1812, and Connecticut and Mass. should seceed. 

Seccession was a popular topic until people started shooting and everyone realized that the federal government would do what it wanted, and later make the Constitution fit it. Same as they do in any time of crisis.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Pentheos said:


> Are you, by any chance, German by birth? Your prose reads that way.


I am neither German, nor is that my prose, but rather a quote from a recent . The author is (click link for bio and picture). :icon_smile:


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

johnm said:


> Regarding this and neighborhoods, how much is actual discrimination based and how much of it is just human nature? Most men will have guy friends because they find they relate to them more in life experiences, interests, etc just as women will have female friends. The nerds hang out with the nerds. The russians and chinese move to their own neighborhoods. We find comfort being around people that we feel we can relate to, people who we feel like have experienced like the way we have. I'm not a sociologist so I can't cite the studies that I'm sure are out there but I think sometimes we assume something is more sinister than it really is. I think many of us have an unrealistic expectation of how people need to show "diversity."


That's really the question. How much of it has to do with race, and how much is just wanting to associate with people you already know or think are like you?

I don't have the answers, and I am not sure anyone does, but there are a couple of interesting dynamics at work. I've noticed some interesting things when new students come to schools that I've worked at. When white students enter a school they will gravitate toward groups that are like them, either in manner of dress (emo, preppy, punk when that was around) or socio-economic status (rich kids hang out with other rich kids). Black students in my experience are more ready to "take in" a new black students. What I mean by this is that black students at a school will actively welcome a new black student. White students at a school are more likely will let the new student seek them out. I have no proof of this other than personal observation, but I've seen it several times. It may just be that the white populations are larger, whereas the black populations are smaller and perhaps feel more of a need to "stick together."

It probably works the same way with neighborhoods, people just gravitate toward people like them and people moving to a city know where people of their group live. But, there have also been racist practices in real estate, where minorities were discouraged from moving into areas that were predominately white.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

jamgood said:


> OK, now that's settled.....predestination vs free will.....


Now that is funny.

I vote for free predestined will because you get what you pay for.

--A.Q., not about to reenter the War Between the States with so many wild-fire shooters, some apparently itchin' to get out their ol' Mausers.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> Sociologist David R. Williams, Norman professor of public health and professor of African and African American studies, has examined racial discrimination and health in the United States and elsewhere, including South Africa, where in 1991, under apartheid, the "segregation index" was 90, meaning that 90 percent of blacks would have had to move to make the distribution even. "In the year 2000," says Williams, "in most of America's larger cities-New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee-the segregation index was over 80." Only slightly lower, that is, than under legally sanctioned apartheid.​


I guess I was blinded by the diverse area that I live in, and the diverse areas in NY I frequent. Thinking about that now, I can see how there are some neighborhoods that are very black in NYC, not so much "only white". However, 2000 was almost 8 years ago, and the real estate boom in the five or six years that followed has seen many "whites" move into these areas. To me those lines were more clearly drawn in Charlseton and Savannah, perhaps because they are geographically smaller (as well as smaller population wise).


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

As far as the debate over the Confederate Flag:

I can see how someone would compare it to a German flying a Nazi flag, but also see a few differences. Firstly, the Nazi flag symbolized a political party, rather than a nation. The nation then adopted that flag when that party took control. The Confederate Flag was a flag that always represented a region, a nation if you will. I also think for the years after Reconstruction, that because there was no EXTREME backlash against all things Confederate (Democrats taking power in the South, Jim Crow laws passed, etc..) that many have had the chance to "cool down" per se over it. Where as with the Nazi's, people were immediately told of their evils, and how they were purely racists. Southerners had argued (and unfortunately some still do) that slavery wasn't about racism, but about their rights given to them by Amendment X, for almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War. Maybe we have been softened to it.

BTW, I am a STAUNCH Obama supporter...I try and keep an open mind, however, toward what others feel...but I'm no Joe Leiberman.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Here is something for the mix; something the class might be interesting in discussing. Recollecting that there were a notable number of Black slave owners in the South, I googled the terms and found this interesting page:

https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

And, of course, in Africa during the period in question, Black on Black slavery was the norm. As far as fixating on the Confederate Flag as the symbol of the ultimate evil, it only flew over slave holding states for 4 years. The American flag flew over slavery for 76 years (1789 through 1865), and the British, Spanish, and French flags flew over slavery in North America for well over 100 years.

True, Lincoln's war ended slavery in the United States; but it did so as a byproduct of the war. It was not really the goal of the war, nor was it the triggering event. The Emancipation Proclamation was a calculated, political act announced as part of an overall war winning strategy, timed for maximum effect. And it applied only to the states that had succeeded. As I said, slavery was not officially outlawed by the Federal government until the XIII Amendment until some 9 months after the Civil War ended.

In my experience and informed opinion, Racism was not a significant component of the Confederacy or Southern Heritage. The South as Racist, or somehow more racist than anywhere else, is a convenient canard, a hot button, used to validate the actions of the Federal government from 1861 through 2008. The establishment has cultivated that misconception because it can count on a Pavlovian reaction on the part of the masses to any hint of "racism."


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

johnm said:


> You have me right up until that very last bit about racism being one of our biggest problems going forward. While racism undoubtably exists today, I don't think it is all that strong or powerful anymore, as partially evidence by people not being able to discuss secession from the union in an academic sense because slavery is so repugnant.


I assume you haven't spent a lot of time in say......Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina??


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

The problem with debating a topic such as this is that we are forced to debate it on the basis of present day thinking. No matter how hard we try we simply cannot transport our thinking back to that point in time.

I'm thinking of a passage in "_Huckleberry Finn_" where Huck is trying to decide whether he should help Jim escape. He was having a moral debate with himself. He finally concluded that even though he knew it would be a sin against God, he was going to do it anyway and help his friend Jim escape.

Today this sounds ridiculous, but it was a very real moral dilemma for Huck given the society and position he was in at the time. A tough choice for him.

At the time of the Civil War the Union was much more fragile than today. Most people still saw their State as being the entity to who they owed their allegiance. Robert E Lee was a very honorable and noble man who believed that personal integrity was of the highest order, and it was this sense of honor that led him to the conclusion that he could not draw his sword upon his native Virginia.

In many ways he was faced with a dilemma much like Huckleberry Finn. If Gen. Lee were alive today and faced with the same situation, I have no doubt his choice would be different.

We also tend to see the war as being about slavery. This was only a peripheral issue. Lincoln's concern for the slaves extended only as far as it served his purpose of saving the Union. In fact Lincoln was quoted as saying that he would free all of the slaves or none of the slaves, whichever would preserve the Union.

My point is that today we rightfully view seccession as wrong; however those people in 1860 saw the world through 1860 eyes, not 2008 eyes. It makes a huge difference in how they should be judged.

Cruiser


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Crusier, 

Good post, I agree completely. When I was an undergrad I took a class on the fall of the Roman Empire. At one point one in the class one of the students was going on and on about how "immoral" the Romans were. The professor interupted her and asked "Would you judge the actions of the Roman empire based on the values of a 14th Century Chinese Peasant?" The woman said, no of course not. He said, "Then why do you think its relevant to judge them by the standards of a 20th Century American college student?" It's always important to take into consideration the values of the society you are judging.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

I may be all wet, but here are some of my thoughts on this subject.

The underlying feeling of individual and state's rights that was at the heart of the Southern movement for succession, was also a major reason for their failure in the war.

Even while planning for the eminent battles with the North, many Southern states could not agree on terms, tactics, and basic organization. They were so fiercely independent, that they often made decisions without consulting each other, thereby dividing and weakening their own cause.

The South was operating on too many fronts at once - and because of this lost some early battles by very slim margins. Several of these battles were paramount to the North moving forward, and would have certainly changed the course and possibly the ultimate outcome, had they gone to the confederacy.

Initially, the South also had far superior commanders and a far more passionate army. However, their lack of direction and some of those early losses helped to strengthen the Northern resolve and gave Northern Generals some of the on the job training they would need to succeed later.

Ultimately, the North had more money, more infrastructure, and a much larger army - so they were probably going to win in the long run by attrition alone. But the South did themselves no service, but being so fiercely independent that they could not stay on the same page militarily and politically.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Can you imagine a country of the US' size idly sitting by as half of its land mass simply walks away? Wars have been fought over much less.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Terpoxon said:


> It's an interesting historical and Constitutional question. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was an inviolable compact- once you were in you couldn't get out, therefore secession was illegal. Southern states would argue that under the 10th Amendment (as well as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves) they had the power since it was never prohibited by the Constitution.


Exactly right. Analyzed simplistically under contract theory, the question presented was can some parties of the contract terminate their relationship without the consent of the others. Lincoln arguably took it a step further and suggested that the compact would be inviolate even if all parties wanted to terminate. This may sound absurd, but Lincoln really did hold the Founding documents (i.e., the Declaration and the Constitution) as a sacred trust transcending normal contract theory. Perhaps the best analogy was the historic treatment of the marital contract, which was viewed as inviolate even if both parties wanted out. Ironically today, marital contracts are easier to terminate by one party than garden variety commercial contracts. I'm sure people differ on whether that is a good thing.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

a4audi08 said:


> Can you imagine a country of the US' size idly sitting by as half of its land mass simply walks away? Wars have been fought over much less.


Again, looking at in from our point of view, I would agree, but remember, the world of the 1800's, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, was filled with Independence movements, and was the "norm".

I just left the class and we had a pretty decent discussion about all of this. I appreciate the variety of opinions that this topic can elicit, and I used some of the examples you guys brought up...just for them to think.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> I assume you haven't spent a lot of time in say......Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina??


Having spent time in the south, it's the same in the Northeast, only more insidiously veiled.

 The beautiful people in this part of the country like minorities. As long as they're kept far, far away from them.

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_8251987


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Your students might want to know the following:

1. Three states expressly reserved the right to secede in their official acts ratifying the Constitution. Those states were Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. Two of those states later claimed that no such right existed.

2. Lincoln stated in his inaugural address that his only purpose for the impending war was *not* to eradicate slavery, but to "preserve the Union," and if that could be accomplished while preserving slavery, he would do it. In other words, the war was expressly fought by the North to prevent secession -- to prevent the very same kind of separation from an unwanted government that occurred in 1776. And, in 1776, all 13 of the Colonies permitted slavery. I have not heard anyone argue that England was justified in preventing the secession of the American Colonies on the grounds that they permitted slavery.

3. Delaware and Maryland were (a) slave states and (b) part of the Union. New Jersey had de facto slavery (under the euphemism "apprentices for life") up until the ratification of the 13th Amendment after the war. No one invaded them to change these laws.

4. If secession was illegal, then the formation of West Virginia by seceding counties from Virginia was illegal, and we have 49 states. But the secession of those counties from Virginia was tolerated and ratified by the very same people who claimed that there is no right of secession.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Ahh, the same old arguments repeated yet again.

The war is over, the good guys won (whoever wins is the good guy), get over it. 

It is amazing how so many southerners continue to relive the war today and still consider it the War of Northern Aggression”. As Shelby Foote put it, "Southerners are very peculiar about that war”* 


(* Or something very similar, the quote is in the beginning of the book “Confederates in the Attic” by Tony Horwitz).


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Shelby Foote*

Michael

This is true. Having spent half my life in the south. I can honestly concur with Nolans point about being, and living in the south.
Thats the difference.
Shelby Foote is correct, my feelings is the amount of soldiers that were killed in this disgusting war.
More than Vietnam, Gettysburg had more soldiers killed than the entire Vietnam war.
Terrible war my friends
Lot of bloodshed. And I am sure there must be a great deal of distaste for us Yankees.

Nice day


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> Ahh, the same old arguments repeated yet again.
> 
> The war is over, the good guys won (whoever wins is the good guy), get over it.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I'm awed by the depth of knowledge of the posters (and the civility of discussion) but someone needed to name the elephant in the room. Jefferson Davis said the South's tombstone would read "Died of a theory."

Incidentally -- too late for this now -- but it is not accurate that Robt E Lee owned no slaves.

TJS


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I assume you haven't spent a lot of time in say......Mississippi, Alabama, or South Carolina??


Not a lot of time no and I have no doubt racism remains to a degree. I live in rural Illinois, I've heard my share of racist remarks from good 'ol boys here. But lets even look at the KKK, the hallmark of american racism. In the 1924 it was estimated there were 6 million members. Today numbers say 3000 and it clutches at anything they can get their hands on including immigration and same sex marriage. What was once a serious organization of hate and racism that inspired real fear is now something america mocks on the jerry springer show. I think that tells a lot about how far we've come. Racism is around but if we want to improve life for minorities the fight doesn't lie with racism, it lies in improving their economic status and social conditions in their own communities.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Michael
> 
> This is true. Having spent half my life in the south. I can honestly concur with Nolans point about being, and living in the south.
> Thats the difference.
> ...


Didn't the north have higher losses?

From Wikepedia, the fount of all knowledge:

North
110,000 killed in action
360,000 total dead
275,200 wounded

South
93,000 killed in action
260,000 total dead
137,000+ wounded

Part of what makes the history so interesting is the use of Napoleonic tactics against much more modern weapons. (Where in Waterloo it was OK for long lines of people to advance against an enemy considering the +/- 100 yard range of the muskets, in the Civil War, when the North would attack fortified Southern positions (and vise versa considering Picket's Charge) , the long lines of soldiers were sitting ducks to be massacred by rifled long barreled muskets with what I have read to have a killing range of a half mile. The European armies watched this war with a lot of interest.) The soldiers on both sides had big ones to be able to do what they did!


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

What is Southern Heritage or Culture? What exists there that didn't orginate in Africa, or Europe? What is unique to the South? Not to say there isn't any, I curious to know.
Anyone else find Conferdarate and racist Southern apologist hilarious.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

I have felt that the issue of slavery should have been dealt with at the constitutional convention but the founding fathers choose to punt on that issue. 

History shows that the civil war hostilities were initiated by the southern states in their attack on Fort Sumter. Slavery was the primary reason for the civil war as evidenced by a number of compromises that occurred before 1861 to preserve some level of protection for slavery within southern states. While some argue that states rights were the core reason most intelligent people know the truth. In the end, the south lost. Slavery was abolished.

I don't happen to agree with southern states flying confederate flags. I should also note that the south will not rise again as any uprising would result in a swift military action. I also think we've moved well beyond the secession argument - at least among rational people (not counting Todd Palin here).


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

hurling frootmig said:


> I don't happen to agree with southern states flying confederate flags. I should also note that the south will not rise again as any uprising would result in a swift military action. I also think we've moved well beyond the secession argument - at least among rational people (not counting Todd Palin here).


https://dixienet.org/New Site/index.shtml


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

johnm said:


> Not a lot of time no and I have no doubt racism remains to a degree. I live in rural Illinois, I've heard my share of racist remarks from good 'ol boys here. But lets even look at the KKK, the hallmark of american racism. In the 1924 it was estimated there were 6 million members. Today numbers say 3000 and it clutches at anything they can get their hands on including immigration and same sex marriage. What was once a serious organization of hate and racism that inspired real fear is now something america mocks on the jerry springer show. I think that tells a lot about how far we've come. Racism is around but if we want to improve life for minorities the fight doesn't lie with racism, it lies in improving their economic status and social conditions in their own communities.


John- in my view, its not the overt racism that is the most dangerous, its the racism thats embedded within our societies that we can't see that has the most dangerous potential. Not groups like the KKK who come across as idiots even in their best attempts to appear grounded.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Your students might want to know the following:
> 
> 2. Lincoln stated in his inaugural address that his only purpose for the impending war was *not* to eradicate slavery, but to "preserve the Union," and if that could be accomplished while preserving slavery, he would do it. In other words, the war was expressly fought by the North to prevent secession -- to prevent the very same kind of separation from an unwanted government that occurred in 1776. And, in 1776, all 13 of the Colonies permitted slavery. I have not heard anyone argue that England was justified in preventing the secession of the American Colonies on the grounds that they permitted slavery.


In our discussion today, I read to them portions of the Declaration Of Independence (specifically focusing on "consent of the governed") as well as the 10th Amendment and asked them to think about how that applied to the colonists in 1776. I asked if they thought the Southerners had similar grounds to walk away from the United States.

We also discussed the role race played. While it can't be denied it played a large one in the institution of slavery, they seemed a little aghast when they heard that free-blacks in the South also owned slaves.

To bring the discussion around 180, we talked about what democracy meant to them, and to a man each said that it meant people got to choose their own government. Based on this, millions of Southerners were not given a voice in this Democracy, therefore the North had a right to use force to bring them back. To which some students responded that to Southerners, slaves weren't "people" but "property", so Democracy was, in their eyes, being upheld. To which another bright young mind shouted, "I say all the kids under 18 rebel, and secede, form their own country in the name of Democracy!". Thats when I inserted Turkey's scenario of the South invading the North to protect the rights of women and immigrants who were not granted Democratic freedom. one thing that all agreed upon, was that money was the central issue in this war, and the main reason for the North's refusal to accept Southern secession, not the high and mighty ideals, like freedom, democracy, and liberty.

Sometimes these kids really make the job more enjoyable than any other I could have chosen. The fact that 13 year old minds can grasp such a concept, one that many adults have a hard time understanding, and discuss it in a civil matter makes me proud to be their teacher, or better yet, their discussion moderator.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> It is amazing how so many southerners continue to relive the war today and still consider it the "War of Northern Aggression". As Shelby Foote put it, "Southerners are very peculiar about that war"*
> 
> (* Or something very similar, the quote is in the beginning of the book "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz).


The resonance of these feelings today, in my opinion, is due to the failure to complete a true "Reconstruction" in the South. By giving up on it after the 1876 election, the South was allowed to fall back to a system that wasn't much different than it was before the war. Only now, many more people were left starting over again with nothing. Its only been in recent years that cities in the South, like Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta have broken free from the economic despair that they were chained to for the first 100 years after the war. Had the North eradicated these "Southern Democrats" from passing Jim Crow laws, and had they pressed to _really_ get rid of groups like the WHite League and the KKK, perhaps the entire South would be on equal economic footing with the North, and a resentment would not exist.

On that note, do you think if Katrina was headed for Washington, Boston, or NY the reaction would have been as slow? I think the "half assed Reconstruction efforts" continue today with government inaction to the problems that are unique to the South. When NO was under threat a few weeks back, those parishes that were in the most danger still were not protected as well as they should through the levy systems that the government knew they needed. The government knew even before Katrina that those areas were just sitting ducks, and now AFTER, still nothing. Maybe thats just beurocracy, but to me it still seems Washington has a constant nose turned up at those geographically below them, even with a Southerner in the White House.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

jpeirpont said:


> https://dixienet.org/New Site/index.shtml


Like I said, rational people have moved beyond this. These guys are wack jobs.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

hurling frootmig said:


> Like I said, rational people have moved beyond this. These guys are wack jobs.


LOL, I do not disagree, thought I have a little affection for their beliefs.


----------



## johnm (Jul 12, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> John- in my view, its not the overt racism that is the most dangerous, its the racism thats embedded within our societies that we can't see that has the most dangerous potential. Not groups like the KKK who come across as idiots even in their best attempts to appear grounded.


I was talking to one of my sociologist friends earlier about this topic, the phrase we are apparently looking for is passive racism. It was a brief talk but she described it as being so race blind that those in the majority ignore the added opportunities they have because of their heritage and discount additional obstacles minorities face. It would be failing to recognize that past and potentially current racism benefits you today even if you aren't actively a bigot yourself.

It is a point I hadn't considered in great detail and I would have to read much more on it to offer a real opinion. White privilege or white guilt...where's the line?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> What is Southern Heritage or Culture?


Having grown up in the South in the 50's, what I remember are much better race relations among the Blacks and poor whites than most people in other parts of the country ever knew existed. What most people saw were the racists who dominated the news with their violence and mayhem. Down in the neighborhoods it was often very different.

The Southern culture of the Blacks and poor whites was very intertwined. We liked the same foods (white country cooking is just soul food) and shared religious beliefs. And believe it or not we often listened to the same music. After all Hank Williams learned everything he new about music and song writing from a poor Black street musician in Montgomery Alabama. The early Elvis was nothing more than Black music being sung by a White man. And I'd bet just as many Whites as Blacks were listening to John R (who incidentally was White, although most did not know that) spin that soul music on Saturday night at clear channel WLAC radio in Nashville.

A Black man gave me my first drink of whiskey in 1964. He had a bottle in the trunk of his car and him and I along with a couple of other White guys passed the bottle around and never gave a second thought to drinking out of it with him.

As a poor White kid in the South in the 50's, I remember race relations very differently than what was on TV, and our cultures (Black/White) were more similar at that time than most might have expected.

Cruiser


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> Having grown up in the South in the 50's, what I remember are much better race relations among the Blacks and poor whites than most people in other parts of the country ever knew existed. What most people saw were the racists who dominated the news with their violence and mayhem. Down in the neighborhoods it was often very different.
> 
> The Southern culture of the Blacks and poor whites was very intertwined. We liked the same foods (white country cooking is just soul food) and shared religious beliefs. And believe it or not we often listened to the same music. After all Hank Williams learned everything he new about music and song writing from a poor Black street musician in Montgomery Alabama. The early Elvis was nothing more than Black music being sung by a White man. And I'd bet just as many Whites as Blacks were listening to John R (who incidentally was White, although most did not know that) spin that soul music on Saturday night at clear channel WLAC radio in Nashville.
> 
> ...


I agree with the similiarity in cultures but disagree with poor Southern whites being less racist in general theory(not to say your expereinces are not true, and uncommon) but most of the people who were involved with the KKK and such were poor white people. My mothers side of family is Black American thus I have a strong Southern component to my culture. So I have affection for many things Southern, largely the food. A lot Blacks say the real difference between white southern food and soul food is really just the seasoning and level of spicyness. Soul food is spicier according to those I know. I have never eaten southern food cooked by a white person , so i have no real opinion on the matter. One thing I'll say about the South and race is I think whites and Blacks there are more comfortable being apart of their respective races and have an "understanding" and level of comfort with each other other regions have not gained.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> do you think if Katrina was headed for Washington, Boston, or NY the reaction would have been as slow?


:



> the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Here's fodder for your class discussions. Sharon Zukin is Broeklundian Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College and The City University Graduate Center. Chapter 6, "Artemio Goes To Tiffany's", relates the adventure of a young man of color on a purchasing excursion to the Manhattan flagship store. Had that happened at the village Belk ol' Jesse or Al'd be 'round here with a CNN crew to raise L'n'extort.

(Excerpts @ Google Book Search: Artemio Goes To Tiffany's)










Matthew 7:3-4, notice that does not include 5. Diplomacy.

Bye now. Gotta go gut and process a gator.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> What is Southern Heritage or Culture? What exists there that didn't orginate in Africa, or Europe? What is unique to the South? Not to say there isn't any, I curious to know.


Well, the people who populated the South came from Africa and Europe, so if you look hard enough, you'll certainly find connections and elements that originated there. The same is true of the Puritans who settled in Boston -- their culture was originally a transplant of Puritan English culture, and some of those elements are still visible today, despite massive changes brought on by the influx of other groups.

The Southern culture that I grew up in would be characterized as traditionalist, in the sense that there was a strong bias against change. People were expected to do things largely the way they had been done (or believed to have been done), and changes were disfavored and only accepted slowly and begrudgingly. Cultural innovation was not held in high regard.

There was a heavy emphasis on kinship. Families had friendships with other families. Your identity was primarily family-based, and individual identity was secondary.

It was also deep bias in favor of localism, i.e., skepticism toward anything perceived as an outsider's authority, which is probably a left-over from the Celtic cultures of 18th century Great Britain -- the Scots, Irish and Welsh who instinctively resented (and periodically defied) English rule. A very high value was placed on the sentiment that one should mind one's own business.

It was also very sharply defined in terms of gender roles. Men were expected to behave in distinctly masculine ways, particularly with regard to being both capable and assertive, although there was also a hyper-sensitivity to anything remotely resembling boasting about one's successes, which was considered a shameful way to behave.

There are, of course, many other traits, and a lot of them differed from place to place within the South, or even from county to county within the same state. But over all, to my view, this culture seems unique. I have visited a lot of different places around the world, and certainly seen similar elements in a lot of them outside of the South. But I have never seen quite the same combination anywhere else.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

SkySov said:


> What a weird dialogue. Craziness I say. The same posters who are pro-southern are also against Obama. Hmmm what to think of that. Why do opinions of the Civil War correlate to political ideologies? Ick at Confederate flag. Who would want to remember that heritage? I guess Germans would want to have Nazi flags to remember that heritage. With that being said I will take my Hitler award now please thanks.


Not me, anti Obama and anti South.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Losses*

Michael

Yes, as you point out.Funny you mention Waterloo. I have Mark Urbans book, "Wellington Rifles" which is a great book about what was involved in this war.
From my reading of Nelson, this was part of his battle as well. To win the campaign.

Nice day
Enjoy the weekend my friends


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> ...To bring the discussion around 180, we talked about what democracy meant to them, and to a man each said that it meant people got to choose their own government. Based on this, millions of Southerners were not given a voice in this Democracy, therefore the North had a right to use force to bring them back. To which some students responded that to Southerners, slaves weren't "people" but "property", so Democracy was, in their eyes, being upheld. To which another bright young mind shouted, "I say all the kids under 18 rebel, and secede, form their own country in the name of Democracy!". Thats when I inserted Turkey's scenario of the South invading the North to protect the rights of women and immigrants who were not granted Democratic freedom. *one thing that all agreed upon, was that money was the central issue in this war, and the main reason for the North's refusal to accept Southern secession, not the high and mighty ideals, like freedom, democracy, and liberty.*
> 
> Sometimes these kids really make the job more enjoyable than any other I could have chosen. The fact that 13 year old minds can grasp such a concept, one that many adults have a hard time understanding, and discuss it in a civil matter makes me proud to be their teacher, or better yet, their discussion moderator.


In other words we all went to war for "The Man," right?

I've greatly enjoyed your posts and admire your passion as a teacher, but this statement -- or should I say pronouncement -- troubles me. I hope I'm taking it out of context (not sure how I could be, given that you've written 5,000 words on the subject, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt), but this kind of cynicism has no place in an 8th grade classroom. If these kids can't be idealists at 13, when can they be? Plus it's a debatable proposition and a ridiculous generalization in the first place, given that each man and woman brought his or her own unique motivation to the conflict. There were thousands of Americans -- politicians, generals, foot soldiers, and everyday citizens -- who had high and noble ideals about this conflict. We have their letters and journals.

tjs


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't know--what high moral purpose do you attribute to the Union forces during the war? Obviously they didn't go to war to free the slaves, or to enfranchise blacks, or anything like that. The best you can come up with is enforcing a contract, and as they tell you on the first day of contracts in law school, breaching a contract isn't immoral.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sartre said:


> this statement -- or should I say pronouncement -- troubles me. I hope I'm taking it out of context (not sure how I could be, given that you've written 5,000 words on the subject, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt), but this kind of cynicism has no place in an 8th grade classroom. If these kids can't be idealists at 13, when can they be? Plus it's a debatable proposition and a ridiculous generalization in the first place, given that each man and woman brought his or her own unique motivation to the conflict. There were thousands of Americans -- politicians, generals, foot soldiers, and everyday citizens -- who had high and noble ideals about this conflict. We have their letters and journals.


While I think there is more truth than not to the statement about money being the central issue in the war, I can also understand the concern over approaching young teens in this manner PROVIDED we don't just apply the noble ideals of "freedom, democracy, and liberty" to the Union. If anything the Confederacy thought it was fighting to preserve these ideals as much or moreso than the Northerners were. Whether either side actually was is, like you said, debatable. I just think we should be even handed here.

Don't get me wrong. As a born and raised Southerner I am thankful that the Union was preserved; however, I hate to see the average Confederate soldier treated like he was a villian. The average Confederate soldier wasn't fighting to preserve slavery or for any other ideal beyond defending his homeland. I'm sure it sounds silly today, but that was a different place and time, and there is danger in judging them based on what we know today.

I think this is what upsets Southerners today the most. Our forefathers fought for what were to them just as noble reasons as any Union soldier fought. While they may have been led down a bad road by their political leaders, at the end of the day they were just simple soldiers doing their duty for their sovereign States. They were just as honorable as those who fought on the other side.

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Okay, I understand the concept of understanding each culture's mores according to its own terms, but I refuse to accept the idea that buying and selling human beings could ever have been a moral act.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Sartre said:


> In other words we all went to war for "The Man," right?
> 
> I've greatly enjoyed your posts and admire your passion as a teacher, but this statement -- or should I say pronouncement -- troubles me. I hope I'm taking it out of context (not sure how I could be, given that you've written 5,000 words on the subject, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt), but this kind of cynicism has no place in an 8th grade classroom. If these kids can't be idealists at 13, when can they be? Plus it's a *debatable proposition* and a ridiculous generalization in the first place, given that each man and woman brought his or her own unique motivation to the conflict. There were thousands of Americans -- politicians, generals, foot soldiers, and everyday citizens -- who had high and noble ideals about this conflict. We have their letters and journals.
> 
> tjs


I, in no way whatsoever, suggested this. I was merely a conduit for their conversations and ideas. While some kids viewed the legality of secession in different ways, all of them agreed that money played a central role. hats what I stated in the post that concerns you. You say yourself, that this idea is debateable, so why should the theory not be discussed?

Like I said, and like I tell them ALWAYS...its not my job to tell them whats right and wrong, but to tell them what happened and guide them to think in the most broad way, why things did happen, so it can be prevented/encouraged in the future.

"Idealism" is very dangerous, because its simply false. In every conflict, every historical event, as idealistically as the particpants may have acted and thought, they always had alterior motives. By not allowing kids to think this way is a disservice to them, and their collective futures.

These are also kids, who as 6 year olds, witnessed 3000 people die in front of them, and smelled their charred bodies for weeks as cleanup was going on. These kids have lived in reality, and maybe before 9/11, educating children, especially kids who witnessed that horrible day first hand, has changed.

For centuries we were taught that Columbus was a brave man, who was a hero to all. Yes, he was brave for sailing where he did, despite him having physical evidence that he could sail around the globe, but he was also a murderer whose main interest was attaining wealth for himself, and his queen. Is that idealism far enough our past to forget? Or is it because of its distance from us on the time contineum the "ideals" of the Columbus Discovery can be debunked with fact?

Also, while each participant had their own motives for fighting, the ones pulling the strings had clear motivation, clear enough for an eighth grade honors class to see after analyzing facts and primary sources. The facts brought these kids to this conclusion, not my suggestions, and if they can see something for what it is, why should I debunk their ideas just so they could hold onto false ideals.

Having said that, I would not expect, nor ask, a regular class to partcipate in such a difficult discussion. Many would not understand the difficult concepts, and manyt would simply not pay attention, making it a waste of their time, and mine.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, I understand the concept of understanding each culture's mores according to its own terms, but I refuse to accept the idea that buying and selling human beings could ever have been a moral act.


Well said.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, I understand the concept of understanding each culture's mores according to its own terms, but I refuse to accept the idea that buying and selling human beings could ever have been a moral act.


And I understand how some CEOs can stay within the strict letter of the law while unfairly taking advantage of people, but I refuse to accept that just because they are within the law that it is a moral act.

What does that have to do with this thread? Nothing. But neither does suggesting that anyone is saying that slavery was a moral act. If anybody did say that maybe I just missed it.

Cruiser


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Well, the people who populated the South came from Africa and Europe, so if you look hard enough, you'll certainly find connections and elements that originated there. The same is true of the Puritans who settled in Boston -- their culture was originally a transplant of Puritan English culture, and some of those elements are still visible today, despite massive changes brought on by the influx of other groups.
> 
> The Southern culture that I grew up in would be characterized as traditionalist, in the sense that there was a strong bias against change. People were expected to do things largely the way they had been done (or believed to have been done), and changes were disfavored and only accepted slowly and begrudgingly. Cultural innovation was not held in high regard.
> *
> ...


That is my favorite aspect of Southern culture, something we are missing up here for the most part.
I grew up in a Jamaican and Southern Black neighborhood in the North and can relate to some of which you describe. As race person, as I get older occasionally I find myself with the rest of my race which is more progressive for progressions sake orientated.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> And I understand how some CEOs can stay within the strict letter of the law while unfairly taking advantage of people, but I refuse to accept that just because they are within the law that it is a moral act.
> 
> What does that have to do with this thread? Nothing. But neither does suggesting that anyone is saying that slavery was a moral act. If anybody did say that maybe I just missed it.
> 
> Cruiser


Although you didn't say that slavery was moral, it's actually a response to an earlier post from you:
_
The problem with debating a topic such as this is that we are forced to debate it on the basis of present day thinking. No matter how hard we try we simply cannot transport our thinking back to that point in time.

. . .

My point is that today we rightfully view seccession as wrong; however those people in 1860 saw the world through 1860 eyes, not 2008 eyes. It makes a huge difference in how they should be judged._

As I say, I am not accusing you of justifying slavery.I do not, however, think that we had to make it to 2008 to figure out that slavery was utterly evil. There were plenty of people who knew it back in 1860.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Although you didn't say that slavery was moral, it's actually a response to an earlier post from you:
> 
> _The problem with debating a topic such as this is that we are forced to debate it on the basis of present day thinking. No matter how hard we try we simply cannot transport our thinking back to that point in time._
> 
> ...


But there is nothing in anything you quoted from me that refers to slavery. The issues of which was speaking were seccession and how people felt a stronger loyalty to their State than they did the Federal government.

Do you really believe that every German soldier in World War II bought into the Nazi line? Of course not. I knew a couple of old German soldiers myself and they hated Hitler and everything he stood for; but they loved Germany and felt a strong sense of patriotism. That's why, after a war, we don't hold ordinary soldiers who fought for their country responsible for honest acts of war while serving that country.

In the Civil War many, if not most, Confederate soldiers fought for their sovereign State. I doubt that most even understood the issues that their leaders took them to war over. That's what I meant when I said we can't look at things through their eyes today because the concept of allegiance to a State over the Federal government would seem ridiculous to us now. It wasn't to them in the time in which they lived. I wasn't even thinking about slavery when I made my comments. Unfortunately, some folks only see the slavery issue when they think of the civil war.

Cruiser


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> And I understand how some CEOs can stay within the strict letter of the law while unfairly taking advantage of people, but I refuse to accept that just because they are within the law that it is a moral act.
> 
> Cruiser


I agree, law has nothing to do with morality. Morality is a societal/religious/personal issue. While the CEO you speak of may feel it is perfectly moral to make a lot of money while polluting the environment, another person may feel it is immoral to buy products from that company or even to not act against it. What has been considered "morality" has changed over the centuries even within the Christian religion. Law is law. Sometimes people try to legislate morality but the law is not the morality, just the reflection of what the lawmaker believed was right.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> But there is nothing in anything you quoted from me that refers to slavery. The issues of which was speaking were seccession and how people felt a stronger loyalty to their State than they did the Federal government.
> 
> In the Civil War many, if not most, Confederate soldiers fought for their sovereign State. I doubt that most even understood the issues that their leaders took them to war over. That's what I meant when I said we can't look at things through their eyes today because the concept of allegiance to a State over the Federal government would seem ridiculous to us now. It wasn't to them in the time in which they lived. I wasn't even thinking about slavery when I made my comments. Unfortunately, some folks only see the slavery issue when they think of the civil war.
> 
> Cruiser


Okay. It's just impossible to properly consider the Civil War without talking about slavery. As my previous posts point out, if you look at the secession resolutions, you see that, whatever the motivations of individual soldiers, the reasons that southern states tried to secede was to preserve slavery.

Similarly, people who say the war wasn't about slavery because Lincoln or the northern states weren't committed to abolition miss the point. Whatever their motivation, the motive of the southern states was without a doubt to preserve slavery. To assert otherwise is to ignore or distort the historical facts.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It's just impossible to properly consider the Civil War without talking about slavery. As my previous posts point out, if you look at the secession resolutions, you see that, whatever the motivations of individual soldiers, the reasons that southern states tried to secede was to preserve slavery.


But that has nothing to do with my comments. We are talking about apples and oranges.

You're talking about the political leaders and power brokers who led the Southern States down the path to war. Of course slavery was a huge issue to them. I'm not talking about them or their issues.

The fact is that those political leaders and power brokers could not have done what they did in terms of seccession without the ability to raise large armies to support them. It's the thought processes of the ordinary common men who became soldiers in those armies that I'm talking about. Most of them weren't thinking about preserving slavery. They were being loyal to their sovereign State.

Do you think that every soldier and Marine fighting in Iraq is doing so because he supports U.S. foreign policy? Of course not. They fight because they feel a sense of loyalty to their country. They do so even when deep down inside they don't agree with the policies of their leaders.

It was the same way in 1860, except then there wasn't the same feelings of loyalty to the Federal government, especially in the South, as there is today. In fact, it was precisely because of the Civil War that this nation eventually became an undivided nation.

Let's compare it to NATO. The U.S. is a member of NATO; however, if NATO decided to go off on a tangent that was not supported by the U.S. leadership, I suspect that most Americans would express their loyalty to the U.S., not NATO.

On a lesser scale, that is what ordinary citizens thought in 1860. Many, again especially in the South, saw their loyalty to be first and foremost to their State, not this still developing alliance between States called the United States. I'm not saying that this was right, just that it was; and it's hard for people today to see things the way folks saw them back then.

Cruiser


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> But there is nothing in anything you quoted from me that refers to slavery. The issues of which was speaking were seccession and how people felt a stronger loyalty to their State than they did the Federal government.
> 
> Do you really believe that every German soldier in World War II bought into the Nazi line? Of course not. I knew a couple of old German soldiers myself and they hated Hitler and everything he stood for; but they loved Germany and felt a strong sense of patriotism. That's why, after a war, we don't hold ordinary soldiers who fought for their country responsible for honest acts of war while serving that country.
> 
> ...


We signed up in San Antone my brother Paul and me 
To fight with Ben McCulloch and the Texas infantry 
Well the poster said we'd get a uniform and seven bucks a week 
The best rations in the army and a rifle we could keep 
When I first laid eyes on the general I knew he was a fightin' man 
He was every inch a soldier every word was his command 
Well his eyes were cold as the lead and steel forged into tools of war 
He took the lives of many and the souls of many more

Well they marched us to Missouri and we hardly stopped for rest 
Then he made this speech and said we're comin' to the test 
Well we've got to take Saint Louie boys before the yankees do 
If we control the Mississippi then the Federals are through

Well they told us that our enemy would all be dressed in blue 
They forgot about the winter's cold and the cursed fever too 
My brother died at Wilson's creek and Lord I seen him fall 
We fell back to the Boston Mountains in the North of Arkansas

CHORUS 
Goddamn you Ben McCulloch 
I hate you more than any other man alive 
And when you die you'll be a foot soldier just like me 
In the devil's infantry

And on the way to Fayetteville we cursed McCulloch`s name 
And mourned the dead that we'd left behind and we was carrying the lame 
I killed a boy the other night who'd never even shaved 
I don't even know what I'm fightin' for I ain't never owned a slave

So I snuck out of camp and then I heard the news next night 
The Yankees won the battle and McCulloch lost his life

"Ben McCulloch" by Steve Earle


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

rgrossicone said:


> As far as the debate over the Confederate Flag:
> 
> I can see how someone would compare it to a German flying a Nazi flag, but also see a few differences. Firstly, the Nazi flag symbolized a political party, rather than a nation. The nation then adopted that flag when that party took control. The Confederate Flag was a flag that always represented a region, a nation if you will. I also think for the years after Reconstruction, that because there was no EXTREME backlash against all things Confederate (Democrats taking power in the South, Jim Crow laws passed, etc..) that many have had the chance to "cool down" per se over it. Where as with the Nazi's, people were immediately told of their evils, and how they were purely racists. Southerners had argued (and unfortunately some still do) that slavery wasn't about racism, but about their rights given to them by Amendment X, for almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War. Maybe we have been softened to it.
> 
> BTW, I am a STAUNCH Obama supporter...I try and keep an open mind, however, toward what others feel...but I'm no Joe Leiberman.


there are large parallels between the south and nazi germany. basically, both societies were based on an evil system. while most southerners were not slave owners, the whole culture and economic structure was based on chattel slavery, which is just as much of an evil as the holocust was. most germans were not involved in the death camps, but the vast majority suported the system that killed off jews, gypsies and the weak. everybody who was part of the culture and the economy of the south was part of the system of slavery. I am sure that most people don't want to think of it that way, but that is the way it is.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> there are large parallels between the south and current day America. basically, both societies were based on an evil system. while most Americans did not employ illegal immigrants, the whole culture and economic structure was based on low-cost labor, which is just as much of an evil as slavery was. most Americans were not involved in illegal immigration, but the vast majority suported the system that profited off of the illegal and the weak. everybody who was part of the culture and the economy of current day America was part of the system. I am sure that most people don't want to think of it that way, but that is the way it is.


Fixed your post.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

fenway said:


> Fixed your post.


read up a little on the atlantic slave trade, and lets talk again.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

globetrotter said:


> read up a little on the atlantic slave trade, and lets talk again.


+1 , It is rare you come across this level of ignorance.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

SkySov said:


> Ick at Confederate flag.


I don't own a Confederate flag, but I like it. Not because it represents dislike toward African Americans, but because it represents hating yankees. That's more in keeping with the original meaning.

Also, it's interesting that the successful revolutionary war was heroic, but the south's failed succession was criminal. In the end, I'm glad that the country is not currently divided into two, but sometimes I meet someone who makes me think there should be a border fence at the Mason-Dixon anyway.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

SlowE30 said:


> I don't own a Confederate flag, but I like it. Not because it represents dislike toward African Americans, but because it represents hating yankees. That's more in keeping with the original meaning.
> 
> Also, it's interesting that the successful revolutionary war was heroic, but the south's failed succession was criminal. In the end, I'm glad that the country is not currently divided into two, but sometimes I meet someone who makes me think there should be a border fence at the Mason-Dixon anyway.


This just in . . . It's called the United States of America. I know a lot of people from Chicago who now live in Atlanta and elsewhere in the south. I also know a lot of people who were born in the south who have come to Chicago and other cities in the north.

How does someone from Alaska have such a hatred of other Americans?


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

I apologize for not reading the whole thread but this is a great learning opportunity for your students:

The tension between the Northern industrial states and the Southern agrarian states was brewing from the inception of the country. Jefferson and Madison advocated a self autonomous anti-federalist society while Adams and Hamilton advocated a strong Federal country as the only way to strenghten the nascent nation through foreign investment.

This tension came to a head in McCulloch v. Maryland where the debate is whether we are American citizens through our states which are united or whether we are members of the United States through the Constitutional Convention regardless of our alegiance to a particular state. Southern states believed they were Virginians (or what ever state) first and then Americans, whereas the Northern position was that the "we the people" meant individuals not states and that we belong to the US through the representatives at the Constituional Convention and not through state representatives.

Interstingly it has been argued that wage labor was actually cheaper than slave labor and obviously less risky because if your laborer dies your not out a whole lifetime of wages paid up front. This became more of a source of tension as the importation of slaves was outlawed in the early 1800's (?) slave prices grew dramatically. It cost about $2000 to buy a slave just before the Civil war (not including the price of lodging, feeding clothing and medical costs). Factory workers and railroad workers were earning about 50 cents a week (sometimes company dollars) and had a high mortality rate. 

Freed blacks owned slaves too, with nearly 20% of blacks in New Orleans owning slaves. Incedently, over all only a small portion of Southerns owned slaves. Slavery was definitely a huge part of secession, but I think that putting it into the global and historical context of the old agrarian, isolationist way of life versus the industrial revolution's more global and financial based economy gives a greater historical perspective and some insight into why non-slave holders fought for the South. 

If you can get your hands on "The Southern Historical Society Papers" there are some interesting accounts of the problems with the CSA. 

One article is about a company that takes out a loan from the Bank of Tennessee to start a salt peter mine to make gun powder for Confederate troops. After the war the company refused to repay the loan arguing that it was an illegal contract (because it was a contract to aid enemies of the United States) and thus unenforceable. The court held that the contract was enforceable because citizens must abide by the laws of their country at the time of the contract. 

Another account is a transcript of CSA Senate hearings over the rules of the Confederacy. It seems that all the states had erected tolls to enter each other's state and State Representatives were having a hard time getting through what was essentially a State Customs check point. The Mississippi was becoming prohibitively expensive to navigate because of all the tolls and under populated states where falling apart because they didn't have enough tax revenue to sustain themselves and meet the costs of trading with other states.

Incidently the Confederate flag flies in front of the State House here in Columbia SC, surrounded by a beautiful garden and just behind a monument to Confederate soldiers. People debate it all the time and its not very educational.

There are far more educational opportunities in discussing secession than a heritage or hate debate over the flag. I advise to avoid this debate at all costs - it goes nowhere and gets people riled up.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Southern states believed they were Virginians (or what ever state) first and then Americans, whereas the Northern position was that the "we the people" meant individuals not states and that we belong to the US through the representatives at the Constituional Convention and not through state representatives.


That interpretation is a fiction that was invented by Lincoln to justify his position that states could not legally secede.

It is also a transparent lie, not remotely grounded in historical fact, and in its more detailed explications, is totally non-sensical.

As I mentioned, three states expressly reserved the right to secede in their official acts ratifying the Constitution, two of which were New York and Rhode Island, which demonstrates that the people of those two Northern states clearly thought of themselves as citizens of sovereign states.

It also fails to account for things like the sovereign legal status of the 13 states during the period under the Articles of Confederation, and the fact that the Constitution was ratified by states (9 of which, to be exact, before it became effective as to any of them).

And there is the matter of the threatened secession of the New England states, not once but twice, once around the War of 1812 and a second time in the 1830s. Quite a few prominent representatives and citizens of those Northern states clearly believed that secession was at least illegal, even though the issue was ultimately avoided by a compromise.

Clearly, one could, even before the war, be abolitionist, while also acknowledging the right of secession. In fact, it was the position of William Lloyd Garrison, the prominent abolitionist, that New England should secede so as not to be in any way affiliated with Southern slavery.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Phinn said:


> That interpretation is a fiction that was invented by Lincoln to justify his position that states could not legally secede.


Fiction invented by Lincoln? After Lincoln offered Robert E. Lee command of the Union Army, Lee wrote his sister a letter in which he said:

_"...in my own person I had to meet the question whether I should take part against my native state. With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I had not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army, and, save in defense of my native state- with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed- I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword."_

And in his letter of resignation to Gen. Scott, Lee wrote:

_"Save in defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword."_

_Personal Reminiscences, Anecdotes, and Letters of Gen. Robert E. Lee_
by John William Jones_._

It sure doesn't sound like the concept of a Southerner feeling more allegiance to his State than the Union was "fiction that was invented by Lincoln." I doubt that Lee was lying to either his sister or Gen. Scott.

Cruiser


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Phinn said:


> That interpretation is a fiction that was invented by Lincoln to justify his position that states could not legally secede.
> 
> It is also a transparent lie, not remotely grounded in historical fact, and in its more detailed explications, is totally non-sensical.
> 
> ...


Virgina Resolution:
"The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.["

In 1819 in _McCulloch v. Maryland_ the Supreme Court held that the Constitution was a social contract created by the people via the Constitutional Convention. The government proceeds from the people and binds the state sovereignties. Therefore, the federal government is supreme, based on the consent of the people. Marshall declares the federal government's overarching supremacy in his statement:
"The people of all the States have created the General Government, and have conferred upon it the general power of taxation. The people of all the States, and the States themselves, are represented in Congress, and, by their representatives, exercise this power. When they tax the chartered institutions of the States, they tax their constituents, and these taxes must be uniform. But when a State taxes the operations of the Government of the United States, it acts upon institutions created not by their own constituents, but by people over whom they claim no control. It acts upon the measures of a Government created by others as well as themselves, for the benefit of others in common with themselves. The difference is that which always exists, and always must exist, between the action of the whole on a part, and the action of a part on the whole -- between the laws of a Government declared to be supreme, and those of a Government which, when in opposition to those laws, is not supreme. _McCulloch v. Maryland, _17 U. S. 316, 436-37 (1819)


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Oh, well, the Supreme Court also said that black people could never be citizens. I guess that's that, then. 

Really bizarre.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

By the way--the Virginia resolution is referring to the actual text of the Constitution, specifically article VII, which reads:



> The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution *between the States* so ratifying the Same.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Oh, well, the Supreme Court also said that black people could never be citizens. I guess that's that, then.
> 
> Really bizarre.


My point was that Lincoln didn't invent the concept that Southerners thought of ourselves as citizens of their states before we were citizens of the country. The Virgina Resolution outlines that belief, written well before Lincoln, and _McCulloch _decided in 1819 was 40 years before the War. After _McCulloch _you have South Carolina passing the Nullification Act of 1832 which sought to oppose a federal tariff favorable to Northern interests at the expense of the South. Oppose by force if necessary. South Carolina also nearly seceded at this time. All this points to the fact that while slavery was a huge issue, it was not the only issue, and was part of a broader ideological struggle.

I don't see what's so bizarre about that.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

charlie500 said:


> All this points to the fact that while slavery was a huge issue, it was not the only issue, and was part of a broader ideological struggle.


fair enough. I have heard variations of the above sentance for my whole life.

can you tell me about other issues of the "ideological struggle" that are not related to slave ownership?

I mean, how come the south, and 2 or 3 new england states, didn't seceed at the same time? or maybe a few of the western territories? how come there was such direct correlation between slave states and a desire, right then and there, to seceed?


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> fair enough. I have heard variations of the above sentance for my whole life.
> 
> can you tell me about other issues of the "ideological struggle" that are not related to slave ownership?
> 
> I mean, how come the south, and 2 or 3 new england states, didn't seceed at the same time? or maybe a few of the western territories? how come there was such direct correlation between slave states and a desire, right then and there, to seceed?


There was the agrarian verus industrialized society issue.

There were tariffs that were harmful to the South and benefited Northern (New England) states.

There was a belief that federal law was not the supreme law of the land and that individual states should be the final arbiter of the law of the state.

There was friction in Congress over what rights the 14th amendment guaranteed individuals within a state.

Slavery permeates all these issues.

As for territories, Texas did secede and Missouri almost seceded.

As for New England states, "copper heads" were for slavery and they had riots in New York over inscription. By and large factories were based in the North so they were less dependant on slave labor for thier economies (although the majority of slave ships sailed out of New England and New England fisheries made fortunes selling salted Cod to Carribean slave colonies, buying sugar in the colonies making rum and trading the rum for more slaves.)

These are only my amatuer thoughts on the subject so take them or leave them.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*Confederate Constitution*

Not saying slavery wasn't an issue, but please read this section taken from the Confederate Constitutions preamble.

"each State acting in its sovereign and independent character"

Pretty much tells me that the South believed this "Federalist" type govt was not for them.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

charlie500 said:


> There was the agrarian verus industrialized society issue.
> 
> There were tariffs that were harmful to the South and benefited Northern (New England) states.
> 
> ...


I would agree with all of these points, but I would enphasise that slavery permates all of these issues.

I think that it is very easy to loose track of the fact that the very base of the whole system was slavery, and slavery as practiced in the americas was truly evil. there are a lot of romantic societes that were based on an evil foundation, but it is very hard to defend them.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> Not saying slavery wasn't an issue, but please read this section taken from the Confederate Constitutions preamble.
> 
> "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character"
> 
> Pretty much tells me that the South believed this "Federalist" type govt was not for them.


From the Southern Historical Society Papers:
"The late civil war which raged in the United States has been very generally attributed to the abolition of slavery as its cause. When we consider how deeply the institutions of southern society and the operations of southern industry were founded in slavery, we must admit that this was cause enough to have produced such a result. But great and wide as was that cause in its far-reaching effects, a close study of the history of the times will bring us to the conclusion that it was the fear of a mischief far more extensive and deeper even than this which drove cool and reflecting minds in the South to believe that it was better to make the death struggle at once than submit tamely to what was inevitable, unless its coming could be averted by force. Men, too old to be driven blindly by passion; women, whose gentle and kindly instincts were deeply impressed by the horrors of war, and young men, with fortune and position yet to be won in an open and inviting field, if peace could be maintained so as to secure the opportunities of liberty and fair treatment, united in the common cause and determined to make a holocaust of all that was dear to them on the altars of war sooner than submit without resentment to the loss of liberty, honor and property by a cruel abuse of power and a breach of plighted faith on the part of those who had professed to enter with them into a union of justice and fraternal affection." .....

Goes on here


----------



## jph712 (Mar 22, 2007)

charlie500 said:


> There was friction in Congress over what rights the 14th amendment guaranteed individuals within a state.


The Recent Unpleasantness couldn't have been fought over any issue with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is wasn't even proposed until 1866, and was not ratified until 1868. The 14th, along with the 13th and 15th Amendments, is/are Reconstruction Amendments.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

jph712 said:


> The Recent Unpleasantness couldn't have been fought over any issue with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is wasn't even proposed until 1866, and was not ratified until 1868. The 14th, along with the 13th and 15th Amendments, is/are Reconstruction Amendments.


So true. I stand corrected. Was there a big rift in Congress over these Amendments which only got passed after representatives from the seceding states lost their vote, or did the Amendments get proposed after the war started?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

13, 14, and 15 are known as the Civil War Amendments. They were all adopted after the Civil War.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

hurling frootmig said:


> This just in . . . It's called the United States of America. I know a lot of people from Chicago who now live in Atlanta and elsewhere in the south. I also know a lot of people who were born in the south who have come to Chicago and other cities in the north.
> 
> How does someone from Alaska have such a hatred of other Americans?


Because I didn't grow up in AK, and I would call myself annoyed rather than hateful.

I'm not quite sure what your point was, but let me rephrase my post... I smile when I see a rebel flag in my hometown because one more unnecessarily uppity northerner, or anyone who respects all cultures except those inferior to his own, turns his nose up and his SUV around.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

SlowE30 said:


> Because I didn't grow up in AK, and I would call myself annoyed rather than hateful.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what your point was, but let me rephrase my post... I smile when I see a rebel flag in my hometown because one more unnecessarily uppity northerner, or anyone who respects all cultures except those inferior to his own, turns his nose up and his SUV around.


I guess the difference between us is that I view myself as an American first. To me the confederate flag represents a failed attempt 140 years ago to maintain a style of life that should not have been maintained and that should never be brought back. It's not about being uppity it is about having an appreciation for all your fellow citizens and all of the laws of this great country. It's also about the realization that the south will not rise again against the rest of the country and that the confederacy was a defeated entity.

I've also had a simple message to those who prefer to fly the confederate flag instead of the flag of the United State of America - go somewhere else. Renounce your birth righted citizenship and leave this country.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

hurling frootmig said:


> I've also had a simple message to those who prefer to fly the confederate flag instead of the flag of the United State of America - go somewhere else. Renounce your birth righted citizenship and leave this country.


I've lived in the South for nearly 60 years and I don't think I've ever known anyone personally who would "prefer to fly the confederate flag instead of the flag of the United States", and that includes those who own Confederate flag memorabilia. Many of these folks served with distinction in the U.S. military. There are a few people who use the Confederate battle flag to promote hate and most of us in the South want nothing to do with them or their misguided views.

One of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War was fought just a few blocks from where I live. The area is dotted with historical sites associated with that battle. Just down the road is a small commerative park situated on the site of the Confederate headquarters and the Confederate battle flag flies over this memorial. I have never heard of one complaint from any citizen, either Black or White, about this flag. It's a part of history and I think everyone recognizes that.

There is also a Confederate cemetery in the community where the Confederate dead were buried. A Confederate flag flies over that piece of ground and it is considered to be just as hallowed and sacred as the U.S. National Cemetery.

There is also a Veteran's Memorial Park in the community that honors all veterans of the County who died in battle in all of our Nation's wars. The Civil War section lists the names of both Union and Confederate soldiers intermixed in alphabetical order.

I spent my career working for the U.S. Government in the area of benefits for veterans. Although they are all gone now, in the early days of my career we were still paying benefits to some surviving spouses of Civil War veterans. The U.S. Government made no distinction between Union widows and Confederate widows with all being paid benefits equally as the widows of Civil War veterans.

Even though I am now retired from the U.S. Government, I continue my work with veteran's in my position with local government. In that capacity I work with veterans and veteran groups from all wars, and I can say that some of our most distinguished combat veterans are also the one's most active in maintaining the community Civil War heritage.

One of my closest friends, a retired Army Colonel who won the Silver Star for heroism in Vietnam, is one of the single most active folks in the community in Civil War matters. He has traced several of his ancestors to distinguished service in the Confederate Army and is very proud of their service. He also spent many years serving as an elected official where he had overwhelming support of the Black community.

Are you suggesting that this decorated war hero who devoted his life to serving this Country should leave because he is proud of his family tree and promotes the local heritage? Are your credentials more noteworthy than his?

With the exception of a few kooks, no one in the South thinks slavery was right or moral. But people in the South also know that their ancestors who fought, and often died, in that conflict did not own slaves and did not see themselves as fighting to preserve slavery. Those simple soldiers saw themselves as defending their homeland much in the same manner that the Revolutionary War soldier saw it when they were fighting for their independence from England. I'm not talking about the political leaders, but the foot soldiers.

If you ask me, and I know that you didn't, some of the things I'm reading here are just as divisive as any Confederate Flag belt buckle I've ever seen. And for what it's worth, I have never owned anything with the Confederate battle flag on it and I get as upset as anyone when it is used to promote hate today.

Cruiser


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> there are large parallels between the south and nazi germany. basically, both societies were based on an evil system. while most southerners were not slave owners, the whole culture and economic structure was based on chattel slavery, which is just as much of an evil as the holocust was. most germans were not involved in the death camps, but the vast majority suported the system that killed off jews, gypsies and the weak. everybody who was part of the culture and the economy of the south was part of the system of slavery. I am sure that most people don't want to think of it that way, but that is the way it is.


And both of their soldiers wore gray! There has to be some kind of award for a post like that. Stupidest post ever?

I suppose you think that making me work for 3 hours a day for the government to redistribute to other people is the good kind of slavery?


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

hurling frootmig said:


> I've also had a simple message to those who prefer to fly the confederate flag instead of the flag of the United State of America - go somewhere else. Renounce your birth righted citizenship and leave this country.


1. Isn't that what they tried to do? So you support Southern Secession?

2. Its xenophobic comments like that that are the scourge of our nation. Its like the racist pricks who made my family feel that speaking their language (Italian) was wrong, forcing them to give it up, leaving my child without a linguistoc heritage.

Just because someone flies a different flag doesn't mean they don't love America. That kind of xenophobia just makes us stupider as a nation.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> there are large parallels between the south and nazi germany


Globetrotter, since the thread has already been Godwinned, I now have no reservation about mentioning the following.

I suppose you would consider Hitler's _Mein Kampf_ an authoritative source of Nazi political phiosophy, yes?

The question in 1860 was whether:

(a) the several States were originally sovereign and had, in their capacity as States, formed the Union (and were thus residually sovereign and could legally secede), or

(b) under Lincoln's twisted theory (referenced above by charlie500), that the Union came first, was a direct creation of "the people" and thus the States were dependent on the Union for their very existence and authority, and thus could not secede, but were merely subdivisions of a consolidated American nation.

Here's what Hitler himself had to say in _Mein Kampf_ about Lincoln, the Confederacy, and this question of sovereignty:



> [T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Hitler's view on this historical subject was not, of course, academic. He had plans to complete what Bismarck had started -- the consolidation of state power into a centralized German nation. The sovereignty of the several German states was a major obstacle to his objectives.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The question in 1860 was whether:
> 
> (a) the several States were originally sovereign and had, in their capacity as States, formed the Union (and were thus residually sovereign and could legally secede), or
> 
> ...


the only reason that the southern states wanted to suceed was over slavery. yes, there were other issues, but all of those other issues were related to slavery. so, yes, several other movements were afoot at the same time, in italy, in germany and elsewhere, that supported the idea of centralized federal states. but that is a minor issue. the main issue is - should a society be based of the extreme suffering of a subgroup of that society?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> the main issue is - should a society be based of the extreme suffering of a subgroup of that society?


If that were the North's actual motivation for invading and conquering the separatist territories, their actions might be slightly less atrocious.

But let's see what Lincoln had to say about his reason for preventing secession:



> I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
> 
> Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
> 
> Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter, that's really something. You know, in Europe, some people were saying that what the North was doing to immigrants and other workers was basing a society on "the extreme suffering of a subgroup of that society." 

So I guess you're going to lump the USA and other capitalist countries in, too, right? What is it with you and the commie stuff?


----------



## mandatory (Jun 2, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> You can see this on a micro-level in high school cafeterias. Even in racially mixed schools. I taught in a school in NJ that was about 30% African American and white and black students rarely sat together at lunch time. It was very odd to me.


Why is it odd? People feel more comfortable around people that look like them. That's why more homogeneous societies are more stable and the people more trusting of one another than diverse ones. Countries such as Iceland, Japan, Sweden (although this is changing with an immigration influx), Finland, etc rank amongst the most stable in the world.

I grew up in New England but I live in Tennessee. Racism certainly still exists but it goes both ways. In Nashville, if you just take even a quick glance at the violent crime statistics one will see that racism is hardly a White thing. Just recently here a Russian immigrant was shot for $3 at a pizza place... when these senseless crimes happen it's almost always a Black who is the offender. It was much easier to be a "we're all the same liberal" living in 100% White Vermont where you didn't see the senseless crime.

And to be quite honest, for those that live in a more 'diverse' area and have become accustomed to having to be a bit more on guard because of the crime... they subconsciously (whether they want to admit it or not) exhibit various tendencies that the liberals today would scream 'racist' at when they're, in fact, just being safe.



johnm said:


> I think that tells a lot about how far we've come. Racism is around but if we want to improve life for minorities the fight doesn't lie with racism, it lies in improving their economic status and social conditions in their own communities.


Can we stop using the term 'minorities'?

White people are like <12% of the world's population; where-as the populations of Africa, Asia, etc are booming.

Hell, the U.S was something like 90% White in the 1970s and now due to massive uncontrolled immigration, it's around 60%.



johnm said:


> It was a brief talk but she described it as being so race blind that those in the majority ignore the added opportunities they have because of their heritage and discount additional obstacles minorities face. It would be failing to recognize that past and potentially current racism benefits you today even if you aren't actively a bigot yourself.


I would say 'minorities' in the U.S are given incredible opportunities compared to elsewhere in the world or they would not be streaming in to the U.S and Europe.

Groups such as African-Americans have a much higher standard of living, more privileges, and live in a much more prosperous society than in any country with a Black majority.

I always laugh when people act like they have it so tough, compared to what many in the world live in -- they don't know what tough is.


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> 1. Isn't that what they tried to do? So you support Southern Secession?
> 
> 2. Its xenophobic comments like that that are the scourge of our nation. Its like the racist pricks who made my family feel that speaking their language (Italian) was wrong, forcing them to give it up, leaving my child without a linguistoc heritage.
> 
> Just because someone flies a different flag doesn't mean they don't love America. That kind of xenophobia just makes us stupider as a nation.


1 - It's not what they tried to do. My suggestion is that they leave the country . . . literally as they get out of this country.

2 - There's nothing xenophobic in my comments. You can speak as many languages as you choose. The United States of America does not have an official language so it's up to the individual to speak whatever language they wish. Most of the country speaks some form of American English. I believe it makes sense for people who wish to assimilate into this country to make every effort to learn the language that is used by the most people. I also think all of us should make some effort to learn some Spanish as it is also a rather popular language in this country.

3 - I didn't say that people have to fly the American flag to love this country. What I said was that I have no respect for those who choose to fly any flag above the American flag. By all means, fly an Italian flag but follow the proper American etiquette and make sure that it never flies higher than the American flag.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> If that were the North's actual motivation for invading and conquering the separatist territories, their actions might be slightly less atrocious.
> 
> But let's see what Lincoln had to say about his reason for preventing secession:


no, obviously the motivation for the war was to keep the union together. but the motivation for taking the union apart was slavery.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> globetrotter, that's really something. You know, in Europe, some people were saying that what the North was doing to immigrants and other workers was basing a society on "the extreme suffering of a subgroup of that society."
> 
> So I guess you're going to lump the USA and other capitalist countries in, too, right? What is it with you and the commie stuff?


PT, if you can compare the atlantic slave trade to a new england mill you are a sick puppy.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> PT, if you can compare the atlantic slave trade to a new england mill you are a sick puppy.


They didn't call it "wage slavery" for nothing. You on the other hand compared slavery to the holocaust. How's that for hyperbole?


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Southerners are funny.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jpeirpont said:


> Southerners are funny.


A bit insecure, aren't you?


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> They didn't call it "wage slavery" for nothing. You on the other hand compared slavery to the holocaust. How's that for hyperbole?


not hyperbole at all. believe me, there is very little I would compare to the holocust, but the atlantic slave trade is as great as evil as the holocust. pop by the library some time, read about it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> not hyperbole at all. believe me, there is very little I would compare to the holocust, but the atlantic slave trade is as great as evil as the holocust. pop by the library some time, read about it.


Looks you're the one who needs to visit a library. And what exactly does the "Atlantic slave trade" have to do with the South, circa the 1860s, anyway?


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> A bit insecure, aren't you?


A bit pathetic, aren't you?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jpeirpont said:


> A bit pathetic, aren't you?


No, I don't think so. Get over it. I can talk about the Italians without being an ass about it, and they did a lot worse to my people than the South ever did to yours.

Go back and read your posts in this thread. If you're not going to say anything--then don't post.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> No, I don't think so. Get over it. I can talk about the Italians without being an ass about it, and they did a lot worse to my people than the South ever did to yours.
> 
> Go back and read your posts in this thread. If you're not going to say anything--then don't post.


Have you no conscious? With every post you make yourself look a bit dumber, which in your case is quite hard.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Looks you're the one who needs to visit a library. And what exactly does the "Atlantic slave trade" have to do with the South, circa the 1860s, anyway?


my statement was that the whole sytem of the south - social, economic, political, was based on a huge evil. there was no part of southern life that wasn't related to and based on slavery. and that that slavery was as evil as the holocust.

I will say something about that that I have mentioned in discussions about the holocust - I don't think that the people of the south were as active participants in the evil as the germans were in the holocust, but the system was just as evil. (and that is a very minor distingtion.


----------



## mandatory (Jun 2, 2008)

globetrotter said:


> my statement was that the whole sytem of the south - social, economic, political, was based on a huge evil. there was no part of southern life that wasn't related to and based on slavery. and that that slavery was as evil as the holocust.


What 'system' are you talking about?

The South cira-Civil War error and NS-era Germany were two completely different political systems.

The Germans sought to remove the Jews from positions of power in Germany and have them leave the country so they could fulfill their goal of having a homogeneous German nation-state.

The United States around the Civil War was (and still is) a democracy but several states allowed slavery.

It was the British who were progressive in that they actively sought to rid the world of slavery. In fact, in the scheme of things, the U.S participation in the slave trade was rather low when compared to the British, the Portuguese and the Spanish. Hell, slavery still exists in Africa and existed before European explorers purchased people from warring tribes on the West African coast. And, of course, slavery still exists and is widespread in Africa today.

I don't understand how one could draw parallel to the South circa-Civil War and Nazi Germany. There aren't any similarities. And quite frankly, globetrotter writes like an uneducated 11th grader who is simply regurgitating whatever propaganda he is learning in his world history class.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

There is a scene in an episode of The Simpsons where Apu is taking his citizenship test. He is asked the question "What was the cause of the Civil War?" He begins to explain that there were actually several causes, social, political and economic, when the man giving him the test interrupts him and says "Just say slavery." 

For some people, this is all they can understand: The war was about slavery. The North were the good guys, the South were the bad guys. 

Trying to explain that it was actually much, much more complicated than all that only confuses these people. It's best not to try (I also learned that from The Simpsons.)


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Terpoxon said:


> There is a scene in an episode of The Simpsons where Apu is taking his citizenship test. He is asked the question "What was the cause of the Civil War?" He begins to explain that there were actually several causes, social, political and economic, when the man giving him the test interrupts him and says "Just say slavery."
> 
> For some people, this is all they can understand: The war was about slavery. The North were the good guys, the South were the bad guys.
> 
> Trying to explain that it was actually much, much more complicated than all that only confuses these people. It's best not to try (I also learned that from The Simpsons.)


But it is that simple. The people of the south based their economy and culture on a huge evil. They wanted to beak away from the union because they felt that the rest of the union would, eventually try to force them to end this huge evil. That is pretty much all there is to it. Everything else is window dressing.

Look, so some of your great great grandparents were indirectly involved in something pretty horrific. So what? Why go to such lengths to try to hide it? If you go back far enough, many of our anscestors did pretty horrific things. We don't need to put so much effort into rewritting history to protect their honor.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

....Motoring through the village recently. Four way stop. Opposite, a compact car with the entire hood painted as what is commonly referred to as the Confederate flag. Also, front license plate frame ensconced matching rebel flag. Groaned inwardly. One of rgrossicone's stereotypes, methinks. Glanced leftward as encountering and noted the driver as a very dark hued gentleman. Truth stranger than fiction in the "new south"....


----------



## tantive4 (Oct 2, 2007)

Why do folks get bent out of shape by the "Battle Flag" but have virtually no opinion on the "Stars and Bars"? I attended Marion Military Institute for my first two years of College, where the Stars and Bars originated (the city of Marion, AL), so it adorns the city water tower.

Organizations like the NAACP (and others) have gone crazy over the fact that Mississippi and at one time Georgia had incorporated the Battle Flag into their state flags, or that it flew above the state house in South Carolina (when's the last time anyone here has been to the original Piggy Park in Columbia?!!!). But no one cares about the Stars and Bars. Does anyone see any resemblence between the Stars and Bars (the offical Flag of the CSA) and the new flag of the State of Geogia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

The Stars and Bars and the Battle Flag, to me, represent a region of our Country, everything south of the Mason-Dixon, including Maryland (where my mother's family has been residing for 300 years). If someone has one on their car, they're most likely labeled a racist or someone holding on to an archiact past. What about folks from England living in the United States who fly Union Jacks on their car? How many times have you driven around town and seen someone fly a Puerto Rican flag from their rear-view mirror or bumper? Do they automatically belong to some "group" of people who hate America and should renounce their citizenship (if their a citizen)?

Are people offended by the Battle Flag because out-lying organizations and groups use it as a symbol or that other organizations and groups tell us that it is a symbol of hate.

I'm a Southern man, born in Savannah, and who has lived in the South most of my life. I didn't know racism until I was ten years old when the Army PCS'd our family from Columbia, SC back to Germany for a second time. I was accosted by two African American students in my class on my first day of school in Germany who wanted to "beat my cracker a$$" (the two students happen to have been from NY). Before that I had spent five years in Columbia, only hearing the "n" word once, and the student that said it got more than an earful from my third grade teacher. I didn't know racism, all while growing up in a State who flew the flag on top of their State Capitol and every year in school touted our "Southern Heritage" as we took a flied trip to the State House and meet state leaders.

For the record, I don't have a "Confederate" flag on my car, but I do have a "Gadsden" flag, which I have no problem with affixed to the back of my vehicle. Oh, and in a month I'm marrying a beautiful woman who was born in Puerto Rico and whom I love teasing when every I see a PR flag on a car. She absolutely refuses to have one anywhere near her beloved Jeep Wrangler.

I know now that my post is a little incoherient, espeically since I only wanted to pose the question about the "Battle Flag" vs. the "Stars and Bars". Sorry if I got a little off topic.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

mandatory said:


> What 'system' are you talking about?
> 
> The South cira-Civil War error and NS-era Germany were two completely different political systems.
> 
> ...


this is a great thread. any of you who are in love with the old shouth - remember that you are on the side of this knuckle dragger. that should make you feel proud.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

tantive4 said:


> I know now that my post is a little incoherient, espeically since I only wanted to pose the question about the "Battle Flag" vs. the "Stars and Bars".


I specifically used the term "Battle Flag" in my post yesterday to see if anyone would comment. They didn't. My guess is that 999 out of 1000 people would not recognize the Confederate National Flag (the Stars and Bars) and would instead think that the Battle Flag was the Confederate flag.

Cruiser


----------



## tantive4 (Oct 2, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I specifically used the term "Battle Flag" in my post yesterday to see if anyone would comment.


I did notice that in the OP, and actually that's sort of my point. I would think that the Stars and Bars would represent the CSA, and that the preception people have about the "Battle Flag" really isn't of the CSA, but the hate people and organizations have pushed.

There were many flags that flew in the South during the Civil war, many of which I believe better represent Southern Heritage and the South as a region more, including the Stars and Bars and the Bonnie Blue.

With out going on and on, I really see the "Battle Flag" as a perpetual rebellion against reconstruction (of which no one still alive ever experienced), there are still places I've lived where anyone who comes down from above the Mason-Dixon is still labeled a carpetbagger.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jpeirpont said:


> Have you no conscious? With every post you make yourself look a bit dumber, which in your case is quite hard.


Gotta watch that spellchecker, bud.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And, no, I'm not going to cut you any slack. It doesn't give you license to be a bigot or a nuisance.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Gotta watch that spellchecker, bud.


Ha, that's your refuge. My friend I have no need for you to cut me any slack. No one here takes you serious, so your ad homs will continue to slide right off of me. But you can keep giving it the good ol' college try ic12337:


----------

