Southern Identity on Decline

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2003 14:08
VIEWED: 11901
PAGE 1 of 1

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 9:03 PM

Southern Identity on Decline, Study Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=18&u=/a
p/20031001/ap_on_re_us/vanishing_southerners

...she's seen so many new people move here that "it's no wonder" the number of self-described Southerners has dropped.

STILLSHINY

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 9:16 PM

I'd say I'm proud to be from the South, but I'm originally from Oregon. So it seems strange. But I look forward to my family having some southern pride. There is a difference living down here. Some good, some not so much. Take the good leave the bad. You might not see me wearing a "South will rise again" shirt, but I'm glad I live here. There is a respect and a pride not seen elsewhere. And dang good cookin'. Plus we all get ta talk like 'em folk on Serenity and it's almost downright natural. (ok, not really)

Mal: “See how I'm not punching him? I think I've grown!”

HJERMSTED

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 9:32 PM

That's odd... I feel like Southern culture is actually infiltrating all facets of American life and that, as a result, Northern culture is on the decline.

Every where I turn it's NASCAR this and new country music that; Big time wrestling here and another Southern President there... All originating from the South (if I'm not mistaken) It's actually become quite oppressive if you ask me.

When I drive 30 minutes out of any major city on the west coast US, suddenly everyone has a southern accident whether they're from the south or not (comedian David Cross calls it the "hick" accent).

My friends and I joke around that the Confederates actually won the Civil War. LOL

I'd love to give America's reigns back to some Northerners for a decade or two.

mattro

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 10:05 PM

In a related story, read here about one of my favorite bands.... and have a sense of humor, mmkay?

http://66.70.157.23/index.htm

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 10:23 PM

Well, I'm actually from the South, myslef. However, I've lived up and down the east coast since then, so I usually think of myself as American, and little else. It kind of makes the question, "Where are you from?" a bit difficult, simply because I never know whether to tell people were I was born or where I'm living now.

Personally, I don't really like the idea of identifying with a specific region of the country. I prefer a broader view.

________________

Sorry to barge in. I'm afraid we have a slight apocalypse.

SARAHETC

Wednesday, October 1, 2003 10:27 PM

Interesting little featurette-- never would have considered Oklahoma the south but okay.

I think it's telling that they interviewed a native southerner, who claims southern identity, but nobody else. Also telling that the single interview is with a woman in Franklin-- a community that gets wealthier every day with much of that wealth coming from transplated executives. (And if she was born in Gallatin, she's moved up in the world to get there.)

Further, they note that that transplant influx is what's diluting the so-called identity, which really doesn't seem to be any actual set of characteristics so much as it's just the claim, "I'm from the south." And the data doesn't take into account, from what the article says, how long a person had lived there and what effect it had on their claim one way or another.

I've lived in the South (insert your own "Not Oklahoma" joke) for over half my life and consider myself southern. My parents though, who live in a the suburb between Nashville and Franklin (transplanted, etc.) have taken some 12 years to stop calling themselves "midwesterners" and expounding on the virtues of "midwesterness." Three or four years ago they never would have said they were southerners. But now? No doubt.

Did anybody else think it seemed slightly pejorative too? It seemed like they were subtly trying to perpetuate some kind of good ole boy stereotype-- a hillbilly with a gun and a membership card in the GOP-- or something. Interesting too, that this is coming from Vanderbilt where the Fugitive School of American letters flourished-- the Fugitives (Robert Penn Warren is the most famous) were fleeing the misleading romance of "moonlight and magnolias."

And it's OT or whatever, but thanks for pointing it out.

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, October 2, 2003 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
In a related story, read here about one of my favorite bands.... and have a sense of hum, mmkay?

I see they have a song " Firefly " on the Dirt Track Date

Any Good ?

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

DRAKON

Thursday, October 2, 2003 10:19 AM

Its called a melting pot. Southern and Northern cultures are declining, or rather intermingling, and hopefully breeding a stronger, better hybred.

Its all that darn fraternization I tell ya.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

PEG

Thursday, October 2, 2003 11:07 AM

I was born in New Orleans and I've lived here my whole life so Southern is what I am. I think a lot of people are leary of saying that they're southerns because its assumed that they are illerate and bigoted. I have a great deal of pride in the fact that my family fought in the Civil War, but the only flag that flies over my house is red white and blue.

JOHNNYREB

Thursday, October 2, 2003 2:40 PM

Actually, all of the battle flags and national flags of the Confederacy were red, white and blue too. (Not counting state flags.)

I myself was born and raised in the North, but my entire family hails from Maryland. Where's that leave me?

Fox sucks! Viva Firefly!

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, October 6, 2003 3:21 PM

I was born in Chicago, IL, but my parents moved back to Virginia when I was 4 years old. Family from both sides live in VA, and I have lived here ever since we moved back. I am a Southerner, and am proud to say so.

I think the main reason for people not calling themselves "Southern" is that they are afraid of being stereotyped as bigots or uneducated, inbred hicks. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think in today's politically correct society, where people are terrified of being censored for some imagined slight against one group or another, people have forgotten their heritage for the sake of avoiding misconception or adversity.

I myself am proud of my Southern heritage, and proud of the fact that six of my ancestors fought for the 45th Virginia Infantry. No they did not own slaves, nor did they mean to protect the vile institution of slavery, rather they fought against an invading army whose intent was to force them back at bayonet point into a Union of which they no longer wished to be a part.

What disturbs me is that the phrase "history is written by the victor" seems to be born out by what is tought in schools today. My son was told by his teacher that the Confederacy was "bad" & that men like Robert E. Lee were "tyrants". Needless to say I had a long talk w/ him, and the school about the slanted version of history they are teaching.

I know everyone has their own spin on the Civil War and why it was fought, and the motivations behind the Federalists of the North, and the Confederacy of the South, but I would argue that the South is as rich in history and contributions to this nation as the North.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

VETERAN

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 10:52 PM

I find this thread interesting, while I've always been aware of a Southern indentity (Southern Pride etc.) I never hear of a Northern counterpart.

Southerners get a bad rap for a lot of what happened after the war (i.e The birth of the KKK and Jim Crow). Do they deserve this? Some do (I assume there are still some Klansmen down there, I know there are up here). Others, not so much. The fact is the treatment of Blacks in this country upto very recently has been very poor. Unfortunately, a group, or in this case a region, carries the guilt on this point because it fought in a war that, at least in part, was involved with the freedom of another group of people. Funny how bigotry gets turned around, fact is the whole nation was to blame for slavery and the treatment of blacks after the war. I think Ken Burn's Civil War deals with this very well (pardon me, this isn't exact)...."the nation needed to be cleansed in blood, now that the war was over many felt that the South should be forgiven."

I recently visted Gettyburg with my son's scout troop. We took the Johnny Reb trail and then the Billy Yank Trail. The scouts have a pamphlet the follow while touring the battlefield. The interesting thing about the pamphlet is that the scouts are asked to put themselves in the shoes of both Rebel and Yankee forces. Too bad your son wasn't given an evenhanded treatment of the subjects that the Scouts have.

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 8, 2003 8:29 AM

Thats the weird thing about the "War of Northern Agression" It was a rare war in which both sides were right.

The South was attempting to defend itself from the more politically powerful North. Northern and Southern economic and political interests had long ago diverged, if they were ever unified. The South, based as it was on the plantation system, could not overnight deal with freeing the slaves, despite the clear logical inconsistency with the Declaration of Independence. The South fought for "States Rights" and a limitation to federal interference.

Unfortunately, the particular issue that this became connected to was the issue of slavery. The South found itself defending an abstract good, by maintaining a particular evil. The South fought for their independence, from Northern tariffs and Northern insensitivity to their economic plight, while at the same time fought to maintain slavery.

On the Northern side, they fought to maintain the Union and the rule of democracy. I know it sounds weird, the South were simply wanting to do their own thing. But the key element of our democracy is that whoever wins the vote, wins. Everyone else goes along with that winner, (well, within limits. We are free to express our disagreement and continue to try to persuade the populace. But open rebellion, or force is not playing by the rules.)

And there is the fact that the Republican party came out of the anti-slavery Whigs, and for the first time had enough political clout to free the slaves. And gave the appearance of a lack of concern for the economic deprivation that would cause the South.

So in a sense, both sides working under the American concept of "majority rile with respect for minority rights." The North, more for the first part of the equation, and while the South was defending their minority rights, they were denying them (Indeed, due to the risks of slave revolt, HAD to deny them) to a substantial minority.

Thank goodness that is all history. Hopefully we have learned something from it, and can move forward.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, October 10, 2003 4:52 PM

Drakon wrote:

Quote:
The South fought for their independence, from Northern tariffs and Northern insensitivity to their economic plight, while at the same time fought to maintain slavery.

Though a popular misconception, it is still a misconception. The Confederacy did not fight to hold onto the institution of slavery. Less than 1% of those that fought for the Confederacy even owned a slave. Those that owned slaves either dodged the draft, or purchased commissions in the army of the CSA. Many of these deserted when it was apparent the war would not be over in short order.

Another thing that history books do not mention is that many in the North owned slaves as well. It is a documented fact that William T. Sherman himself owned dozens of slaves to work his land. These slaves were not released until after the War was over.

Quite honestly, the issue of slavery was simply a justification for the invasion of the South. It was a way to sway public opinion behind the Federalists as the war drug on & public support began to flag. It is documented that public support for the war effort was falling off & the North needed a way to solidify the constant call for recruits & resources.

Lincoln has been quoted as saying:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388)

I wonder how many African Americans or Lincoln supporters know he made this statement. I wonder why the history books omit it.

Lincoln did not care if slaves remained in chains or not, all he cared about was bringing the South back into the Union, whether they wanted to come back or not. Could it have been that the South needed the agricultural and textile resources of the South, but did not want to compete for them w/ England & France, who was willing to pay what they were worth? I think so.

Though history books (written by the victor, remember?) hold on to flawed logic that the South fought to keep another race in chains. I argue that the South fought to keep invaders bearing arms off of our soil. I would also argue that with less than 1 man in 100 having the personal motivation of owning slaves, slavery was not a priority for the men in gray who fought.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

VETERAN

Friday, October 10, 2003 11:27 PM

We may have to reopen "The Biggy Messy Thread"

Quote:
I wonder how many African Americans or Lincoln supporters know he made this statement. I wonder why the history books omit it.

Two reasons:

1) The Victors write the history books.
2) History as taught in most schools is, for lack of a better euphuemism, the "Readers Digest Version." You know, ....

First there were dinosaurs and then came the cavemen ... who became the ancient Greeks, next Columbus discovered America, then George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. The next day they had a Tea Party in Boston and then ....

DRAKON

Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:33 AM

Go back and look at what I wrote. Yes, they wanted to be free of Northern intrusion and tariffs. But slavery was still an issue they wanted to preserve. This is the big reason things erupted after Lincoln got into the White House. The Republican party was formed for the expressed purpose of getting rid of slavery.

If the South had abolished slavery, they would have won the support of Europe, especially England, and Lincoln would have had his legs cut out from underneath him. But they didn't and they couldn't. Economically, it would have been devastating. Whether it would have been more devastating than the war, well, that is irrelevant at this point in history.

Besides which, the "justification" for the invasion was firing on Fort Sumpter. While Lincoln did not want to risk the Union, over the issue of slavery, the fact was that the South broke first, and that was all the justification that was needed.

The South handed Lincoln a cause, in the issue of slavery. Faced with potential support from England and others, Lincoln went ahead and made it an issue. Instead of surrendering or abolishing slavery, the South fought on.

You might have the right to rebel. You don't have the right to succeed. I don't wish to fight the Civil war all over again, but pretending that slavery was not one of the issues, well, that is simply not true.

You call it an invasion. What it was was rebellion against a democratic government. Granted that government may not have treated the minority southern interests in the best light, but that still does not excuse the armed revolt, the firing on Ft. Sumter, or the destruction of the Union. Nor does it really explain why the South waited until after a Republican, a party that was quite new at the time, and whose main platform was the abolition of slavery, was elected into office.

It should also be remembered that it was one nation until the South decided it did not want to play any more. They got overriden in the vote, so they decided to quit. Characterizing it as an invasion, as if it had been a separate nation beforehand, is simply not accurate.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

VETERAN

Saturday, October 11, 2003 6:18 PM

You are right. People try to use the "States Rights" issue to write off slavery as one of the causes of the war. The argument is faulty because slavery was an important part of if not central to States Rights.

Browncoat1's quote of Lincoln is correct and he is correct again when he says that this is generally not taught in schools. He did neglect to mention, that early in his political career, Lincoln made many statements attacking Slavery and the general treatment of Blacks under the constitution (3/5ths etc).

I don't know the factual basis regarding the statement that only 1% of the confederates under arms owned slaves. I've seen data indicating between 10 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves. This could be accurate statistics though because he qualifies it by saying "those who fought." As far as Sherman owning slaves, I've never heard that one before. I know he wasn't against slavery per se. But prior to the war he had failed at a banking firm in San Francisco and through his connections with P.T. Beauregard and Braxton Bragg obtained a position as the president of a military college in Louisiana, not likely that he had much land to be worked by "dozens of slaves."

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, October 13, 2003 5:27 PM

Yes, if the South had abolished slavery immediately, France & England would have considered taking some action, though I doubt it would have involved troops landing in the U.S. Most likely it would have been ships bringing in supplies, and perhaps some saber rattling to stop hostilities. The South did not abolish slavery when Union troops crossed the Potomac because, as you pointed out, to do so would have been economically crippling to the Confederacy and thousands of farms and plantations. Slavery was a abominable practice as an alternative to paid labor. The South had no alternatives in place to harvest cotton & tobacco if slaves were freed. I wish they had so that the rallying point of slavery would be shown to be as hollow. A wishful thought now, but an interesting "what if" nonetheless.

Fort Sumter. Another touchy point. If you view it as "rebels" firing on a US fort, than yes, I suppose it could be considered the transparent excuse Lincoln & his Federalists needed to send in their troops. Yet, if you view it from the other side of the arguement, you may find it not such a clear issue.

South Carolina had sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate the transfer of forts in South Carolina to the state, and requested immediate control of Fort Sumter. A US commander, Anderson, considered his situation increasingly precarious, especially if South Carolina occupied Sumter. After nightfall, on the evening of December 26, 1860, Anderson moved his small force from Fort Moultrie to the more defensible Sumter.

Now, SC is trying to take over these forts, which they see as part of their state, and being on SC soil, it is easy to see why they would feel they had claim to these forts, that and the fact that a potentially hostile force occupying a military fort within your borders is less than an ideal circumstance. On the flipside, I can see why the North would not want to abandon forts they had paid to build.

Now, rather than simply blame the South for firing the first shot, so the excuse to invade is all nice & tidy, let's examine the events. The South contacts Washington asking that Anderson & his force leave Sumter. President Buchanon refuses to order the abandoning the fort. Stiffening his resolve to protect Anderson's vulnerable garrison, President Buchanan approved an expedition headed by a chartered merchant steamer, the Star of the West, to resupply and reinforce Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the ship arrived at Charleston Harbor, but turned back when it was fired upon by South Carolina's batteries.

This firing on the steamer led to much posturing by both Anderson & the governor of Charleston. Anderson called the incident an act of war & threatened to fire on any ships entering the range of his guns. The Governor of Charleston replied that any reinforcement of troops or supplies to a fort occupied by potential hostiles could not be allowed. Sound enough reasoning.

For nearly four months, from December 26th of '60, to April 10th of '61 the South tried to oust the Union forces through negotiation w/ Washington & Anderson. When the call for surrender came, and the garrison refused, I do not see what other action could be taken save to starve out the Union forces. A seige would have been preferable to open hostilities at that point, but quite honestly the Union would have invaded to break the seige once supplies began to run low at Sumter.

I do not dispute that slavery was wrong, nor do I dispute that it was a non issue. Rather I dispute the fact that it was a major issue and not a justification for invasion. I find it odd that the North and its "democratic" gov't were perfectly fine with reaping the fruits of slave labor, and it was only after those fruits would no longer be available w/ the seccession of the South that they felt so strongly about the issue of slavery that they were willing to take up arms to abolish it.

Yes, I call it an invasion. Call it a "rebellion against a democratic government" all you want, it will not change fact. Fact: the North showed it

BIGBLUEFAN

Monday, October 13, 2003 5:49 PM

I agree. I think alot of people do not want to be considered a "Redneck", which is supposedly on par with being a Southerner. I've lived in Kentucky most of my life and am proud to be a Southerner. No inbreeding, barefoot, backwoods here. Just good, old-fashioned southern charm & hospitality!

FIREFLYGIRL

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 1:49 AM

I agree also. I'm from Georgia and it infuriates me when people assume that because I talk a little slow and drawn out that I am stupid. I had a teacher in high school that said it best, "Intellect has nothing to do with dialect, and people who think that are ignorant".

LOTV

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:05 AM

I myself have spent the vast majority of my life in the South, Virginia specifically.

Across the river from where I live is Fredericksburg, one of the main Civil War battlesites (several times) and close enough in any direction is any other main battlesite you might want to visit.

It was interesting as a boy scout seeing all these sites. At the Fredericksburg National Cemetary, I remember when all the troops in the area placed candles at every grave, both Union and Confederate, and it was quite the sight that stays with me.

I'm displeased to see individuals portray either side of that war as devils. Quite honestly, the person I have the most respect for in all of history is Robert E. Lee, because his reasons for fighting was for of his homeland, and he was one of the most noble of gentlemen and generals to the very end.

Even today we still consider ourselves as Yanks and Rebels, but above all that, we see ourselves all as Americans, and I think that's what matters the most.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

AETHYS

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:23 PM

I am southern, but moreso I am Texan, and that is the heritage I have always known. I live in Deep East Texas where people have manners and talk slow for the most part. I have been to college and listened to professors from the north proclaim Texans and Southerners ignorant and unable to take care of themselves. These same people who have so little opinion of me count on me to keep all their computer systems up and running 24/7. I grew up on a farm, I live on a farm, I hunt (squirrel hunting is my favorite), I fish, and I love home cooking. Heck you could even say it the way my father used to when it comes to home cooking. "I would walk a mile past a free meal from mcdonalds when starvin' to pay for mommas home cooking"

The south is slowly loosing its heritage because we are "backwards" according to the more "intelectual" of society. The complain about the shape the world is in, yet for some reason we don't have all these problems in small southern towns. I wonder why that is? Yes we finally have a decent southern President and it is about time, but if you think for one instant the Government has ever been controlled from the South you need to look again, because if it where then God would not be being taken out of our schools and courthouses, courtesy and respect would still be taught in school at the end of a paddle, and folks who just want to farm and live would not be taxed into extinction.

Yes I am American, and Southern, and Texan. And if it were up to me all this PC garbage that goes on every day would be thrown out the window and we would get back to good old Southern values.

My 2 cents, sorry for the rant

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 4:58 PM

LOTV wrote:

Quote:
I'm displeased to see individuals portray either side of that war as devils. Quite honestly, the person I have the most respect for in all of history is Robert E. Lee, because his reasons for fighting was for of his homeland, and he was one of the most noble of gentlemen and generals to the very end.

I agree w/ you LOTV; the man from that dark era I respect most is Robert E. Lee. I have read every book on him I can get my hands on. I have visited his grave site, and went to the Confederate Museum here in Richmond when they had the Robert E Lee exhibit. Of all the men you read about, this man was the most shining example of an officer and of a Southern gentleman. What I find truly disgusting is how he was stripped of his U.S. citizenship for leading the Confederate forces. His citizenship was not restored until the 1970s, one hundred years after his death.

I do not subscribe to blind hero worship, as most critics of Lee are prone to accuse Southerners, but I admire and respect Lee. His strength of resolve, his conviction, and his sense of honor are the most true examples of leadership I have ever read of. It is no wonder to me that people on both sides of the conflict respected Lee.

AETHYS wrote:

Quote:
The south is slowly loosing its heritage because we are "backwards" according to the more "intelectual" of society. The complain about the shape the world is in, yet for some reason we don't have all these problems in small southern towns. I wonder why that is? Yes we finally have a decent southern President and it is about time, but if you think for one instant the Government has ever been controlled from the South you need to look again, because if it where then God would not be being taken out of our schools and courthouses, courtesy and respect would still be taught in school at the end of a paddle, and folks who just want to farm and live would not be taxed into extinction.

Yes I am American, and Southern, and Texan. And if it were up to me all this PC garbage that goes on every day would be thrown out the window and we would get back to good old Southern values.

My 2 cents, sorry for the rant

I agree that the fear of not being PC and being sued or boycotted by one special interest group or another has caused the loss of a good deal of Southern heritage. The removal of Confederate flags from Confederate graves in Missouri battlefield sites and the propsed removal of Confederate memorials in Gettysburg will further bury Southern heritage. Prayer in schools went the second someone of a religion found it inappropriate & complained. Fear of being sued ended any prayer. The pledge of allegiance went the same way.

As a society we seem less interested in where we have been and the heritage that could give us a foundation, than how much money & material gain can I collect.

Growing up, I remember men holding doors for ladies, people waving to one another & giving one another the greeting of the day. Now people seem so self involved they do not even register your existance, and if you say "Good Morning", they look at you as if you are about to mug them, or you have just grown a third eye in your forehead. Many men do not hold doors for a woman now, & I know when I do, less than a 1/3 of them even acknowledges the courtesy with so much as eye contact. It does not prevent me from doing it, but it is disheartening at times.

I feel you on the tax thing to AETHYS. My wife and I make a very respectable amount of money, live in an older, very modest house, and do not have any car payments, but between the cost of living, taxes, and health care, it seems that what we make flies out the window. The cost of living now is fast outpacing cost of living increases.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

VETERAN

Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:50 PM

Quote:
Even today we still consider ourselves as Yanks and Rebels, but above all that, we see ourselves all as Americans, and I think that's what matters the most.

It certainly should be.

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 8:48 AM

Quote:
I have been to college and listened to professors from the north proclaim Texans and Southerners ignorant and unable to take care of themselves. These same people who have so little opinion of me count on me to keep all their computer systems up and running 24/7.

Because of the superficial speech patterns, more "folksy dress" and other irrelevancies, city folk tend to think of themselves more urbane, smarter and hence better, than the hicks who live in the sticks.

Despite the fact that without the farms, the mines and other rural enterprises, the cities would cease to exist. City folk are dependent on the country in a manner that is not symmetrical, country folk have always been more independent and less needing of the city than vice versa.

Which is why you get this snobbish attitude from city folks. Deep down a lot of them know its an assymetrical life style, that they are more dependent on you, than you are on them. But if you realize it, you might not be willing to tolerate them as much. So to keep you in your place, as well as assuage their own creeeping fear and feelings of worthlessness, they put on this snobbish front.

I have to laugh at folks who talk about how backward country folks are, because most of them never set foot outside the cities in the first place.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:47 AM

The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it treats the South as a separate nation, instead of part of the Union at the time of the firing on Fort Sumter. South Carolina, and the South in general were still part of the Union, still part of the United States of America.

As Fort Sumter was a Federal military installation, whether South Carolina wanted it or not, is beside the point. It would be the equivalent of you shooting at a police officer patroling in the town you live in, just because you want his car.

As for tariffs and such, it should be remembered that tariffs were the principle means of financing the federal government, as there was not direct taxation at the time. The point remains that the South lost those votes, those decisions, and instead of accepting the will of the majority, they decided to break up the entire system. While the North did little to protect the rights of the minority South, it was the South that decided to dissolve the contract, and the Constitution on this and other points.

And we do disagree as to whether slavery was a major issue. Not the sole issue, I think we can both agree. But it was a serious issue and the election of Lincoln, along with support from the North, made the abolition of slavery, with the incumbent chaos it would cause in the South, all that more a tangible problem.

And you are right, the North would not have let the South go, so the South had no legal recourse if it wanted to leave. But again, there is the problem of destroying the democratic system, if it were allowed to leave legally, or rebelled openly. Either way you did it, you were asking for the destruction of the democratic system, the basis for government in the first place.

If any minority can simply petition and ask to leave, (without really going anywhere) then you no longer have a democracy of any kind. If a militia were allowed to fire upon federal troops, regardless of how those troops are seen to the rebels, free from any kind of punishment, then that federal government is in danger, and any benefit anyone garners from a rule of law is thrown in doubt.

You see, you talk about tariffs and such issues, but what you don't point to is any Constitutional violations comitted by the North against the South. They lost the votes in Congress. And so, the South decided unilaterally to dissolve the Union. Because they did not get their way, they rebelled.

You like to think about the "what if" as do I. Which is one of the reasons I find this subject fasinating. Think of all the things that would not have happened if the South had won. Would the west have been tamed? Would Alaska still be part of Russia? How would that have affected the Cold war?

Would there have been more wars later on, as Northern abolutionists smuggled run away slaves out of the South, or over western territories? Would Texas have ceeded from the Confederacy and become its own nation again?

How would the concept of democracy have faired elsewhere in the world, once the United States showed it did not work?

Without a strong United States to aid Europe during WW1, how would that have played out? Or WW2, would France be a German province today? What about Japanese expansionism, how would that have been stopped? Or would it only at the Texas border?

To say nothing of domestic race relations, and the increasing tyrannical laws the South required to prevent slave revolts.

Whether you want to call it war, invasion, rebellion or whatever, really matters little. As horrific as that war was, it did prevent far worst wars and tradegies down the line. A strong US was able to intervene in WW1, and 2, and prevent a Soviet invasion of Europe, as well as ICBMs parked in Alaska. And democracies are breaking out all over.

So, all in all, no matter how right the South thought they were, they weren't right enough to win, and the planet as a whole is better off that the South lost the Civil war, than if it had won.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SARAHETC

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Growing up, I remember men holding doors for ladies, people waving to one another & giving one another the greeting of the day. Now people seem so self involved they do not even register your existance, and if you say "Good Morning", they look at you as if you are about to mug them, or you have just grown a third eye in your forehead. Many men do not hold doors for a woman now, & I know when I do, less than a 1/3 of them even acknowledges the courtesy with so much as eye contact. It does not prevent me from doing it, but it is disheartening at times.

That's so sad for you and also, just lack of manners. Very often men open doors for me, sometimes rushing ahead of me to be there so I don't have to do it. I always say "Thank you" even if the same gentleman opens five or six consecutive doors.

I can remember my first few weeks at grad school when guys just let doors shut in my face. It took me a little while to figure out why I was so stunned.

We often make fun of ourselves around here, affecting more posh accents than we already have and telling one another things like, "I b'lieve I'll take my mint julep on the veranda where it's coolah..." but we still believe in the gentility of it. There's just no excuse not to have good manners.

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:37 PM

Drakon wrote:

Quote:
The fundamental problem with this analysis is that it treats the South as a separate nation, instead of part of the Union at the time of the firing on Fort Sumter. South Carolina, and the South in general were still part of the Union, still part of the United States of America.

Separate nation or not? I suppose that depends more on perception than actual legality, does it not? To the North, the South was part of the Union in open rebellion. To the South, they were fighting for independence against a government they felt treated them unfairly and were invading their lands, their homes.

I guess the real question here is this: if we have freedom, guaranteed to us by the Constitution, if we disagree w/ the government, do we not have the freedom to separate ourselves from that entity when all forms of resolution have failed?

Our forefathers faced this same dilemma when the Colonies first entered into conflict w/ England to win our independence. Odd really, when you compare the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. America was an English colony. Colonists were descendants of English citizens, and the Colonies paid taxes to England. America grew tired of taxes and mistreatment from England and entered into armed conflict w/ England. England considered us Rebels in unlawful rebellion seeking to tear apart the British Empire. We were part of English empire, lawfully, at that time and yet we broke away, without the consent of England, and entered into a state of war w/ them.

What is the difference in one war of independence, and the other. The U.S. won both, so they, being the victors, wrote the history we read today. In their war against England, they were "patriots" and freedom fighters. I am sure English history books write it differently, using terms like "rebels" and "traitors". The U.S. writes the history of the Civil War, and the people trying to break away from what they feel is an unfair gov't, fighting for their independence are now labelled "rebels" and "secessionists". The comparisons are there, though I am sure we could argue sides, viewpoints, and political reasonings until the sun goes dim.

Quote:
As Fort Sumter was a Federal military installation, whether South Carolina wanted it or not, is beside the point. It would be the equivalent of you shooting at a police officer patroling in the town you live in, just because you want his car.

Interesting point, but I refer to my earlier arguement that South Carolina had been lobbying Washington to remove their garrisons from their soil. All garrison were removed except Anderson's force, who, seemingly of his own will, moved his force from their location to Sumter. For reasons we may never know, Buchanan refused to order the withdrawl of Anderson's men. Why this one unit & fort, and not all the others? Why did all the other garrisons leave, and not Anderson? Was it stubborn pride? Was it the proverbial line in the dirt that the North dared the South to cross? Was it the provocation the North needed to justify armed forces entering the Confederacy to drive them back into the Union? I do not think it so cut & dry as the South fired & the North entered the Confederacy to exact revenge.

What would have happened if Anderson had gone North like the other garrisons in South Carolina? Would that fateful shot have ever been fired? Would the Civil War ever have taken place? I think it would have eventually. I do not for one minute believe Lincoln or the Federalists would have allowed the South to have their independence and the freedom to sell their agricultural goods to the Europe and deprive the raw material to Northern industries who did not want to pay a fair market value for them.

I do not think your comparison to me shooting at a police officer in his car patrolling my town because I want his car is even close to the situation at Sumter. Sumter was the result of a stand off that went on for months. Federal forces refused to yield an installation that sat on South Carolina soil. I am sure the North would

DRAKON

Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:45 AM

First off, a rebellion is always against the law. No government can survive if folks were free to simply disobey laws they disagreed with, or shoot federal soldiers trying to enforce those laws. Asking for a legal rebellion is a contradiction in terms as well as suicidal to any form of government.

So, the South's rebellion was illegal. It was against the law. And the South's position was not a legally justifiable one.

Now on more philosophical grounds, you might have an argument. But if you want to argue law, you lose.

As for the police officer example, it is quite apt. The South did not want a federal garrison in South Carolina. You admit this. They wanted the cop somewhere else, and they wanted the fort. So they shot at the troops in that fort.

If the government no longer has the power to enforce its own laws, then it ceases to be a government at all. Whether one agrees or disagrees, lobbies for or against, once the votes are taken, all folks in a democracy agree to go along with the will of the majority. Should I be allowed to violate or rebel from a law I think is unfair, that I voted against, but the majority overruled? Can you imagine how that would work out, if everyone did that?

Rebellion is treason, but in practical fact, it is so only when it fails. It is making war on the government, but if the South had succeeded, we would not be having this discussion. They didn't. They lost the debate in the halls of Congress, and they lost it on the battlefield as well. And at that point, which lets face was almost a 150 years ago, the argument was settled.

Trying to compare the South's actions with those of all of the colonies is a bit of a stretch. The Union troops were not billeted in Southern homes prior to Ft. Sumter. There was no violation of rights or constitutional guarentees. As you note, it was about the price of cotton in Europe. Wanting a better price, or not willing to pay taxes that one had a vote in, are hardly the same as what the Brits were doing to the American colonies prior to the Revolution.

As for "fair market" price, I am not at all sure where you are coming from here. In free market economics, the seller and the buyer both agree to a price, and that is the fair market price of the product. No one was forcing the South to not sell to Europe. There was an export tax, yes, but that is hardly the same thing as forcing one not to sell.

The problem was that the price of cotton in Europe was not that high, and I think one of the reasons for that was competition from other sources (like Egypt). The South wanted more money, but all buyers want to pay less. That is not force, no matter how you try to dress it up.

As to Lincoln, all this clouds the fact that slavery was still wrong. The slave holding South still depended on that labor. Lincoln did want to free the slaves, this is apparent from a great body of his writings and works. But if it meant risking the dissolution of the governmental system we had, that is something he wanted to avoid.

After the war was on, the point was moot. And as for the timing of the Emancipation proclaimation, this was related to Northern battlefield victories, when it looked like the North was going to win. Which makes sense, as declaring freedom for the slaves when one had no hope of ever accomplishing it. Freeing the slaves in the North, that had already been accomplished. It was the slave holding South that required Emancipation. And when the South was winning, such a proclaimation would have simply looked foolish, and ineffective.

Quote:
Guess if you win, you are justified and no one questions the legality actions.

Well I would agree with the sentiment on practical grounds. That this is what happens, IF you win. But here you are, despite 150 years of history, despite the fact the North won, still questioning the legality of the action.

In practical terms this is what happens, right wrong or indifferent. And in a general sense, this is far from a bad thing.

I am not saying that Might makes Right. I will say t

BROWNCOAT1

Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:55 PM

Quote:
First off, a rebellion is always against the law. No government can survive if folks were free to simply disobey laws they disagreed with, or shoot federal soldiers trying to enforce those laws. Asking for a legal rebellion is a contradiction in terms as well as suicidal to any form of government.

So, the South's rebellion was illegal. It was against the law. And the South's position was not a legally justifiable one.

Now on more philosophical grounds, you might have an argument. But if you want to argue law, you lose.

If we are going to argue the letter of the law, than I agree that "legally" speaking, the South had no ground to stand on in leaving the Union. That is a given. I am sure that there was nothing in British law giving legal right to Scotland to try to throw off the English yoke in 1745, or the Colonies in the Revolutionary War.

In terms of the right to throw off what one sees as an unfair or tyrannical gov't, I feel it is the right of all free men to do what they must to extricate themselves from said gov't. Obvioulsy the Confederacy felt the same way.

Quote:
As for the police officer example, it is quite apt. The South did not want a federal garrison in South Carolina. You admit this. They wanted the cop somewhere else, and they wanted the fort. So they shot at the troops in that fort.

If the government no longer has the power to enforce its own laws, then it ceases to be a government at all. Whether one agrees or disagrees, lobbies for or against, once the votes are taken, all folks in a democracy agree to go along with the will of the majority. Should I be allowed to violate or rebel from a law I think is unfair, that I voted against, but the majority overruled? Can you imagine how that would work out, if everyone did that?

I admit that South Carolina did not want the Federal troops in Fort Sumter, but you seem to miss the point. At the time Anderson secretly moved his troops into Sumter, South Carolina had seceded from the Union. Whether or not the Union "legally" recognized this separation or not is mote. Anderson is the only Union commander that did not abandon the forts as South Carolina requested. Note I do not say ordered, as it is a documented fact that South Carolina petitioned Washington for the release of these facilities. For four months South Carolina tried to negotiate peacefully for the abandonment of the fort. Anderson & Buchanan refused.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do find it odd that only the one commander did not leave his fort as asked. I also find it odd that he moved from his original garrison into Sumter. I find it equally odd that Washington did not condemn the men that left the other forts in South Carolina, or order the garrisons to return to their posts. If Washington truly did not recognize South Carolina's leaving the Union, why then did its troops leave their posts without a single shot being fired? Why did Anderson move from his post to another, uncompleted fort from which there was no escape? Why did Washington not recall him? Why did they instead try to send more troops & supplies?

There is no denying that Buchanan tried to reinforce Sumter. I propose that Anderson & his men were put in Sumter to provide a catalyst for war. I believe that Washington was willing to sacrifice that garrison to have reason to launch their war.

South Carolina exhausted all methods to clear the fort, yet Washington would not budge. You must remember that at this point, South Carolina stood alone in secession. A potentially hostile force, one whose commander threatened to fire on any ship that came within range of his guns, sat just off the shores of the major port of Charleston. It is tactically unsound to allow an opposing force to camp in your back yard. If they refuse to listen to reason, then they must be removed by force.

I further submit that if Brig. Gen. Beauregard had not fired on Sumter, that another relief fleet would have tried to sail into the harbor to again be driven off b

DRAKON

Friday, October 17, 2003 9:34 AM

Okay, I think we are getting somewhere. You admit that the secession was not legal. That renders South Carolina's actions illegal, both the secession, and the firing on Ft. Sumter. Whether it was odd, or a conspiracy, or "bait" or what have you, is irrelevant. The actions taken were illegal.

Now to the moral question, this gets murkier. By your own admission, for the South the issue was primarily export tariffs. Which as I understand was the power granted to the federal government, to levy such tariffs, and to regulate interstate and international trade. We can both agree that the South thought they were morally right to seceed and rebel from the Union.

It is not an issue as to whether the South "believed" they were right. Obviously they did, and fought and died in large numbers because of that belief.

The question is whether that position is true. And in the area of morality, this gets complicated. Because it depends on a particular moral code.

Ideally, everyone lives by the same code of behaviour, or morality. Yet we do not live in an ideal world. People differ about even whether it is okay to explode bombs on busses full of civilians.

Your cause centers on whether the tariffs were "tyrannical" and whether a failure to get your way via legal means justifies going to war. Simplified, what we have is the South fighting for lower export tariff, under the rubric of "states rights" (which it must be conceeded also included slavery) versus the Union's fight to preserve the democratic government.

No matter how you slice it, or try to excuse it, you are esentially asking for a "do over" concerning the powers of the federal government. Powers granted some 70 years prior to the war. By South Carolina and all the states in the Union after the Constitution was established. And again, the South lost the vote.

I understand the frustration, but one has to question the rightness of the cause when it is a minority opinion. Contrary to some modern thinking, the minority is not always right.

As to treason and success. As someone once said before, if it is successful, none call treason. That is simply a fact of life. When a new nation fights for its liberty and wins, that changes things, and one can either recognize the changed situation, realize that the previous authority or link no longer exists, or try to live in a fantasy world.

And when the war is lost, one has to question the rightness of the cause. Was it hubris, pride, a false sense of moral superiority to blunder into such a waist of effort? Was the majority right after all? We seldom want to recognize our own failings, our own false beliefs. But sometimes refusing to prevents us from fixing them.

Quote:
If Lincoln did not recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation, and believed them part of the Union in open rebellion, then any order or proclomation given, regardless of time would have been seen as valid.

This is wrong. Ideally you are right, but again we do not live in an ideal world. The fact was that the South was in open rebellion, and the Union did not have political control over most of the South to enforce such laws. It would have looked foolish, to enact a law one cannot enforce. To enact a meaningless law.

As to the South paying for 87% of the tariffs, even today, you find the richest 5% of Americans paying something like 2/3rds of all federal taxes. So the fact that the tax burden is uneven is not quite a valid argument, since I don't see too many modern day southerns arguing to equalize this same problem.

As to the question of slavery yet again. Wanting to, intending to, none of that matters. It is what is actually done, not all the lip service and feelings that preceed. If the South had freed the slaves, things might have turned out different. But they didn't, and made have had at the time good reason not to. But in the end, none of that matters. Lincoln was able to use that politically to isolate the South from France and England. Again, whether it was a trap or not, the South still walked boldly into it.

DRAKON

Friday, October 17, 2003 1:30 PM

There are a couple points that have bugged me,been burrowin in the back of my brain. And its been difficult to figure out exactly what for a bit.

So here is a bit more.
1) You keep harping on Northern representatives representing Northern interests, to the detriment of Southern ones. Yet exactly who were these elected officals supposed to represent? The folks that elected them? or the folks that didn't.

2) 87% is a lot. And as you know, the seller is not the one that pays this (exactly). Its covered in the price he sells it at. Any time there is a tax on a product, that gets passed on to the buyer. While the seller may make more money, and reduce his prices if the tax was not present, still, if he don't sell, the government don't see a dime.

If the South was paying 87% of the tax in 1860 alone, that means they were doing a booming trade REGARDLESS of the export tariff.

3) You talk about Northern tyranny, but yet again, you seem to ignore a credibility problem when you do so. The South was still running under the slave/plantation system, and supporting that. So arguing that the North was being tyrannical to the South, when the South was subjecting a segment of their own population to far worse, is not an effective argument.

The last thing that has always bugged me was Picket's Charge. Gettysburg in effect broke the back of the South, and it was Picket's charge up the middle, that really broke the South in that battle. Looking at it, granted hindsight is always 20/20, it looks like an incredibly stupid move on Lee's part. Why did he do that?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, October 17, 2003 7:21 PM

Quote:
1) You keep harping on Northern representatives representing Northern interests, to the detriment of Southern ones. Yet exactly who were these elected officals supposed to represent? The folks that elected them? or the folks that didn't.

Of course Northern reps should look after Northern interests, but that was not my point. My point was (and perhaps I did not clearly define it) was that the Federal gov't placed Northern interests above those of the South. Last time I looked, the gov't was supposed to look out for the whole country, not just the special interests of the North.

Quote:
2) 87% is a lot. And as you know, the seller is not the one that pays this (exactly). Its covered in the price he sells it at. Any time there is a tax on a product, that gets passed on to the buyer. While the seller may make more money, and reduce his prices if the tax was not present, still, if he don't sell, the government don't see a dime.

If the South was paying 87% of the tax in 1860 alone, that means they were doing a booming trade REGARDLESS of the export tariff.

Were they doing a booming business? I realize that a seller generally builds the cost of export taxes into the final cost of his product, but let's look at it this way. Generally the South would be able to sell let's say, a bail of cotton for a set price. That price is a bit lower than the cost Egypt charges, so the buyer is apt to buy the Southern cotton. Now add the cost of the ridiculously high tax set by the Federal gov't to keep the cotton in the U.S., to twist the arm of the South to sell to Northern industry, and the cost is now higher than the Egyptian cotton. No brainer, the English merchant buys from Egypt, forcing the Southern merchant to go home empty handed. Rather than let it rot in a warehouse in Charleston, he takes it North to sell at a cost far less than Europe was willing to pay just so he has something to show for his effort.

A large portion (in this case 87%) of tax does not necessarily equate to a large profit. Many companies look extremely busy one week, then go out of business the next because they are operating at a loss. You can only control costs so much.

Quote:
3) You talk about Northern tyranny, but yet again, you seem to ignore a credibility problem when you do so. The South was still running under the slave/plantation system, and supporting that. So arguing that the North was being tyrannical to the South, when the South was subjecting a segment of their own population to far worse, is not an effective argument.

Yes, the South had slaves. I believe that point is a matter of fact and not in dispute, at least not from me. Less than 1 in 10 Southern homes had a slave. What you seem to forget is that the North had slaves too! I am not sure what the percentage of Northern homes were that owned slaves, but rest assured I will try to find that number.

Slavery was a legal institution in this country for over 200 years. Africans were brought here by northern slave traders to be used in northern industry, long before the antebellum South or the Confederacy ever existed. The first American colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts, a northern state, in 1641, only 17 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. The slave trade was very profitable to the shipping colonies and Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire had many ships in the slave trade. The moral argument against slavery arose early in the New England shipping colonies but it could not withstand the profits of the trade and soon died out.

Thomas Jefferson (who owned slaves himself) condemned the slave trade in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but the New England slave traders lobbied to have the clause stricken. In a short eleven year period form 1755 to 1766, no fewer than 23,000 slaves landed in Massachusetts. By 1787, Rhode Island had taken first place in the slave trade to be unseated later by New York. Before long, millions of slaves would be broug

VETERAN

Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:40 AM

Quote:
I don't think we will ever know for sure why Lee ordered Pickett's Charge, only that this is point where the war was lost for the Confederacy

Quite a few historians have said that Lee was convinced of his army's invincibility. Frankly, they had earned this trust. They had done what he asked of them so often that he didn't believe they could fail.

Besides the charge was only part of his tactics. Lee did not throw everything into the charge up the center. He sent JEB Stuart around the Union Army with instructions to hit it from the rear. He was hoping for a hammer and anvil effect. Stuart didn't make it though; he was stopped by a Union calvary brigade.

Quote:
What he did not realize was that the rolling hills of the battlefield hid a Union battery from his view beyond Cemetary Ridge. He also did not know of the split rail fence at the Emmitsburg Road his men would have to cross to reach the Union lines, as it was hidden by a dip in the land.

Lee knew about the Union artillery on the Cemetery Ridge, but he thought they were nearly out of ammunition. In fact the Union guns answered the Confederate guns for a short time and then went silent, as if to confirm that the were out of ammunition, only to open up again when the Confederates drew closer.

He must have known about the fence at Emmitsburg Road because Longstreet had crossed the road the previous day.

DRAKON

Saturday, October 18, 2003 10:23 AM

Quote:
Of course Northern reps should look after Northern interests, but that was not my point. My point was (and perhaps I did not clearly define it) was that the Federal gov't placed Northern interests above those of the South. Last time I looked, the gov't was supposed to look out for the whole country, not just the special interests of the North.

Then you get into the problem of knowing just which interest those are, and what to do when they conflict. We use a democratic, winner take all system. The South was in the minority, and lost the vote. That is how things works.

Quote:
Were they doing a booming business? I realize that a seller generally builds the cost of export taxes into the final cost of his product, but let's look at it this way. Generally the South would be able to sell let's say, a bail of cotton for a set price. That price is a bit lower than the cost Egypt charges, so the buyer is apt to buy the Southern cotton. Now add the cost of the ridiculously high tax set by the Federal gov't to keep the cotton in the U.S., to twist the arm of the South to sell to Northern industry, and the cost is now higher than the Egyptian cotton. No brainer, the English merchant buys from Egypt, forcing the Southern merchant to go home empty handed. Rather than let it rot in a warehouse in Charleston, he takes it North to sell at a cost far less than Europe was willing to pay just so he has something to show for his effort.

And in doing so, the Federal government loses the export taxes on those goods which are not exported. And the South ends up NOT paying 87% of the Federal tax.

Quote:
A large portion (in this case 87%) of tax does not necessarily equate to a large profit. Many companies look extremely busy one week, then go out of business the next because they are operating at a loss. You can only control costs so much.

I don't know, am merely speculating at this point. But maybe that was the plan all along.

The cotton was grown using slave labor, and the slave system would only survived as long as was economically viable. By making it no longer viable to export, at least the US kept the "sin" inside itself, instead of infecting the rest of the world with the idea that slavery was economically good.

Quote:
Yes, the South had slaves. I believe that point is a matter of fact and not in dispute, at least not from me. Less than 1 in 10 Southern homes had a slave. What you seem to forget is that the North had slaves too! I am not sure what the percentage of Northern homes were that owned slaves, but rest assured I will try to find that number.

I have no doubt you will. But you have to admit that smuggling slaves is far different from open importation. Smuggling is illegal, a violation of the law, and contrary to the governments position on the issue.

It is my understanding that all the northern states, with the exception of Maryland had outlawed slavery by the time of the Civil war. No doubt you will correct that perception.

Quote:
It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag.

Now why do you think that is? Because during the civil war, it became the flag of those liberating the slaves, rather than the flag of the status quo ante. You get a mixed bag there, and if none of your later actions make up for your previous sins, well, we all got a problem.

Quote:
I don't think we will ever know for sure why Lee ordered Pickett's Charge, only that this is point where the war was lost for the Confederacy.

Bad intel, requirements for a strategic victory, repeating a manuver that had worked so often before, all that is probably right. But a mile long charge across open field, parts of which were not visible beforehand? Part of me has always wondered if this fatal blunder on Lee's part was not subconscious

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

VETERAN

Sunday, October 19, 2003 4:21 AM

Quote:
Browncoat1 wrote: It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag.

Quote:
Drakon Wrote: Now why do you think that is? Because during the civil war, it became the flag of those liberating the slaves, rather than the flag of the status quo ante. You get a mixed bag there, and if none of your later actions make up for your previous sins, well, we all got a problem.

Good show Drakon, that is an excellent response.

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, October 20, 2003 2:25 PM

Veteran wrote:

Quote:
Good show Drakon, that is an excellent response.

Perhaps, but it avoids the fact that slaves in the U.S. suffered for more than 200 years under Old Glory and only 4 years under the Stars & Bars.

I think the foremost reason that the Confederate flag is viewed by many as it is, is due to the fact that some ignorant hate group like the KKK "adopted" it as a symbol. I detest everything these people stand for and for them to sully the battle flag of the Confederacy is a disgrace.

Quote:
Quite a few historians have said that Lee was convinced of his army's invincibility. Frankly, they had earned this trust. They had done what he asked of them so often that he didn't believe they could fail.

Besides the charge was only part of his tactics. Lee did not throw everything into the charge up the center. He sent JEB Stuart around the Union Army with instructions to hit it from the rear. He was hoping for a hammer and anvil effect. Stuart didn't make it though; he was stopped by a Union calvary brigade.

Yes, the Confederate army, more specifically the Army of Northern Virginia, had time and again proven themselves worthy of Lee's trust, but I do not think Lee thought of his army as "invulnerable". Lee knew full well the capabilities of his army, and their limitations. To say that Lee's judgement was faulty by some misconception of "invulerability" is pure speculation w/ no basis in fact.

Lee sent Stuart around to strike into the rear of the Union lines, but that was more a diversion than any serious attempt to break the Union lines. By the time of the Civil War cavalry was most effective as a scouting force since firearms of the period and unit tactics made cavalry against infantry deadly unless the infantry are routed.

Yes, Stuart ran into a Union cavalry unit, but it is doubtful if his force had hit the Union's rear area if it would have made any true difference.

Quote:
Lee knew about the Union artillery on the Cemetery Ridge, but he thought they were nearly out of ammunition. In fact the Union guns answered the Confederate guns for a short time and then went silent, as if to confirm that the were out of ammunition, only to open up again when the Confederates drew closer.

He must have known about the fence at Emmitsburg Road because Longstreet had crossed the road the previous day.

It is speculated that Lee may have known about the guns on Cemetary Ridge, but it is not certain. Lee could not see the guns, nor could he have known their number. It is believed that Longstreet or some part of his force must have seen the gun carriage tracks crossing the fields where the Union moved the guns to the Ridge, but there is no record of any report made from Longstree to Lee about finding such tracks.

It is possible since the guns were out of sight that Lee thought the cannon fire came from Little Round top or another Union battery.

Did Longstreet see the fence? It is possible, but if he did, there is no record of it. You must also remember that when the line marched across the field, smoke from the cannons was so thick it obscured the field and by the time they neared the road, the line was stretched out longer than was planned and much of the brigade hit the fence. If you look at a map of the area, the fence did not extend the entire length of the road.

Drakon wrote:

Quote:
I have no doubt you will. But you have to admit that smuggling slaves is far different from open importation. Smuggling is illegal, a violation of the law, and contrary to the governments position on the issue.

It is my understanding that all the northern states, with the exception of Maryland had outlawed slavery by the time of the Civil war. No doubt you will correct that perception.

In February 1861, Congress first passed a Thirteenth Amendment to guarantee the legality of slavery in slave states, rather than to end it. Although it narrowly passed both houses, the Civil War started before it could be sent to the states for ratification.

VETERAN

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 4:00 AM

Quote:
I think the foremost reason that the Confederate flag is viewed by many as it is, is due to the fact that some ignorant hate group like the KKK "adopted" it as a symbol.

Absolutely true.

Quote:
but I do not think Lee thought of his army as "invulnerable". Lee knew full well the capabilities of his army, and their limitations. To say that Lee's judgement was faulty by some misconception of "invulerability" is pure speculation w/ no basis in fact.

Most of this thread is speculation. The fact is Pickett's Charge was a longshot. Lee took a lot of chances, dividing his forces in the face of a numerically superior foe, etc. I think he had to (less manpower, etc). But they worked out many times. When things break right for you so often it's got to affect your judgement.

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:55 PM

Veteran wrote:

Quote:
Most of this thread is speculation. The fact is Pickett's Charge was a longshot. Lee took a lot of chances, dividing his forces in the face of a numerically superior foe, etc. I think he had to (less manpower, etc). But they worked out many times. When things break right for you so often it's got to affect your judgement.

I agree. The sad part of history is that if it is not properly recorded, a great deal of truth and knowledge are lost, leaving future generations to speculate and ponder. If only Lee had left some writings on the war and why he made the decisions he did, especially at Gettysburg, so much would be laid to rest.

Lee's dividing his forces, as you said, had worked for him every time he used it in the past. I am certain he thought it might work at Gettysburg as well. Even though dividing his forces went against every military maxim at the time, Lee did it, and made it work throughout the war. What we need to remember is that Lee never used a frontal assault against the center. He favored flanking his opponent, and why he did not use it in this instance is a matter of speculation.

I agree that there is a possibility that Lee's tactics had worked so often, that there is a chance it may have colored his judgement on that fateful 3rd day in Gettysburg, but alas we will never know.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Perhaps, but it avoids the fact that slaves in the U.S. suffered for more than 200 years under Old Glory and only 4 years under the Stars & Bars.

This is probably the most disingenous argument I have ever heard.

First off, the US had only come into existence in 1789. It was not 200 years old when the Civil war broke out, let alone had the Stars and Stripes as its flag.

Second, slavery was an important institution in the South. As had been noted earlier, almost all of the Northern states had outlawed it at the time. So the part of the US that was still slave holding, was exactly the part that ceded and flew the Stars and Bars for 4 years.

As noted earlier, slavery was part of America before America was a nation. It was part of our inherentence from England. Yet, it was English ships, under the Union Jack that first put pressure on the Atlantic slave trade to stop it.

Even though slavery in America began under the English, the English corrected that mistake, and took steps to end it, both at home and overseas. Even though slavery started before the Union was formed, it was the Union that put an end to it. To correct that sin, Northern boys fought and died. Southerners fought and died too, but no matter how many great leaders of the South wanted to end slavery, they did not. And ended up fighting to preserve the system.

Slavery poisoned the Confederacy's ideals, and its moral standing. It kept the British and French from supporting her, and rendered her arguments about tyranny and tariffs on the federal level unpersuasive. And even, on the verge of getting the slave system, which at the time was their economic livelyhood, protected by both Supreme Court ruling, and a constitutional amendment, the South still shot at federal troops and ceded from the Union that had bent over backwards to protect their unique way of life, despite the fundamental hypocricy it posed to the foundational principles of this nation.

Slavery made the Confederacy the "wrong side" and ruined any good that might have come from her. It was a fundamental contradiction to the very ideals the revolution of 1776 proclaimed and needed to be removed, if the US was ever to be the kind of nation the founding fathers dreamed it should be. The North saw that, and many southerns did too. But the Confederacy still fought on the losing and wrong side of that issue.

So the flag gets adopted by hate groups, and sullies it name. Sorry to hear that. But it was the South that had brought it upon itself. Whether Sumter was a trap or not, is beside the point. South Carolina blundered into it boldly. It was the Confederacy that lost the votes, and fired on the fort, lost the debate, and the war. Almost 150 years ago.

Whether you like it or not, the single most defining characterisic difference between the North and the South was the slave system. And it was that system that the Stars and Bars represented. You can talk about States rights, and export tariffs till you are blue in the face, but the nagging question of slavery still haunts, and damages, the reputation of the Confederacy. The Union ended it. The Confederacy did not. You can argue they "did not get a chance," all you like. But it just doesn't fly.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SOUTHERNMERC

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:17 AM

You are correct that slavery was not in America for 200 years. The truth was it was here alot longer. If I remember correctly, the first slaves were brought here in the 1600's. Slavery, as an institution, wasn't a new thing even then. It was around for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of the New World. Did many people of the world, such as the British you mention, find the notion of slavery so abhorrent they banned it from their respective nations? Sure did, quite a while before the USA even considered it.

Why didn't the Union abolish slavery long before the Civil War? I think it had something to do with economics. Chills me to write this, but I think it boils down to that. The South produced the cash crops needed by the nation. The North, and the Federal government, was content to let slavery continue, so long as it kept the wallets full. When the South seceded, it removed a significant amount of revenue from the Union. While there was a growing movement to abolish slavery, it was still a small minority. Most either didn't care, or didn't want the former slaves competing for jobs. Politicians of the day felt blacks could never become citizens, so there was little impetus (aside from moral outrage from the abolitionists) to free them.

But I think there is a key problem with many of the arguments presented here. They focus on the period of the Civil War, but do not touch on the two decades prior to said war. People do not go to war overnight, there has to be a reason for the use of force. The reasons are numerous, and have been touched on in this discussion, but are irrelevant for the discussion. There was a more fundamental reason for the war, and it wasn't the notion that whites should own blacks (though it seems Drakon wishes to convince otherwise).

To understand this reason, one must understand what the benefit of a government, or any grouping, really is.

As an individual, I can accomplish many goals without the aid of others. Yet there remain many goals I cannot reach. I do not have the resources or the physical ability to accomplish these tasks, yet they remain important to me. Also, though I would wish it otherwise, I cannot protect myself completely from outside harm. Harm can come from nature, such as a tornado or flood, or from other individuals, such as thieves or ruffians. To provide for such resources for my goals, and to protect myself from hostile individuals, it is advantageous to align myself with other like-minded individuals whom I can trust to support me in my endeavors. And they trust me to support them in their endeavors and to help protect them as well should they need my aid. This is a simple example of a grouping, one that aids and supports the other members of the group. If individual members of a group repeatedly refuse aid, or act as obstructionists to the needs of other members, then those members are removed. In the case of a majority of members interfering and even harming the interests of a minority, the minority leaves the group to create their own grouping elsewhere. Without mutual advantage, there is no benefit to remaining with the group.
Governments are simply the organized leadership of a group of individuals. The government is specialized to see to the needs of the group as a whole, while the individual memebers of the group pursue their own specific goals. Government occasionally asks for individuals to sacrifice for the benefit of the group, but individuals must be compensated later or convinced of the "rightness" of the reasons for sacrifice. If a governing body does not see to the needs of the members of the group, or favors a set of individuals over another (such as those with wealth, or those of a certain religion, or even those of a certain race), then the governing body must be corrected. If the governing body cannot be corrected, or refuses to allow such corrections, then that body must either be changed by force or abandoned.

The Southern states were in a minority in the Union, both by population and ra

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:17 AM

Good summary. Although I do quibble with the assertion that I see slavery as the only issue. I see it as important and relavant to the South's decision to leave, as well as a possible reason for some of the Northern actions taken prior to the war. Not the only issue, but it is, if not central, at least very close, to why the war came about in the first place.

But I really liked what you said here:

Quote:
As an individual, I can accomplish many goals without the aid of others. Yet there remain many goals I cannot reach. I do not have the resources or the physical ability to accomplish these tasks, yet they remain important to me. Also, though I would wish it otherwise, I cannot protect myself completely from outside harm. Harm can come from nature, such as a tornado or flood, or from other individuals, such as thieves or ruffians. To provide for such resources for my goals, and to protect myself from hostile individuals, it is advantageous to align myself with other like-minded individuals whom I can trust to support me in my endeavors. And they trust me to support them in their endeavors and to help protect them as well should they need my aid. This is a simple example of a grouping, one that aids and supports the other members of the group. If individual members of a group repeatedly refuse aid, or act as obstructionists to the needs of other members, then those members are removed. In the case of a majority of members interfering and even harming the interests of a minority, the minority leaves the group to create their own grouping elsewhere. Without mutual advantage, there is no benefit to remaining with the group.

I have one quibble, and that is the word "need".

Needs are means to an end. There is essentially only wants, desires. Without those desires present, then needs do not exist. A need is a dependent concept.

We all "need" food, water, air, etc. But that is only if we desire to continue existing as we do now. If we have no such desire, if we are suicidal, then such needs no longer exist as well.

And when those needs conflict with the needs, desires of others, then you get a problem.

You and others can talk passionately about the needs of the South, but the problem still remains that one of the things the South needed was to preserve their economic viability at that time, was the continuation of slavery. It needed to veto the needs of the black population in the South, to put their own needs ahead of the slaves. And at the point of a gun demand the slaves put the needs of their Masters ahead of their own.

No matter how you dress it up, slavery was fundamental to the Confederacy. And it ruined their logical arguments for any kind of freedom from tyranny, exposed it as a hypocracy. It ruined foreign support, and ultimately killed the Confederacy. It reduced the issue of tariffs and such as trivial, and made the South's actions all that more questionable.

Whether you like it or not, southern aristocracy depended on the plantation system for its wealth, power and leasure. Without the slave system, the South would have been a very different place, and secession possibly less likely.

Now, I recognize the Union's initial reason for fighting was to preserve the Union, the democratic government that had been established. No government can exist where rebellion is legal, and so rebellions have to be fought. They have to be suppressed, or else no government is safe. And the benefits you talked about deriving from organizing a government evaporate.

The South did not leave, so much as say "Come and get us" They did not pick up and move somewhere else, like our immigrant ancestors did (and even our non-immigrant ancestors did, only earlier) They stayed put, and cut their nation out of the boundaries of the old one. Again, a dangerous precedent for any government to let stand.

Quote:

To summarize: Is slavery wrong? Yes.
Did the Civil War end slavery? Yes, indirectly.
Was it the reason for the Civil War? No.

Did the South comprise the majority of slave owne

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:21 AM

Quote:
I will welcome your response, please don't patronize mine.

I am never (intentionally) patronizing. Boring, stubborn, arrogant, pedantic, maybe. But I never intend to be patronizing, or condescending or insulting. I have been told I come off that way in my writings, but it is not my intention.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

URIAH

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:41 AM

I have read most of these posts and am struck by the timing.
I just returned from Tifton GA where we buried my Grandfather. He was one of the (very) few remaining true sons of the Confederacy and was sent off with cannon and rifle salute, the piper played Dixie and my Grandmother was presented with the Confederate battle flag that draped his coffin. I cried, the Sons of the Confederacy in attendance (from 3 states) cried, even the grounds keeper that didn't know us from adam cried. I had never given much thought to "southern identity" before, except to hide it as it has way too much stigma attatched to it.
My Great-grandfather entered the GA militia at 14 and survived the war to sire my Grandfather at the age of 67...he never owned a slave and reportedly resented their use because it made it hard to compete with his little sugarcane/tobbaco operation.
After I had hugged and wept with every one of those strangers in their anachronistic uniforms I left with the realization that it must be a poor life indeed to live denying your heritage (with all it's flaws) and vowed never to downplay my feelings because a boy named Jasper went to fight just because he wanted to protect the land he loved. I'm glad, in the end, that he lost but I am wiping tears of pride because he fought.

DRAKON

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:27 PM

Great^N granddad and his brother enlisted in Arkansas, where the family had moved from Georgia back around 1840. Both fought at the battle of of Helena, and were captured. Great^N Uncle caught more or less healthy, while grandpa had been shot in the hand.

Uncle was sent to a POW camp in Illinois, and died of smallpox later on. Great^N Grandpa was sent to a military hospital and survived the war.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SOUTHERNMERC

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:45 PM

Drakon, I agree with many, if not most, of what you have said. I simply wish to clarify that the issue of slavery was such an unimportant issue until the North decided it was advantageous to end it. We know now what a horrible thing it was, but remember that the civil rights movement started roughly a CENTURY after the civil war. I agree that the Union and Confederacy was much better off together in the long run, but that is only with hindsight. The people of the time were doing what they could to deal with the issues of the time. You're right, slavery was the issue used to end the War, but it was used as a bludgeon, not considered ethically or morally. Black slaves were non-people then, and remained so well into the 20th century. I assert that to use the ending of slavery as an important issue of the war is as fine a piece of hypocracy as any the Confederacy used. Note that I don't disagree with you over 75-90% with what you're saying, just this particular point. I'm also not saying the South wasn't wrong about it, I'm saying the Union wasn't right about it (the treatment of blacks) either. There is plenty of blame to go around about this sticky subject.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

SOUTHERNMERC

Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:16 PM

This is, I believe, the crux of the matter.

It has been said Southern identity is on the decline, and many welcome this. Southern identity has been linked to a terrible act, slavery, and thus with the removal of that identity is the removal of slavery in the USA. But this is a deliberate passing of blame for an entire nation's wrongs upon a small segment of its population. No one could muster the political support for abolition, even though many important people of the time felt the institution of slavery was wrong. It was simply too profitable to remove, both in the North and the South. What removed it was pure political expediency: the removal of support from the South and the appearance, in the eyes of the nations of the world, of the rightness of the North's cause. As I said, the North needed the economic strength of the South, and was willing to get it through whatever means necessary. As for aboltion, the abolitionists would not, or could not, provide for the transition of the blacks into the general population. The Emancipation Proclamation itself was greeted with riots in the North, fully two years after the start of the war.

Again, with the hindsight we have now, we know the wrongness of the enslavement of a race. But at the time, very few considered blacks to be people (or even human in some cases), so there was little reason (in their eyes) for freeing them. Disgusting and disturbing as it is, this was the mindset of most Americans of the time. Dressing up the North's aggresion as some sort of mission to bring freedom to a race is revisionism of the worst sort. It attempts to place blame for centuries of injustice squarely (and expediently) upon the shoulders of the defeated, as a means to justify the winners victory.

Drakon, your responses seem very well thought out, what is your opinion on my assertation that the North vilified the South to make their cause seem justified?

Jayne: "How big a room?"

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, October 24, 2003 5:10 PM

Drakon wrote:

Quote:
This is probably the most disingenous argument I have ever heard.

First off, the US had only come into existence in 1789. It was not 200 years old when the Civil war broke out, let alone had the Stars and Stripes as its flag.

Second, slavery was an important institution in the South. As had been noted earlier, almost all of the Northern states had outlawed it at the time. So the part of the US that was still slave holding, was exactly the part that ceded and flew the Stars and Bars for 4 years.

As noted earlier, slavery was part of America before America was a nation. It was part of our inherentence from England. Yet, it was English ships, under the Union Jack that first put pressure on the Atlantic slave trade to stop it.

Even though slavery in America began under the English, the English corrected that mistake, and took steps to end it, both at home and overseas. Even though slavery started before the Union was formed, it was the Union that put an end to it. To correct that sin, Northern boys fought and died. Southerners fought and died too, but no matter how many great leaders of the South wanted to end slavery, they did not. And ended up fighting to preserve the system.

Slavery poisoned the Confederacy's ideals, and its moral standing. It kept the British and French from supporting her, and rendered her arguments about tyranny and tariffs on the federal level unpersuasive. And even, on the verge of getting the slave system, which at the time was their economic livelyhood, protected by both Supreme Court ruling, and a constitutional amendment, the South still shot at federal troops and ceded from the Union that had bent over backwards to protect their unique way of life, despite the fundamental hypocricy it posed to the foundational principles of this nation.

Slavery made the Confederacy the "wrong side" and ruined any good that might have come from her. It was a fundamental contradiction to the very ideals the revolution of 1776 proclaimed and needed to be removed, if the US was ever to be the kind of nation the founding fathers dreamed it should be. The North saw that, and many southerns did too. But the Confederacy still fought on the losing and wrong side of that issue.

So the flag gets adopted by hate groups, and sullies it name. Sorry to hear that. But it was the South that had brought it upon itself. Whether Sumter was a trap or not, is beside the point. South Carolina blundered into it boldly. It was the Confederacy that lost the votes, and fired on the fort, lost the debate, and the war. Almost 150 years ago.

Whether you like it or not, the single most defining characterisic difference between the North and the South was the slave system. And it was that system that the Stars and Bars represented. You can talk about States rights, and export tariffs till you are blue in the face, but the nagging question of slavery still haunts, and damages, the reputation of the Confederacy. The Union ended it. The Confederacy did not. You can argue they "did not get a chance," all you like. But it just doesn't fly.

First off, relax. Talk about me arguing something until I am blue in the face. Pot, kettle. You are no more going to change what I believe & know, and it is obvious you will not see anything but your point.

I do not deny anything the South did wrong. Slavery was wrong. Say it w/ me class.... We know it was wrong. Yes the South did not end it, but they could not abolish slavery without destroying their economy and impoverishing the entire South. If they did that, who do you think they would have turned to for financial aid? The Union, that's who.

As others have pointed out, slavery existed in this country, in America, the United States, long before the Confederacy was even dreamed up. The US flag in one incarnation flew over this land during that time, regardless which person sat in the drivers seat in Washington. Sure slavery was "outlawed" in the North before the start of the War, less than 30 years prior, but how is it th

DRAKON

Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
First off, relax. Talk about me arguing something until I am blue in the face. Pot, kettle. You are no more going to change what I believe & know, and it is obvious you will not see anything but your point.

This is calm. It probably does not play well in text, but as I have said before, the fact it happened about 150 years ago, well, it seems kinda silly to get all worked up about. We disagree, and perhaps we will not convince each other, but I still find it enlightening to discuss this kind of stuff.

Quote:
I do not deny anything the South did wrong. Slavery was wrong. Say it w/ me class.... We know it was wrong. Yes the South did not end it, but they could not abolish slavery without destroying their economy and impoverishing the entire South. If they did that, who do you think they would have turned to for financial aid? The Union, that's who.

Absolutely true, well, mostly true. But for the most part irrelevant to the reason why the Confederate flag is associated with slavery, while the US flag is not. The reason why is secondary to the fact that it was not done.

Just as the reason why the Union freed the slaves is secondary to the fact that they did it. Whether their motivations were pure or not, does not matter. They acted, and that action had consequences. It is the consequences that matter, far more than the reasonings and rationales before the act.

I find the assertion that it would bankrupt the entire south a bit hard to handle. As you noted earlier, only 10% of southerns owned slaves. I believe they may have been the more wealthy individuals, and do grant that wealthy folk have a greater impact on the region's economy than poor folk do, but would it have been that bad economically overall, if the South had followed their better instincts?

Short term probably worse for a time. But in the long haul, I think you would even agree it would have been economically better.

It does bring up an interesting question on the effects of slavery on southern culture.

Quote:
If there is blame, it lies on both sides of the Mason Dixon line.

But my point still stands. It was the US flag under which the liberation of slavery was accomplished. Not the Confederate one. You may see that as unfair, but think for a moment. If you were a slave, which flag would be more attractive to you? The one that comprise the slave states which had ceded from the Union, or the flag of the Union that ultimately freed you, regardless of reason or cost, or even if they had previously allowed slavery before. The person who figures out that slavery is wrong, even late and life and actually does something about it, or the person who knows its wrong, and does nothing?

It seems that your argument is that the North should be equally condemned, for "aiding and abetting". I don't think that works. Even if true it does not take into account that one cannot "aid and abet" a crime, if a crime is not committed in the first place.

And I will say it again. If your future actions in no ways make up for past errors, then we all are in a world of hurt.

Quote:
I concur, and I have tried to show that the problems leading up the War were far more than the issue of slavery, which was not a major issue, at least not as major as some might wish to believe.

You have tried. But actually talking to you has convinced me that it was more central to the difference between northern and southern culture, tthe difference in mind set, and also the defeat of the Southern armies.

You've noted that despite only 10% of southerner owning slaves, it was too important economically to abolish the slave system. Economics does affect culture as well as ability to fight and win wars. The south may have been fighting against export tariffs, and for states rights, but the more I look at it, I see the institution of slavery polluting the nobility of their cause, and aiding and abetting their defeat.

Quote:
Exactly! They left

SOUTHERNMERC

Saturday, October 25, 2003 1:39 PM

I think the central problem here, Drakon, is that your posts seem to be justifying the various injustices perpetrated upon the South by tagging the South as "wrong." Many of your posts suggest the reason the South lost wasn't because of the superior technology, supply, and political maneuvering of the North (which was impressive, given their win/loss record with Southern armies), but because of some moral waffling on the part of the Southern forces. Note that this is simply what your posts appear to be saying.

We live in a much more enlightened period than those of our ancestors 140 years ago. We believe in the equality of race and gender, and of the tolerance of others beliefs. This was NOT SO over a century ago. As I, and others, have tried to make plain to everyone, so very few people considered blacks to be of any worth other than labor that no one could bring political weight to bear against the institution of slavery in the United States of America. NO ONE. The Southern politicians viewed the whole debate as some sort of attack upon their livelyhood, not as some moral objection to the institution of slavery itself. What is much more likely, given racial views of the time, was the use of that issue as a bargaining tool against Southern businessmen. Were there genuine feelings about ending slavery in the debate? On both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, yes.

Was the South wrong to own slaves? Why, yes the South was wrong. Did the North have slaves? Although not nearly as many, yes. Were they just as wrong? Yes. Did anyone really care? Very, very few. They were there, without a doubt, but they were a small minority that could not rally support for their cause. Again, the United States of America was at fault then, not a handful of malcontents that had not broken away yet.

Quote:
I find the assertion that it would bankrupt the entire south a bit hard to handle. As you noted earlier, only 10% of southerns owned slaves. I believe they may have been the more wealthy individuals, and do grant that wealthy folk have a greater impact on the region's economy than poor folk do, but would it have been that bad economically overall, if the South had followed their better instincts?

The wealthy individuals were the ones producing the bulk of the nations cash crops. And you are correct, the wealthy ones were the ones who owned large numbers of slaves. Would it have been a bankrupting setback? Highly doubtful, yet who was going to pony up the cash for the recently freed slaves to be able to take care of themselves? Helping them get a fresh start would have been of paramount importance to getting the economy turned around. But the North would not have helped. They had made it clear the South would get no aid from the upper latitudes. Again, this was slavery being used as a bargaining chip against the South.

Quote:
But my point still stands. It was the US flag under which the liberation of slavery was accomplished. Not the Confederate one. You may see that as unfair, but think for a moment. If you were a slave, which flag would be more attractive to you? The one that comprise the slave states which had ceded from the Union, or the flag of the Union that ultimately freed you, regardless of reason or cost, or even if they had previously allowed slavery before. The person who figures out that slavery is wrong, even late and life and actually does something about it, or the person who knows its wrong, and does nothing?

You are correct again, the US flag was the flag that is associated with freeing the slaves. And it was also the one that experimented on black men during later wars. The USA considered blacks expendable. Their treatment in later years is not consistant with benevolent, caring government. This is why I said do not confuse the effects of the Civil War with the causes.

This next bit is interesting.

Quote:
The south may have been fighting against export tariffs, and for states rights, but the more I look at it, I see the institution of slavery polluting the nob

SOUTHERNMERC

Saturday, October 25, 2003 2:08 PM

Dear sweet God...where has this thread gone? I had to re-read the whole thing to figure out what the heck we were talking about in the first place. To all I've made hot under the collar, sorry I derailed the thread, but I really enjoy debates on history and politics (on science and religion, too).

And to Drakon,
Nothing I've said here is a personal attack, just a bit of heated debate. Enjoyed every post, can't wait for the next.

This double post brought to you by my lack of sleep, get it now while supplies last!

Jayne: "How big a room?"