THE BIG MESSY THREAD--Discussion of the Civil War and its relations to FIREFLY by SouthernMerc

I'm so much like a moth is to a flame, it's not even funny.

How important slavery was to the Civil War depended on where you stood. The French and British made it abundantly clear that they would not help a country that supported slavery. When the Emancipation Proclamation took effect January 1, 1863, it effectively ended the South's dreams of foreign intervention. Gen. Lee hoped that by winning a victory on Northern soil, France and England would (at least) petition the Union to cease hostilities, but England and France had completely left the South in the lurch after the Emancipation Proclamation was made public. The Battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863) would not have resulted in a southern independence, even if Gen Lee did win the battle.

The South seceded for a great number of reasons, but they will never tell you that slavery was one of them. Actually, the Confederate constitution was a carbon copy of the Union constitution. The only difference is one or two sentences that guarantee the right to own slaves. That's not to say that EVERYONE in the South was fighting for slavery. Only 1/4 of the population owned slaves and 1/5 of that number owned more than two (McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom(?)). But it does show that the top 5% of the population, the law makers and the newspaper publishers, owned slaves, and it is usually poor people who fight a rich man's war.

The North was complete torn over slavery. Abolitionist newspaper headquarters were burnt to the ground and people were rioting over the Emancipation Proclamation. It wasn't as clear cut as Aboltion against Slavery. Lincoln was elected not on the abolition ticket, he was only elected to keep slavery out of the territories. North and South, there were Civil Wars raging inside Civil Wars.

There is nothing to suggest that the Civil War in Firefly was slavery driven or not. There is slavery in the 'verse. But we can't even be sure that it is condoned by the Alliance or Independence or neither. Does anyone have anymore info on Firefly's slavery?

There is so much more that I could say on the subject, but this is a post, not a thesis, and I am at work!

C'mon, Veteren! Where are you?

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:22 AM

OUTLAWTEXAN

The question whether the Civil War (for purposes of simplicity, I will use that term, although a strong case can be made that it is an inaccurate one) was “fought over slavery” is often a very misleading one. It leads one into a fallacious “either-or” scenario; either the War was fought over slavery, or it was not. While slavery was, of course, an issue, it has become the over-riding one in the grammar- and high-school educations most Americans have received. The total causes of the Civil War are much too numerous and involved to really go into here in much depth.

As JohnnyReb mentioned, the vast majority of those who actually did the fighting were not fighting over slavery, while some -- not all -- of the politicians were more concerned over it. As sad and reprehensible as it may be -- and I’m actually about to bring this around to Firefly here -- the majority of the white population at the time simply did not care one way or the other about the slaves. Now, before I get flamed here, yes, there were many who did care very passionately, one way or the other, but most people had their own problems to deal with. This seems to be the way the Alliance looks at “indenturing,” they just don’t care.

I will restrain my natural, Unreconstructed ire regarding Reconstruction, but it bears mentioning. Yes, the Southern states were treated abysmally during that period. Many of the measures were unfair, excessive, and plain illegal -- such as the proscription against any Confederate soldier who was even accused of being a guerilla fighter was proscribed from even owning property. Many of the other excesses were not done by the government per se, but were at least tacitly approved of. The “State Police Force” in Texas during Reconstruction springs to mind. There is some evidence to show that, had Lincoln not been assassinated, Reconstruction would have taken a different form, but I’m not wholly convinced. It does not seem that the Alliance treats the former Independents quite this badly, but I’m not sure. Mal clearly has forged paperwork regarding Serenity, although it is unclear whether he is unable -- for whatever reason -- to legally own the ship, or if it is just to make his not-quite-legal shipping easier.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head, likely someone or other here can point out any errors I might have made -- I think much faster than I type -- or, at the very least, have some other views. Always willing to discuss the Civil War when it can be done in a civil manner... ;’)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:25 AM

Southernmerc, OutlawTexan, JohnnyReb? he he he When are we going to hear from Lincoln347?

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:42 AM

CPTBUCK25

As an Iowa boy, I'd just like to throw out the observation of a 'Northerner'. In school, slavery was what was mostly focused on during discussions of the Civil War, though I do recall something about economics also playing a major part. I'd love to hear about some of the other causes of the war (whatever you want to call it) as I think they might better pertain to FireFly than slavery, which is all we ever really hear about in High School up here.

All about the history!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:04 PM

SHINY

Quote:
Originally posted by JOHNNYREB:
There is nothing to suggest that the Civil War in Firefly was slavery driven or not. There is slavery in the 'verse. But we can't even be sure that it is condoned by the Alliance or Independence or neither. Does anyone have anymore info on Firefly's slavery?

The only mention of slaves I can recall is in the beginning of Shindig ( http://firefly.shriftweb.org/scripts/106.shtml):

MAL
Still, might ought to clear out before too much
longer. Seems there's a thief about.

INARA
A thief?

MAL
Took this right off him.
(Mal hands Inara a wad of cash.)
Now they earned that with the sweat of their
slave-trading brows.

As to the question of the historical causes of the war and what we learn in school, all I remember is that in my high school (in CA) my teacher said that he would bite the head off of any student that said the Civil War was fought over slavery, but saying it was fought over the expansion of slavery into the territories was OK (an oversimplification but much closer to the truth -- there was a power struggle between the industrializing north and the agricultural south, and the latter needed to ensure they wouldn't get outvoted in congress and have their labor supply taken away from them, so they needed to at least maintain parity with the north, and wanted some of the new territories that were to become states to allow/protect the slave practice.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:00 PM

I hail from the North, too (Massachusetts). My high school teacher told us that the Civil War was fought for states rights, but never expanded on what "states rights" meant. (He purposefully ignored my questions about the Civil War, I think. The Civil War was my undisputed forte.)

When we say the South was agricultural and the North was industrial, we kinda shrug and think that goes without saying. Consider though, that New York had more miles of railroad than the entire Confederacy put together; that one street in Lowell, Massachusetts had more wool and cotton spinners than the entire Confederacy; that Cotton was THE export of the South with negligible exceptions, and it starts to all come into focus. Their economies were as different as two economies could be. Here's were states' rights comes into it...

Whenever anything came to congress for legislation, neither the North nor the South could agree that law was fair. If the North wanted tariffs on foreign manufactured goods to boost its economy, the South thought it was unfair because that would mean they were chained to a northern controlled monopoly. If the South wanted laws passed to make export of cotton easier for English factories, the North cried unfair because they would have to compete with Europe's prices. If the South wanted to expand slavery into the territories, the North cried unfair because that meant that there could possibly more Southern senators in congress calling the shots. If the North tried to keep the South from bringing slaves into the territories, the South shouted unfair because, many times before, the South was promised popular sovereignty, territories below Misourri, etc. and each time the North renegged on the compromise THEY offered. States rights meant that each state had the right to tend to each state's business without congressional interference. Later it came to mean each state's right to secede from the Union. If they volunteered to be part of the Union, why couldn't they un-volunteer? That is what was meany by states' rights.

Unrelated, there is a scene in "Serenity" where Badger checks a woman's teeth like she was a horse before he motions her away and tells Mal he won't pay him. If Badger is dealing slaves, it may or may not be legal in the 'verse.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

First a comment to a seemingly forgotten bit of history that has some impact and importance.

Eli Whitney.

The cotton gin made slavery economically less viable, therefore adding to the pressure to end the practice.

But ironically, the more important invention of Whitney was standardised armament, which gave a significant logistics edge to the Union.

Two facts that for political reasons, don't seem to be in the history books any more - and might be useful in further discussion.

Oh, yeah, and there was also the Agro vs Industry/Economy factors that lead up to war - can't forget that.

=============================================
Now this is a bit of crackpot pyschology, and by no means a professional analysis, but understanding the mindset at work here seems to be critical in discussing this, so forgive me this bit, ok ?
And if you can do better than this Taxi-pusher ?
PLEASE do... I am a cabbie, not a shrink.
==============================================

As a farmer/rancher from Shadow, Mal was in the same situation many folk in the south felt they were, war came to him unwanted, unbidden, and he quickly went from fighting for something he kinda believed in, to fighting for his very survival.

His beliefs against the Alliance aren't rooted in faith in his own side of things, so much as a bitter grudge against being caught in such a position and then mistreated by one if not both sides.

In a war, only a small percentage of folks really want violence, the greater part of them just want the shooting to stop so they can go home and harvest before the crops go bad, but over time, in that situation, a person comes to "blame" the other side for their troubles, and while they maybe have a point, that's usually when things get pretty ugly, because a man with nothing to lose and a heavy grudge is a pretty dangerous fellow.

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:52 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Eli Whitney.

The cotton gin made slavery economically less viable, therefore adding to the pressure to end the practice.

Actually, the cotton gin made the slave economy more viable. Until the cotton gin was available, removing seeds from the cotton was the most labor intensive part of producing cotton. Here's an excerpt from a from a civil war website http://www.swcivilwar.com/index.htm

Quote:
The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all.

I beleive that the differentiation of northern and southern based on the industrialization of the north is exaggerated. I've seen Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Brooklyn, New York that show most of Second Avenue occuppied by a Dairy Farm as late as 1895. That's thirty years after the Civil War ended.

The North did not need the south as a breadbasket, it had plenty of farms. The difference was that northern farms primarily produced food, southern plantations produced cotton, food, and sugar. Sugar and Cotton were cash crops. The North did not have a cash crop, it depended on industry for cash. The problem with industry is that in needs markets. The North needed the South as a Market for finished goods. The South needed finished goods, but Europe produced them more cheaply than the North.

Here's the rub, the Southern economy was propped up by (subsidized by the free labor of)slavery. The North had no such advantage (not to say that factory workers were well paid), so Northern political representatives resorted to Tariffs to level the playing field between Norhtern and European factories.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:28 PM

Good posts all. No hateful comments, no snide remarks. I'd say that worry was unfounded (course now we will get about a hundred flame posts, gotta learn to stop jinxing my own thread).

My take on the slavery bit, since I am quite sure someone is wondering. Slavery as an issue wasn't thought of as ideology, but economy. Some people did have very strong ideological views on the subject, but they were not in the majority. I simply have a hard time believing the all white government suddenly started caring about slavery. Money, on the other hand, they would care about. It wasn't until much later in the war that it was used politically to remove support from the South. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that emancipation was the best thing to come out of those dark times. Quick side question, was the proclamation legal (was it passed through congress)?

On the subject of slavery in the 'verse: Badger does inspect that one girl's teeth, and a reference is made to "indenturing". Indenturing sounds somewhat legal to me though, as though there is an official procedure or stance on it. Can someone with the episodes take a look and post a comment on that? As for Badger's inspection, slavery is still going on today. It is quite illegal, but there is still slave trade happening around the world, even in the USA (How's that for a fun thought?). So Badger could be into the illegal form of slavery, or he could just be checking out a new girl for prostitution (lookee, another fun thought).

First day of thread down, and it's looking good. I'm learning some interesting things here while talking about my favorite show. Let's keep those posts coming!

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:00 PM

Quick note: Jubal Early was a Confederate general. Wonder how this relates to the character on FF?

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 2:29 AM

A few quick thoughts:

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't legal. It wasn't a law, it was Lincoln proclaiming this is so. Not that the people in the North cared, it only affected the states in open rebellion. Maryland, Kentucky, Lousiana (by that point), and West Virginia all got to keep their slaves. All the other southern states lost them. How Lincoln proposed to take them away when the North couldn't win and battles in the eastern theater is anyone's guess.

The cotton gin made the South's economy viable. I think Fremdfirma misused the word. (It happens to the best of us!

) I'm sure Frem didn't mean to say that the cotton gin undermined the sothern economy.

Jubal Early was a distant relation of Nathan Fillion's. That is how they came to use the name, not because of any qualities Early posessed. (Actually, wasn't it Early who blew it for Lee at Gettysburg?)

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 3:17 AM

OUTLAWTEXAN

Just a few thoughts on various things pointed out in the thread -- please forgive my laziness in not pointing out exactly who said which one...

Historically, "indentured servant" and "slave" have often largely become the same thing. Yes, there is meant to be a difference, but that difference often gets lost in implementation. That being the case, I'm still unsure which version is used in the FF 'verse.

Now, having made at least a small point relevant to the show, I can rant a bit... ;')

The modern teaching of the Civil War being about slavery is largely a case of political correctness, in my opinion. I think a good case can be made that slavery was dying out, even in the Cotton States -- at least two plans for gradual emancipation were put before Congress by Southern legislators, which were largely disregarded on political grounds (the view of some controlling Northern legislators that if it's Southern, it must be bad).

Additionally, some Southerners were beginning to realize that slavery was simply not as cost-effective as hiring free labor -- free labor only has to be paid during the harvest season, while slaves have to be cared for throughout the year. And these slaves were, in the vast majority, well cared for. They were expensive property, after all. (No, I am not condoning the practice, just pointing out the prevailing view at the time.)

Again, this is opinion, but I tend to think that had the Confederacy survived, emancipation would have still taken place, just a bit later. Robert E. Lee, had he lived long enough, would have very likely become the President after Jefferson Davis, and Lee was against the practice of slavery.

To bring this back around to FF again, not knowing more about the prevailing economic systems in place, it's really hard to say much about their version of slavery -- if that is, indeed, what is happening. On cattle ranches, for instance, slavery was not used in this country for much beyond personal servants (I think this may have been somewhat different in Brazil, which did not emancipate its' slaves until well after we did). That form of labor was simply less useful, so it was unlikely that Mal had much contact with the practice before the war.

Mal does not seem especially fond of the idea, considering his reaction in the pilot when River was discovered, although this could have been just as easily caused by thinking Simon was a pedophile.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 9:25 AM

TZEGHA

No, I think you're thinking of J.E.B. Stuart, Lieutenant General. He was the nancy who was galvanting around the eastern seaboard like the dandy he was instead of doing his job as the forward eyes and ears of Lee. So it was that the Confederacy walked blindly into a bad situation without backup or forewarning.

And I think that Mal's issue with slavery is a very fundamental issue of FREEDOM. And I think it's a very big part of his personality and a big theme of the show. From Mal's choice of life: "What's that, sir?" "Freedom, is what." -- that's what Serenity means to him.

I think one of the reasons why he can't stand Inara's job so much is because she is a willing slave. She blindly has let her freedom be taken from her, no matter her illusion of power and standing. But that's another topic.

I think that slavery, of any kind: physical, emotional, psychological, political, etc is a very big part of the show. Indentured servants, owned people, and slaves seem to be a very large part of the underbelly of the FF 'verse, and very relevant. But as I said, I think the issues of slavery and freedom go beyond being a bought and paid for person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 9:30 AM

TZEGHA

Jubal Early, Major General.

"A dark, cold, icy man, bitter, alone [snip] a competent soldier, but a man who works with an eye to the future, a slippery man, a careful soldier; he will build his reputation whatever the cost. Dick Ewell defers to him. Longstreet despises him. Lee makes do with the material at hand. Lee calls him "my bad old man."

I think the name was very fitting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 9:52 AM

Is that a quote from Killer Angels?

I agree that Stuart was negligent, but Early was equally culpable. General Kimball let Early know that Little Round Top was lightly defended and could be taken easily. It was Early, I believe, that neglected to take his chance at securing the high ground after Lee suggested he take it if practicable. Ole Stonewall would have made damn sure it was "practicable." If it is Early I'm thinking of.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 10:01 AM

TZEGHA

Yup. Sorry, forgot to reference it. I'm sort of in a mad dash to pack for the weekend and hit the road and get jammed in NYC traffic!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 10:59 AM

Perfectly understandable! Have a good weekend.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 11:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Amazing how revisionist school-taught "history" can be.

I collect old social studies and history textbooks at used bookstores and yard sales, and it's quite funny to compare them to each other.

I pulled that bit about the cotton gin from one of the more respected ones (an old Silver Burdett, I think) that usually has the facts in order - surprising what you learn from other people, eh ?

The hard part of history is sorting the truth out of endless political rewrites.

The weapons now, those I know a bit better - didja know the first automatic cannon was actually used in the civil war ?

And the Whitworth rifle(not cannon) was a right terror, since a good southen sniper could put a hole in you from half a mile away with one - they used them to harrass enemy artillery and supply personnel.

Wasn't there a northern officer who got capped with one of those ?

Very interesting topic, this.

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 12:03 PM

BLACKSTAR

I'm sure many Northern officers were killed by snipers using this weapon, but I think the incident you are referring to was the death of Gen. John Sedgewick, who said "Why, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." as he was hit by Southern sniper fire, providing us with one of the greatest "Famous Last Words."

Oh, my God! Who's flying this thig! Oh, right, that would be me...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 3:38 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
It was Early, I believe, that neglected to take his chance at securing the high ground after Lee suggested he take it if practicable

I think Early was on the other flank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 4:12 PM

Then maybe I'm thinking of Ewell?

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 29, 2003 6:54 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I think Ewell was with Early on the Confederate Left (Culps Hill). Longstreet was sent to take the Union left while Early and Ewell were to assault Culp's Hill on the Union right. The assaults were to be simultaneous but it didn't work out.

General Hood (who was with Longstreet)wanted to attack the two hills that appeared to be the end of the Union line (Big and Little Round Top). This was plausable because General Sickles of the Union Army had moved out of position earlier in the day. But, Longstreet refused to changed Lee's battle plan. In spite of this as Hood's division pressed the attack at Devil's Den they approached Little Round Top. It was too late, a Union Staff Officer had already noticed that Sickle's Advance had exposed the Union left and sent what troops he could find to hold that hill.

The interesting tie with FF here is how the line soldier feels let down by the Generals. Probably a lot of soldiers with Hood and Longstreet knew they should have divereted and attacked those hills earlier than they did. In Killer Angels Shaara portays Buford setting up the original Union Line just west of Gettysburg and hoping that he'll be reinforced while he holds the best avaialble position. This made me think of Mal waiting for his "gorram airsupport" at Serenity Valley.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 30, 2003 9:26 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:

The modern teaching of the Civil War being about slavery is largely a case of political correctness, in my opinion. I think a good case can be made that slavery was dying out, even in the Cotton States -- at least two plans for gradual emancipation were put before Congress by Southern legislators, which were largely disregarded on political grounds (the view of some controlling Northern legislators that if it's Southern, it must be bad).

Additionally, some Southerners were beginning to realize that slavery was simply not as cost-effective as hiring free labor -- free labor only has to be paid during the harvest season, while slaves have to be cared for throughout the year. And these slaves were, in the vast majority, well cared for. They were expensive property, after all. (No, I am not condoning the practice, just pointing out the prevailing view at the time.)

Again, this is opinion, but I tend to think that had the Confederacy survived, emancipation would have still taken place, just a bit later. Robert E. Lee, had he lived long enough, would have very likely become the President after Jefferson Davis, and Lee was against the practice of slavery.

I wonder how events would have changed if this road had of been pursued.

I have read many stories of former slaves simply being turned out after the war, people without homes or work who established farms on undesirable land or starved. If a plan of gradual emancipation had been implemented, education and gradual freedoms offered, and the fact people are more accepting of gradual change than those forced on them, I wonder if the US would have never needed a civil rights movement, and former slaves would have seen a better future, as well as a country not going through a civil war.

Viewing Lincoln in these terms makes many of his actions irresponsible, and very near if not criminal.

As Mal said at the end of Jaynestown

" My estimation that every man that got a statue made of them was one kind of a son of a bitch or another "

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 30, 2003 10:30 AM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
..If a plan of gradual emancipation had been implemented, education and gradual freedoms offered, and the fact people are more accepting of gradual change than those forced on them, I wonder if the US would have never needed a civil rights movement, and former slaves would have seen a better future, as well as a country not going through a civil war.

Viewing Lincoln in these terms makes many of his actions irresponsible, and very near if not criminal.

I disagree.

The real need for the Civil Rights Movement rose out of Blacks desire for equal treatment under the law (ie the abolishment of Jim Crow). This had nothing to do with the Emancipation Proclomation and everything to with White racisim (both in the south and north). The development of Jim Crow laws was due the failure of Reconstruction and the rise of the KKK. Lincoln had nothing to do with either of these ,he was long dead, put in the ground by that vengeful (please insert the appropriate Chinese expression here)John (and again here)Wilkes Booth. Had Lincoln lived and been able to enact his vision of reconstruction things may have been different. The real criminals you should be indiciting are Booth and Nathan Bedford Forest (ex Confderate General founder of the KKK).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 30, 2003 11:17 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

You are right to a large extent, but if the gradual change was allowed to happen, and if the Southern political figures were sincere about change the following would be the case

1. The Civil war would not have occured, even with the ongoing debate over State rights, etc these problems should have been addressed within the system, without resorting to non political means

2. The former slaves may have ( depending on the sincerity ) achieved equality long before they did

3. Alienation of the South, by working the changes within the system, extremists such as Forrest would have likely been vocal over change but eventually accepted it having had their say. By shoving the decision down theirs throats, in addition to suffering other things at the end of the war, I don't think the same level of antagonism would have occured, or support for those who would pursue it.

My point being, Lincoln started down the road, and was likely the only one who could have altered the outcome by not being as forceful towards his goals. Buchanan made attempts towards this, but I think Lincoln was the only one who could have pulled it off. If after the election of 1860, Lincoln tried to bring a political reconsilation about with the states who seperated, things could have been very different. Once that history changes, we can only guess at the outcome.

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 31, 2003 7:16 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

You've come up with a lot of "if's". That's a long way from Lincoln's actions being almost criminal.

The facts remain, the real criminal behavior was the treatment of blacks, before and after the war. An article I read, in one of the local papers up here, documented the existence of postcards where people posed at the site of a lynching, with the bodies hanging from a railroad trestle (The Postcard was dated in circa 1910). Billie Holiday wrote a song "Strange Fruit" inspired by her personal experience when she wandered from the band's bus and found a body hanging in the breeze (I think that was in the 1930's). I personally know a Viet Nam Veteran (recipient of a Bronze Star and Purple Heart)who won't eat Nabisco Crackers to this day because while in full uniform, with Seargant's Stripes on his sleeve he was refused service at a Bus Station Restaurant. They told him to go to the back door, where he was given a cup of soup and some Nabisico crackers.

To the contrary, there is a tale about a communion service at an Episcopal Church shortly after the Civil War. Apparently a black man approached the communion rail at a church in Virgina. No one moved. After some time, with the man kneeling at the rail, a gray haired, distinguished looking man got up and knelt beside him. After this the eucharist proceeded as normal. The disguished gray haired man was Robert E. Lee. (M. Shaara, Killer Angles; Ken Burns,Civil War)

My point is that there is no justification or excuses, those people who commited racist acts because of some sense of loss over the war or reconstruction were just out and out wrong. Why should just treatment of PEOPLE have to be shoved down someone's throat?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 31, 2003 7:42 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:

My point is that there is no justification or excuses, those people who commited racist acts because of some sense of loss over the war or reconstruction were just out and out wrong. Why should just treatment of PEOPLE have to shoved down someone's throat?

Once again I agree with you, mostly

My point was, I feel there was many ways to avoid the war in the first place, and I think some of these options should have been pursued before military options.

I am not being an apologist for the KKK or supporting the mistreatment of anyone, The issues over State rights were real, debatable issues. I have read many historians theorize that slavery was becoming a thing of the past in the South even before the war. As your last post shows, with men like Lee, it was going to be a thing of the past. The question I ask, would the former slaves been better off with a systematic, gradual implementation of freedoms, or being thrown into the cold after the war.

Many good men died, and much suffering was felt by all.... my point is could it have been avoided, and the issues of States rights and the abolishion of Slavery been acomplished by other means?? The thought processes of all the leaders leading into Fort Sumter should be examined, I think Lincoln could have done better. Achieved the same goals without paying the same costs. Only an opinion...

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 31, 2003 10:26 PM

Could the issues brought up POSSIBLY been avoided? Sure thing. But then again, even my hindsight is 20/20. Revisionist, apologist, armchair quarterback; all of these describe hindsight. We know NOW what horrible things our forefathers were doing. But when you're in the hot-seat, it's awfully hard to see all the paths clearly. Be careful with your speculation folks; remember these were people. Not Great Men of History, people. Remember the good with the bad.

I just looked at that paragraph, and it's not making alot of sense (I should quit posting at 3am). Ah, I just remembered the point, I was gonna ask a question. Does anyone know the legal concerns prior to and following the CW? Such as actions taken in congress and what-not regarding the South, and when the South was allowed representatives and senators elected by the South? I'm asking for some hard data that we can chew on here. And someone who can explain the stranger bits. We've touched on some already, I was curious to see if we had more.

Also, this ties in to the treatment of Browncoats following the War for Unification (or is it Unification War, or War to Establish the Alliance?).

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 10:36 AM

PBGAINES

The popular "A People's History of the United States" describes an argument against unfettered Capitalism that was brought forward by the slaveowners. The book describes a late 19th century scenario where a coal mine collapsed (because of a lack of safety standards), workers were trapped and dead, and the owners would run on to the disaster scene and make inquiries as to the health of the donkeys used to pull out the ore carts. The workers were a secondary concern because the owners could simply cross off their names and hire more workers with basically no loss. Modern workplace regulations have helped improve that situation, but in the 19th century, slaveowners looked at the wage-slavery being conducted up north, and argued that Southern-style slavery was more humane because the slaveowner has a vested interest in the welfare of his property. As morally reprehensible as slavery was, the slaveowners had a small point that I'm sure many reasonable Southerners could latch on to.

BTA,

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 11:00 AM

That reminds me of a story: The Gray Ghost, Mosby, had raided a Union camp and found a general's tent. He snuck in, unceremoniously slapped the sleeping General on the rear with the flat of his sword and told him to get up and get dressed. He's now a Confederate prisoner. When Lincoln and his cabinet found out everyone was dismayed that a general was captured. Lincoln's response was, who cares? I can make every man in this army a general. The mules and horses that the rebels took when they raided the camp cost money.

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 2:29 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I'll bet that by then Lincoln had had enough of incompetent generals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 3:43 PM

Yeah, I think Lincoln would liked to have seen more generals than that one just "go away."

Viva Firefly!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 8:44 PM

JARHEAD

Hey Y'all,

I'm new here, be gentle;)

Just some random thoughts from someone with a California public school education. I'm not especially familar with the battles of the WoNA, but I believe there is one cause for the war itself that has been largly overlooked on this thread.

Don't piss off a Southerner, or else whether right or wrong they will go out of their way to kick your a--. It's that simple.

My source for this possibly insulting over-generalization... a short stint with the grunts in the U.S. Marine Corps where I ran into more of them than not. Mind you, I liked more of them than not also, and find this to be an endearing cultural trait, if that means anything to anyone.

If you need another source, here's a rather condescending article that cites a U of Michigan study that came to this conlcusion using many pages and lots of big words.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issu
e=2003-07-26&id=3341

And here's a rebuttal to that article that I particually enjoyed.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/956666/posts

How does this pertain to Firefly? Does the sentence "I know you're not supposed to hit anyone with a closed fist, but it is on occaison hi-larious" mean anything to you?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 9:48 PM

Hey, from Cali now!

Ok, I can't speak for every other Southerner here but...yeah, we DO like a good dust up. I, myself, am fairly peaceable, but I still pause in channel switching if I see boxing or some other fighting event on. I have even felt the bizarre urge to pummel some turkey who desperately deserved it. I haven't followed through on those though, probably why I'm not in jail.

That bit in that psychology study mentioned about bumping someone in a hallway and insulting them, they seemed to misunderstand something: Only a friend is allowed to do that (yeah ok it's weird, but that's how it is). I think that's where being polite helps. I don't know about the rest of you, but my mom drilled that into me at a young age. I can't help but be extremely polite to strangers, but with friends I am quite crass (like I said...weird). Anyone else have similar experiences?

Ok now for the bit on Firefly, MOVIE IS COMING!! HOODY HOO! Had to get that out of my system. Maybe they will restart the series?

Oh, and if my posts don't make sense, just say "Merc, go to bed", as I am up too late again.

Now for the relevance to FF. Seems that Mal has that attitude down in the show. He's easygoing and polite most of the time, but do NOT push his buttons. Inara being one of them, loyalty another. Can anyone else spot instances to support? I don't have the episodes so I can't check (although, if someone were to point out where I could find a copy til the DVD's come out, I would be grateful).

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 3:35 AM

DRAKON

"Now for the relevance to FF. Seems that Mal has that attitude down in the show. He's easygoing and polite most of the time, but do NOT push his buttons. Inara being one of them, loyalty another. Can anyone else spot instances to support?"

One of the things I noted in Firefly in general, is NEVER mess with Kaylee. If you shoot her, mal will put a bullet in your skull and walk right by you. If you threaten to rape her, you are going to die a slow death in deep space a billion miles from anything else. If you say the wrong thing, such as "I would never with Kaylee" you'll be left behind to have breakfast and get beaten up by some deranged friend of Jayne.

Mal does have a "twisted sense of nobility" and has no problems with beating up and robbing slavers. But then really, neither do I. Does anyone?

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 3:45 AM

DRAKON

There is a strong Jacksonian tradition, especially in the South, but the Yankees are that much different either. See this article
http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

Its a little condescending, but if you can read throught that, I think it is pretty accurate in reflecting/explaining the American pysche

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 6:03 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I forget the movie but the lines are as follows:

"... those Yankees aren't nothing but a bunch of shop keeps and clerks..

Well those shop keeps and clerks did a pretty good job against the British in 1776."

I think Mal's attitude and sense of morals is more that of a Westerner than a Yankee or a Reb. More like one of the Cartwrights.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 4, 2003 7:34 PM

STARRTAGG

I once heard that Lincoln did not want to go to war, but used it to hold the states together. I may have heard this on the history channel or PBS. The sense I got from it was that slavery ended up becoming the focus of it. The North and South in that time were dealing with something that usually happened in Europe. Also, there were external factors that were present like the North and South's presence on the international scene. The US was a young country and even now it is a young country. Lincoln must have taken this into consideration. Of course, after the war concluded, the South's culture was altered in different ways. Currency changed, their government, even their history as an independent nation. I see these things when I watch the show. The Firefly Verse reflects some of this or I could be wrong. The people on the outer planets had everything changed for them. I am getting long here and I will shut up now.

Do you think I'm a complete back birth!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 5, 2003 2:44 AM

DRAKON

No I don't think you are a complete backbirth, nor incomplete one either.

It is my understanding as well that Lincoln did not want the war. He did want to hold the union together, and is quoted as saying that if he could do that at the expense of slavery, he would have.

But we had a war, the slaves got freed, the South reconstructed, and now we are all one big happy family again. Right?

"my kind of stupid"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 12, 2003 3:42 PM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Anyone see the Civil War stuff History Channel lately. That episode about the battle of the Crater made me think about Firefly. The way the Brass (in this case Gen. Meade) screwed up a battle plan (potentially personal reasons) made me think of the Browncoats. Did they every win a battle? I guess it's too late now but I'd like to see Mal and Zoe remenisce over a victory or two.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2003 4:15 AM

I brought the Big Messy Thread back for folks to talk about the Civil War away from other people who might not appreciate it in their normal threads.

Post it here folks! Who knows, the bandwidth you save could be your own!

Jayne: "How big a room?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:23 AM

Don't squat with your spurs on.

A little late don't you think? That "Southern Identity on Decline" Thread was hijacked good and proper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2003 3:43 PM

FREESOUP

I appreciate that morality is dependent upon among other things technology, but I find the whole idea of a country claiming to base itself on "freedom" and the equality of "all men" to engage in slavery for nearly ninety years thereafter to be horrific.

Folks, these people were ENSLAVED: they were OWNED and were BOUGHT, SOLD, RAPED and KILLED at whim.

With respect, if there was a way to end slavery sooner than the Civil War, I would have preferred it, regardless of the many other threads that lead to the war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 26, 2003 10:41 AM