Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Re
He's got Marty Feldman eyes.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
South Carolina, tear down that flag!
- Thread starter Alferd_Packer
- Start date
He's got Marty Feldman eyes.
A very thoughtful and correct post. What really pisses me off about this thread is that there are so many who are ignorant about the several complicated causes of the War for Southern Independence. It was not a simple issue of slavery or not, it was much more complicated and involves years of academic study to understand that.
Being one who's ancestry is from a border State. My paternal xxxxGrandfather's and their brother all were on the Federal side, while my maternal xxxGrandfather's and their kin fought for the Confederacy. NONE, of them on either side were slave holders. I guess the one who joined the Confederacy at age 42, was captured twice, severely wounded, lost three children while he was away owed some allegiance to the Southern slave holders?
A further point is that, of course, I did not know any of these folks, but I did know their descendants. The descendants of the Federally aligned ones were some of the worst racists that ever walked the face of the earth, but the Confederacy aligned descendants were not. For all of the ignorant idiots screaming racism charges at a whim need to put that into their pipe and smoke it...
By the way, I am not defending the Confederacy and I don't give a **** about the Confederate Battle Flag, but the reaction nationally and here has been over the top and unwarranted regarding a piece of history that won't ever be erased no matter how hard so called "progressives" try. Deal with it and move on...
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
That's called shifting the burden. You made the claim that abolitionists were in the minority in the north. I want to know what your claim is based on and if it included the opinions of women and black people or just of those who could vote at the time. I don't know, but I'd wager those are two vastly different numbers.
For someone complaining about moral relativism, you're bound and determined to re-write history to fit your opinion and downplay the moral positions of others. In 1864, Lincoln did, indeed, run on an abolition platform as part of his re-election.
Presidents are not officially part of the amendment process, but it would be untrue to say he did not work to promote the Thirteenth Amendment. From the same link as above:
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Whether he "owed" it or not, he gave it. The Confederacy was created by slaveholders for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. People who fought at their behest or urging, were lending their lives to further that cause. There was no other reason for anyone in any state to actually take up arms against the national government.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
No one is trying to erase that shameful aspect of our history. The objection is to official state entities glorifying it.
Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
As Checkmite said, "owed" is not important, he gave allegiance to the Confederates, and their express purpose for seceding from the US and starting the war was white supremacy and black slavery. That is literally what they wrote and what they said. The so-called fire-eaters, in particular, were eager to begin a war, thinking that the other slaveholding states would also join the confederacy. Whether or not one soldier or another specifically owned slaves does not change this fact - however, I would note the immediate, widespread Black codes, and terrorist groups that sprung up soon after the confederacy lost the war, as evidence that white supremacy was indeed a common view in the south (and yes, it was also common outside of the south).
Problem is, it isn't the modern "progressives" that are trying to erase the past - they're trying to preserve it in the face of Lost Cause nonsense.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Whipping, beating, hobbling, lynching, raping, separating families, these demonstrated plainly the dehumanizing aspects of slavery.
!! NSFW !!
The following is a letter written by the man who is the name sake of the word "lynching".
Willie Lynch letter: The Making of a Slave
Lynch and others like him insured that many if not most whites would truly and sincerely believe that whites were superior to blacks.
Thank you for reminding us just how horrific it was
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I know. Last time I did that without warning and a spoiler I got a yellow card. Though to be fair I also posted a photo of a lynching.
IMO: We gloss over the horrors of slavery far too easily. The human mind has a way of putting the past in blurred perspective and it all becomes something "bad". No, it was horrific. Why the hell does anyone want a confederate flag? I accept that it is in my nations history. I respect the first Amendment and the right of people two own a flag. I'm concerned with PC.
However, I do wish individuals would stop venerating the icon as it does in fact also represent the horrors we are talking about.
Last edited:
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Hold on, are you claiming that support for slavery was not waning in the north? That is the trajectory I am saying (that Meadmaker is ignoring).
Are you under the impression that Grant is the only person who lived in the north?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
That may be the most disgusting thing I have ever read, and I couldn't bring myself to finish it.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I couldn't either. Still, it is heritage so it's got that going for it.
Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
I...can't let this particular one slide: the Willie Lynch letter is actually almost certainly fake.
This is not to say that slavery was not horrific, but only that this particular document is not actually from when it is purported to be.
ETA: Here's a link to various narratives by former slaves collected by the WPA at the Library of Congress. You can still find some pretty horrible stuff in here.
This is not to say that slavery was not horrific, but only that this particular document is not actually from when it is purported to be.
ETA: Here's a link to various narratives by former slaves collected by the WPA at the Library of Congress. You can still find some pretty horrible stuff in here.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Of course support for slavery was waning in the north. It was waning in the south, too, just waning a lot more slowly. It hadn't waned yet, though. Lincoln didn't run as an abolitionist, and if he had, he would have lost. (Note to Upchurch: Yes, I mean in 1860, not 1864.) Even in 1864, after four years of bloody civil war, with victory in sight, McClellan, who opposed abolition, still got 45% of the vote, which of course included only the northern and border states.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Who said I was complaining?
SezMe
post-pre-born
plague311
Great minds think...
Could there be any other reason for that? Was tat the only stance he took on positions facing the nation? Was he offering anything else that people would possibly want that Abraham Lincoln was not? Could the nation have had enough of the war, and wanted out of it?
Sorry, I'm a fan of context, and you've parroted the 45% stat a few times. Could you possibly put it in some form of context? It's easy to say "he opposed abolition and got 45% of the vote", but I feel like a piece or two are
missing.
ETA: Looking it over and it appears that Lincoln only lost the popular vote in 3 states. Delaware, New Jersey and Kentucky. So while the popular vote was close overall, Lincoln still won all but 3 states out of 25. Going 22 for 25 is a pretty impressive sweep.
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
This segment about racism and/or support for slavery in the north is interesting to me.
Would the South seem less demonic if it is understood that the North was also racist, and had strong support for slavery?
I was among those who brought up the subject, so I suppose I'll weigh in on it. No, they wouldn't, but it does help to establish the context of the times. The United States supported slavery at its founding, and continued to do so right up until the Civil War. The southern states seceded because they could see the trend that was developing, and knew that sooner or later, and probably sooner, northerners would push for abolition, so they got out.
Several people have pointed to the South Carolina articles of secession as proof that secession was about slavery. That is quite correct. Slavery is all over that document. However, there is another thing that is just as prominent, but not as frequently pointed out. The Constitutional obligations of northern states is all over that document. At several places, it cites the Constitution itself to support the legitimacy of slavery, and to note that the north wasn't pulling its end of the bargain. It also noted, correctly, that the Constitution was set up as a federation of independent nations (i.e. states), and that it was the intent that the government of South Carolina would determine how things went in South Carolina. They feared that the government in Washington would unconstitutionally force abolition on the southern states, so they quit.
That doesn't make their position any more moral, but that spin was important even at the time. It was what enabled leaders to say with a straight face that they were simply defending the rights or sovereignty of South Carolina as opposed to, ya know, just wanting to continue to own people. "Northern tyranny" just makes a catchier slogan.
Another minor quibble that brings up. It's not anything wrong, but it's spin related. An awful lot of people talk about the South's willingness to go to war over the issue of slavery. That's true, but the tone is somewhat misleading. It makes it sound like the Confederacy wanted war. Of course, they didn't. They wanted to stay peaceful and happy as slave states. Of course, when push came to shove, and the northern states made it clear that they were willing to go to war to reestablish the Union, the southern states made it clear that they were willing to go to war to prevent it.
Would the South seem less demonic if it is understood that the North was also racist, and had strong support for slavery?
I was among those who brought up the subject, so I suppose I'll weigh in on it. No, they wouldn't, but it does help to establish the context of the times. The United States supported slavery at its founding, and continued to do so right up until the Civil War. The southern states seceded because they could see the trend that was developing, and knew that sooner or later, and probably sooner, northerners would push for abolition, so they got out.
Several people have pointed to the South Carolina articles of secession as proof that secession was about slavery. That is quite correct. Slavery is all over that document. However, there is another thing that is just as prominent, but not as frequently pointed out. The Constitutional obligations of northern states is all over that document. At several places, it cites the Constitution itself to support the legitimacy of slavery, and to note that the north wasn't pulling its end of the bargain. It also noted, correctly, that the Constitution was set up as a federation of independent nations (i.e. states), and that it was the intent that the government of South Carolina would determine how things went in South Carolina. They feared that the government in Washington would unconstitutionally force abolition on the southern states, so they quit.
That doesn't make their position any more moral, but that spin was important even at the time. It was what enabled leaders to say with a straight face that they were simply defending the rights or sovereignty of South Carolina as opposed to, ya know, just wanting to continue to own people. "Northern tyranny" just makes a catchier slogan.
Another minor quibble that brings up. It's not anything wrong, but it's spin related. An awful lot of people talk about the South's willingness to go to war over the issue of slavery. That's true, but the tone is somewhat misleading. It makes it sound like the Confederacy wanted war. Of course, they didn't. They wanted to stay peaceful and happy as slave states. Of course, when push came to shove, and the northern states made it clear that they were willing to go to war to reestablish the Union, the southern states made it clear that they were willing to go to war to prevent it.