The President and the Confederacy

[KRonn]

All the grief Tim is getting, but these things do often spark some serious contentions today. For example, some of the Southern States come under fire for displaying their State flags or the flags of the former Confederacy, and have had to change State flags or take down the Confederate flags, or display them more discretely. Then too, slavery and its aftermath for Blacks in Americe still spark debates and issues to this day and we programs and policies in place that deal with the aftermath that slavery left behind. So yeah, I wouldn't have been surprised if this caused more controversy than it apparently did.

[Jaron]

Isn't it odd that so many blacks chose to remain in the South?

Did the Jews stay in Germany after the Nazis?

Did the Puritans stay in England?

Did the Chinese stay in Nanking?

I just don't get the negro mind, I guess.

[Neil]

That monument honors the cause, not just the men.

I guess I still don't care.  L'Arc du Triomphe glorifies Napoleon's mission of conquest, and yet it's still an important memorial.

[Berkut]

Actually, the war was fought over the desire of the Southern states to extend slavery into the new territories - even over the objection of their current residents, if necessary.

So yes, one could easily say that they were on the offensive, at least in the larger scheme of things.

They were certainly traitors in either case. All rebels are.

But that, in and of itself, is no real slander. George Washington was a traitor, and he is one of the great men of history. Betraying a tyrant is nothing to be ashamed of, indeed, it is something to take great pride in.

In the case of the South, they betrayed the Union because the Union refused to extend slavery. I wouldn't say that was quite as noble a sentiment, but others may disagree.

[Neil]

George Washington was a traitor, and he is one of the great men of history. Betraying a tyrant is nothing to be ashamed of, indeed, it is something to take great pride in.

Fuck you, you ignorant wretch.

[Berkut]

George Washington was a traitor, and he is one of the great men of history. Betraying a tyrant is nothing to be ashamed of, indeed, it is something to take great pride in.

Fuck you, you ignorant wretch.

I knew you would respond to that...

[jimmy olsen]

George Washington was a traitor, and he is one of the great men of history. Betraying a tyrant is nothing to be ashamed of, indeed, it is something to take great pride in.

Fuck you, you ignorant wretch.

Scale back the emotion Neil, you don't want to be labeled a thug and a moron for getting excited over something 200 years gone.

[Grallon]

Save you anger for more important things, like Susan Boyle on the fucking news again.

  Didn't she have a nervous breakdown ?



G.

[Neil]

George Washington was a traitor, and he is one of the great men of history. Betraying a tyrant is nothing to be ashamed of, indeed, it is something to take great pride in.

Fuck you, you ignorant wretch.

Scale back the emotion Neil, you don't want to be labeled a thug and a moron for getting excited over something 200 years gone.

Why would I care about that?  When it comes to labels and invective, I can outfight anyone here.

Besides, the treason of the American people continues to this day.

[grumbler]

The Confederates wished they could have occupied DC, yes.

They were willing to do so if necessary, but they did not wish it to be necessary.

The fact that not all obeyed the state leadership, and the whole "brother v. brother" aspect of the Civil War, shows that people had choices.

The choices, though, were not between treason to one side or treason to the other, but the choice of which side had primary call on one's loyalty.

I have no problem with commemorating the Confederate dead, so long as the commemoration notes that these deaths were caused by the success of the southern aristocracy in deeply deluding the soldiers who fought as to what was at stake.   These soldiers did not think they were fighting to preserve slavery; they thought they were fighting to resist the evils of the Industrial Revolution.  They were wrong, but one cannot blame them too much for that, as they were poorly educated and had a tradition of deferring to the judgement of their "betters."

[Berkut]

Besides, the treason of the American people continues to this day.

No taxation without representation!!!!!

[PDH]

A horse divided against itself cannot stand.

[Berkut]

I have no problem with commemorating the Confederate dead, so long as the commemoration notes that these deaths were caused by the success of the southern aristocracy in deeply deluding the soldiers who fought as to what was at stake.   These soldiers did not think they were fighting to preserve slavery; they thought they were fighting to resist the evils of the Industrial Revolution.  They were wrong, but one cannot blame them too much for that, as they were poorly educated and had a tradition of deferring to the judgement of their "betters."

I am reading Team of Rivals, and the author touched on an interesting topic that I thu=ought would make for additional investigation.

She remarked how the South and the slavery economy was actually not jsut bad for the slaves, but bad for Southerners as well. The south had, even then, much higher illiteracy rates among whites, and a much lower median standard of living.

She didn't really go into WHY this was the case, and I wonder at her assumption that this was a result of the slavery culture, as opposed to other factors. I think she was getting at the idea that the slavery culture made industrialization difficult, which kept the South in a state of relatively backward rural subsistence farming for most Southerners.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Well C'mon. It wasn't called the "Civil" war for nothing, right? :p See Jaron's post for a reasonable adult response to your silly misplaced annoyance Tim.

Sheesh. what has the world come to.

[KRonn]

I have no problem with commemorating the Confederate dead, so long as the commemoration notes that these deaths were caused by the success of the southern aristocracy in deeply deluding the soldiers who fought as to what was at stake.   These soldiers did not think they were fighting to preserve slavery; they thought they were fighting to resist the evils of the Industrial Revolution.  They were wrong, but one cannot blame them too much for that, as they were poorly educated and had a tradition of deferring to the judgement of their "betters."

I am reading Team of Rivals, and the author touched on an interesting topic that I thu=ought would make for additional investigation.

She remarked how the South and the slavery economy was actually not jsut bad for the slaves, but bad for Southerners as well. The south had, even then, much higher illiteracy rates among whites, and a much lower median standard of living.

She didn't really go into WHY this was the case, and I wonder at her assumption that this was a result of the slavery culture, as opposed to other factors. I think she was getting at the idea that the slavery culture made industrialization difficult, which kept the South in a state of relatively backward rural subsistence farming for most Southerners.

Interesting. The South was slower to industrialize, which I'd assume meant less prosperity, jobs, income, for the average person, even though the large landowners, plantations and the like, were probably doing well as large producers of agriculture. I've read before that slavery probably would have ended on its own, without the war, as an outdated concept. But that end probably wouldn't have happened for a long time, I wouldn't think. And there were many problems, issues, over slave vs non-slave states, and what new states would be so as to preserve the balance between the types of states. So yeah, in that sense the South was trying to preserve what it had with slavery.