I can't believe that someone didn't post about this controversy here. I think it's despicable that any President should be sending a wreath on Memorial day to a Confederate monument. Obama followed Savage's advice and sent one to the African-American memorial as well, but that's even worse in my opinion because it implies moral equivalence between the two.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052202999.html
QuoteThe President and the Confederacy
By Kirk Savage
Saturday, May 23, 2009
In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson dedicated a large bronze memorial to the Confederate dead in a special section of Arlington National Cemetery, the foremost shrine to the Union armed forces. Wilson exulted that only in a democracy could a people once so bitterly divided come together again so proudly. U.S. presidents since then have continued to pay tribute to this narrative of "sectional reconciliation" by sending a wreath of flowers to Arlington's Confederate Memorial once a year.
The question for this upcoming Memorial Day is whether Barack Obama will continue the traditional offering or put a stop to it. Will the first African American to occupy our highest office honor the soldiers of a short-lived, breakaway nation formed for the express purpose of preserving the institution of black slavery on this continent?
First, it is important to put to rest the old debate about whether the Confederacy had other, more fundamental motives besides the defense of slavery. The resolutions of secession in 1860-61 make plain the states' overriding concern for slavery. The historical evidence is so overwhelming that, on this point, revisionism should no longer be possible.
ad_icon
Nonetheless, the myth that the Confederacy somehow had higher, more abstract motives ("state sovereignty," or, more ironically, "liberty") entered history in its own right. Through the mid-20th century, this myth reigned supreme, and it made possible the "reconciliation" of Northern and Southern whites symbolized by the Confederate memorial at Arlington. Whites on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line minimized the historical impact of slavery even as they resurrected the idea of white supremacy that undergirded it. They sentimentalized their racism with images such as the faithful "mammy" on the Arlington memorial, who holds out a baby to her master returning from the battlefield. Woodrow Wilson and the men and women who erected these tributes to the Confederacy were steeped in this brew of denial and self-justification.
Many of my colleagues in academia are urging President Obama to pull the plug on this tradition. I doubt that he will, for the simple reason that the men buried around the Confederate memorial sacrificed, suffered and died just as the black and white soldiers of the Union did. Most of the descendants of those Confederates, whatever their political stripe today, would be loath to deny their ancestors a simple gesture of recognition.
Some argue that we cannot honor the soldiers of every cause, that we have to draw a line somewhere. Many agree that Ronald Reagan stepped over that line when he visited Bitburg in 1985 and laid a wreath at a German military cemetery near the graves of Nazi SS soldiers. But the Confederacy and the Third Reich are not, in the end, comparable. The Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews (implemented largely by the SS) was a crime unique to the Third Reich, while the crime of slavery was interwoven not only into the Confederacy but into the fabric of the American nation, into the Constitution, our economic system and wars of territorial expansion across the continent. To single out the ordinary soldiers of the Confederacy as beyond the moral pale does not help us come to grips with slavery's more profound role in American history.
President Obama, why not send two wreaths? One to the Confederate Memorial in Arlington Cemetery and another to the African American Civil War Memorial in the District, which commemorates the 200,000 black soldiers who fought for liberation from slavery in the Union armed forces. Here is an opportunity to remind us what real reconciliation, in this day and age, would mean. Send two wreaths with one common message: that the descendants of slaves and the descendants of slaveholders should recognize each other's humanity, and do the hard work of reckoning with the racial divide that is slavery's cruelest and most enduring legacy.
Quote
I can't believe that someone didn't post about this controversy here. I think it's despicable that any President should be sending a wreath on Memorial day to a Confederate monument. Obama followed Savage's advice and sent one to the African-American memorial as well, but that's even worse in my opinion because it implies moral equivalence between the two.
Dude, relax.
Jesus, what a yawner of a "controversy".
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2009, 09:56:14 AM
Quote
I can't believe that someone didn't post about this controversy here. I think it's despicable that any President should be sending a wreath on Memorial day to a Confederate monument. Obama followed Savage's advice and sent one to the African-American memorial as well, but that's even worse in my opinion because it implies moral equivalence between the two.
Dude, relax.
No! :mad:
I heard about this on the news on Memorial Day. I was mainly surprised that Pres Obama was the first President to put a wreath on the Black soldier monument, or at least that's what I recall reported. As for the Confederate monument, I'm not sure, a bit ambivalent about it perhaps. The article does point out some things on both sides of the issue, how slavery was a part of the nation, as heinous as it was. But it did divide the nation as a huge open sore, until the ACW ended it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 09:59:28 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2009, 09:56:14 AM
Quote
I can't believe that someone didn't post about this controversy here. I think it's despicable that any President should be sending a wreath on Memorial day to a Confederate monument. Obama followed Savage's advice and sent one to the African-American memorial as well, but that's even worse in my opinion because it implies moral equivalence between the two.
Dude, relax.
No! :mad:
You are gonna give yourself an ulcer.
Save you anger for more important things, like Susan Boyle on the fucking news again.
this is kinda like Sheilbh getting angry about the Crimean War.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 09:56:54 AM
Jesus, what a yawner of a "controversy".
I would have never figured you for a defender of moral relativism and treason. Good to know.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2009, 10:02:26 AM
Save you anger for more important things, like Susan Boyle on the fucking news again.
But her self-destruction is: mildly amusing. :(
Quote from: saskganesh on June 05, 2009, 10:04:38 AM
this is kinda like Sheilbh getting angry about the Crimean War.
If I was Sheilbh I would have been pissed by the atrocity that was the bicentennial Trafalgar celebration.
Be that as it may though, the Crimean War, nor the Napoleonic Wars were the defining moment of the nation, the way the Civil War is for America.
yeah, but only thugs and morons get excited about the Battle of the Boyne, which for the UK, is a more definitive moment than the Crimean War.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 05, 2009, 10:15:13 AM
yeah, but only thugs and morons get excited about the Battle of the Boyne, which for the UK, is a more definitive moment than the Crimean War.
I'd consider either the Second World War to be the definitive event of modern British history, with the First World War close behind. The nation and it's democracy was saved from destruction, it's overseas Empire was doomed, and the economic and political ramifications reverberate to this day. The conflicts of the 17th century, no matter how important and how much they set the stage for what came after simply do not seem to register in the British popular memory, which I believe a conflict has to in order to be called a definitive moment.
Certainly more than thugs and morons care about those conflicts, and the same is true of the Civil War about which more books are published today than about any other era in American history.
Tim flips his shit over nonsense. Film at 11.
Tim,
Point One - You are a moron.
Point Two - You are a moron.
Point three - Nobody who is not a moron fucking cares.
Point four - shut the fuck up.
Why not? These men were Americans too. I salute President Obama for finally honoring these lost veterans of America's troubled past.
In a similar vein, one of our Territorial Governors, Lewis Cass, later oversaw the Trail of Tears. Now the Detroit City Council strikes back:
QuoteCouncil targets Lewis Cass
Two months after Councilwoman Barbara-Rose Collins famously railed against imperialists who marched Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, the council is targeting the guy who put them on it: former Michigan Territorial Gov. Lewis Cass.
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson is sponsoring a resolution urging DPS officials to change the name of Cass Technical High School because it's named after Cass. The onetime governor and senator not only did the dirty work for Andrew Jackson, but his bio reads like a Who's Who of some of the United States' worst moments. He backed the Mexican War and pushed policies that perpetuated slavery.
But what's in a name? Is Cass today synonymous with a long-dead dude with bad ideas or has it grown to embody the school that's widely perceived one of Detroit's finest? When people think of Cass do they think of the grouchy-looking governor or the school that produced Jack White, Lily Tomlin, David Alan Grier and Diana Ross?
The alumni are resoundingly going with the latter, rebuffing efforts to tweak history. They voted last week to resist the change, and now Watson's resolution is on hold.
You've got a future in politics, Tim. :)
Why deal with the problems of today when we can deal with the problems of... two centuries ago! :lol:
Tim, you are a waste of flesh, bone, plastic and radiation therapy.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 05, 2009, 10:42:26 AM
In a similar vein, one of our Territorial Governors, Lewis Cass, later oversaw the Trail of Tears. Now the Detroit City Council strikes back:
QuoteCouncil targets Lewis Cass
Two months after Councilwoman Barbara-Rose Collins famously railed against imperialists who marched Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, the council is targeting the guy who put them on it: former Michigan Territorial Gov. Lewis Cass.
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson is sponsoring a resolution urging DPS officials to change the name of Cass Technical High School because it's named after Cass. The onetime governor and senator not only did the dirty work for Andrew Jackson, but his bio reads like a Who's Who of some of the United States' worst moments. He backed the Mexican War and pushed policies that perpetuated slavery.
But what's in a name? Is Cass today synonymous with a long-dead dude with bad ideas or has it grown to embody the school that's widely perceived one of Detroit's finest? When people think of Cass do they think of the grouchy-looking governor or the school that produced Jack White, Lily Tomlin, David Alan Grier and Diana Ross?
The alumni are resoundingly going with the latter, rebuffing efforts to tweak history. They voted last week to resist the change, and now Watson's resolution is on hold.
You've got a future in politics, Tim. :)
I'm not a fan of changing names or anything like that, I think the President honoring war memorials dedicated to traitors and the cause they fought for is something entirely different.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:44:29 AM
Why deal with the problems of today when we can deal with the problems of... two centuries ago! :lol:
Tim, you are a waste of flesh, bone, plastic and radiation therapy.
No plastic in me, it's all metal. And I never had radiation therapy either. :contract:
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Tim represents everything that's wrong with the world today. Having a panic attack about what folks died for a hundred and fifty years ago is a waste of lifespan. Like the Japanese or the French, we can honour that they fought bravely, if not the causes that they fought for.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
They rebelled against the duly constituted governmental authority and attempted the violent overthrow of the state. That's pretty much the definition.
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 10:50:46 AM
Tim represents everything that's wrong with the world today. Having a panic attack about what folks died for a hundred and fifty years ago is a waste of lifespan. Like the Japanese or the French, we can honour that they fought bravely, if not the causes that they fought for.
That monument honors the cause, not just the men.
http://hnn.us/articles/85884.html
QuoteThe monument was given to the Federal Government by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), which raised the funds to erect it. The UDC's reasons for the monument are instructive. In the address of Mrs. Daisy McLaurin Stevens, President General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy at its dedication, she makes clear that the monument is to glorify the ideas of the Confederacy:
QuoteGreat ideas and righteous ideas are alone immortal. The eternal years of God are theirs. The ideas our heroes cherished were and are beneficial as they are everlasting. These were living then; they are living to-day and shall live to-morrow and work the betterment of mankind. Thus our heroes are of those who, though dead, still toil for man through the arms and brains of those their examples have inspired and quickened to nobler things.
Since the United Daughters of the Confederacy upheld in multiple publications in the early 20th Century that the Ku Klux Klan was the heroic effort of the Confederate soldier, we have an idea what the "noble past" and "ideas our heroes cherished" were. Of course one of these "ideas" was secession to preserve the institution of African slavery.
Likewise General Bennett H. Young, Commander-in-Chief of the United Confederate Veterans also defends the cause of the Confederate soldier, the neo-Confederate cause of their descendants, and defends secession in his speech as follows:
QuoteAt this hour I represent the survivors of the Southern army. Though this Confederate monument is erected on Federal ground, which makes it unusual and remarkable, yet the men from whom I hold commission would only have me come without apologies or regrets from the past. Those for whom I speak gave the best they had to their land and country. They spared no sacrifice and no privation to win for the Southland national independence.
I am sure I shall not offend the proprieties of either the hour of the occasion when I say that we still glory in the records of our beloved and immortal dead. The dead for whom this monument stands sponsor died for what they believed to be right. Their surviving comrades and their children still believe that that for which they suffered and laid down their lives was just; that their premises in the Civil War were according to our Constitution....
The sword said the South was wrong, but the sword is not necessarily guided by conscience or reason. The power of numbers and the longest guns cannot destroy principle nor obliterate truth. Right lives forever, it survives battles, failures, conflicts, and death. There is no human power, however mighty, that can in the end annihilate truth.
Quote from: ulmont on June 05, 2009, 10:51:39 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
They rebelled against the duly constituted governmental authority and attempted the violent overthrow of the state. That's pretty much the definition.
They did no such thing. They wanted the Union to leave them the fuck alone. You would make it sound as if Confederate stormtroopers occupied DC and Chicago!
I would argue that at the time of the Civil War, citizens had more loyalty to their state governments, and obedience to the federal government was such a far flung concept as to be entirely foreign to these men. Their state leadership said "We're going to do THIS", and they obeyed.
Fighting for one's beliefs , even at the cost of your life, is the ultimate in American values going back to the Revolution.
Honor these men. They've earned it just as much as any Union veteran. The only difference between the two is the side of the Mason-Dixon line they were born on!
What can one say, other than "mew?"
meowtf
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:56:36 AM
<snip jaron blowing traitors and slavers>
Arguing that they had good reason to be traitors is not really arguing that they were not traitors to begin with.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:56:36 AM
They did no such thing. They wanted the Union to leave them the fuck alone. You would make it sound as if Confederate stormtroopers occupied DC and Chicago!
The Confederates wished they could have occupied DC, yes.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:56:36 AMI would argue that at the time of the Civil War, citizens had more loyalty to their state governments, and obedience to the federal government was such a far flung concept as to be entirely foreign to these men. Their state leadership said "We're going to do THIS", and they obeyed.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:01:29 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:56:36 AM
<snip jaron blowing traitors and slavers>
Arguing that they had good reason to be traitors is not really arguing that they were not traitors to begin with.
I am arguing not that they had a good reason to be traitors, but that their loyalty was to the state, not the federal. To call them traitors for disobeying what must have seemed almost foreign rule would be analyzing these men under a convex lens of modernity.
I will not allow the honor of my Confederate ancestors to be jaded and insulted.
***
And no, Dick, the war was entirely defensive. Had the Confederacy occupied DC, it would have been to end the war, not to declare New York, Illinois or Ohio Confederate client states.
Good work, President Obama. You continue to show the American people that change has come indeed to this GOP weary land. :)
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.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 10:54:18 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
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.
:lol:
Fuck you, you ignorant wretch.
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 11:22:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
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.
:lol:
Fuck you, you ignorant wretch.
I knew you would respond to that... :P
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 11:22:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
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.
:lol:
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2009, 10:02:26 AM
Save you anger for more important things, like Susan Boyle on the fucking news again.
:lol: Didn't she have a nervous breakdown ?
G.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 11:25:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 11:22:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:19:45 AM
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.
:lol:
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: ulmont on June 05, 2009, 11:01:37 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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."
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2009, 11:33:36 AM
Besides, the treason of the American people continues to this day.
No taxation without representation!!!!!
A horse divided against itself cannot stand.
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2009, 11:34:36 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:38:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2009, 11:34:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 11:11:01 AM
Isn't it odd that so many blacks chose to remain in the South?
meh, this is a troll, but it requires some response
Quote
Did the Jews stay in Germany after the Nazis?
There is a big difference between killing and enslaving.
Quote
Did the Puritans stay in England?
Yes, and they revolted took over the government and beheaded the King.
Quote
Did the Chinese stay in Nanking?
Yes, and Nanjing has about 10 million of them today.
Quote
I just don't get the negro mind, I guess.
No, you are being stupid.
They enslaved, killed and terrorized blacks in the South for hundreds of years and yet they remain in large numbers.
I think it is a valid question.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:07:53 PM
They enslaved, killed and terrorized blacks in the South for hundreds of years and yet they remain in large numbers.
I think it is a valid question.
Because the enslavement, killing and terrorizing was made illegal.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Wrong. I can understand governors, or major business people in the South understanding this, but can one really expect some little farmer with 100 acres on the banks of the Mississip to hear all the stories about the war and think 'I think I'm gonna side with the Yankees on this one' ?
No!
Not treason!
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:09:55 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:07:53 PM
They enslaved, killed and terrorized blacks in the South for hundreds of years and yet they remain in large numbers.
I think it is a valid question.
Because the enslavement, killing and terrorizing was made illegal.
Slavery ended after the Civil War. The killings and terrorizing continued right into the Civil Rights era and still happen sporadically today.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Wrong. I can understand governors, or major business people in the South understanding this, but can one really expect some little farmer with 100 acres on the banks of the Mississip to hear all the stories about the war and think 'I think I'm gonna side with the Yankees on this one' ?
No!
Not treason!
Many did. All confederate states did contribute regiments to the Union Army.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Wrong. I can understand governors, or major business people in the South understanding this, but can one really expect some little farmer with 100 acres on the banks of the Mississip to hear all the stories about the war and think 'I think I'm gonna side with the Yankees on this one' ?
No!
Not treason!
And yet it happened.
A county in Alabama actually seceeded from the Confederacy because they didn't agree with the war.
Jefferson Davis sent in the troops to put it down. Ironic, eh?
An outlier.
The only mistake these men made was they ended up on the wrong side of history.
Had the British won the Revolutionary war (which would probably be called something else today), I bet the history books would hold the Loyalists in the highest esteem.
So far all the arguments against the Confederates fall flat. Most Southerners didn't even own slaves, so why would they care whether or not slavery was extended into new territories?
It was about defending their homes, their families, and way of life. Nothing at all unAmerican about that.
Emoron's Back!
Goddammit, I hate when Civil War thread gets hijacked.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Only in retrospect.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 05, 2009, 01:32:24 PM
Emoron's Back!
Says he with the black and white emo avatar and a reputation as a known cutter.
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:19:21 PM
It was about defending their homes, their families, and way of life. Nothing at all unAmerican about that.
And yet, after they lost the war conclusively, their homes, families, and way of life was unaffected in any material way - and to the extent it was effected, it was a consequence of the war they started itself, rather than whatever it was they were trying to defend by going to war.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:19:21 PM
It was about defending their homes, their families, and way of life. Nothing at all unAmerican about that.
And yet, after they lost the war conclusively, their homes, families, and way of life was unaffected in any material way - and to the extent it was effected, it was a consequence of the war they started itself, rather than whatever it was they were trying to defend by going to war.
Hindsight.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:13:45 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Wrong. I can understand governors, or major business people in the South understanding this, but can one really expect some little farmer with 100 acres on the banks of the Mississip to hear all the stories about the war and think 'I think I'm gonna side with the Yankees on this one' ?
No!
Not treason!
Many did. All confederate states did contribute regiments to the Union Army.
With the exception of South Carolina. (Assuming we're just talking about white regiments, SC did supply some black regiments)
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 01:13:50 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 01:10:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2009, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:47:38 AM
How the FUCK are Confederate war veterans traitors?
Secession was illegal. Thus those who fought for the Confederacy were taking up arms against their own legally constituted government.
Wrong. I can understand governors, or major business people in the South understanding this, but can one really expect some little farmer with 100 acres on the banks of the Mississip to hear all the stories about the war and think 'I think I'm gonna side with the Yankees on this one' ?
No!
Not treason!
And yet it happened.
A county in Alabama actually seceeded from the Confederacy because they didn't agree with the war.
Jefferson Davis sent in the troops to put it down. Ironic, eh?
Are you thinking of Jones County Mississippi?
Winston County, Alabama.
They didn't *actually* secede of course, but they threatened it.
The idea that the entire South was in support of secession is a myth. And in fact, the support for secession very closely tracks the population of slaves in the area. So apparently plenty of people other than the aristocracy understood the war was largely about slavery.
Anyone doing even a cursory examination of the political issues of the preceeding decades would understand this as well. It was *all* about slavery.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 02:30:43 PM
Winston County, Alabama.
They didn't *actually* secede of course, but they threatened it.
The idea that the entire South was in support of secession is a myth. And in fact, the support for secession very closely tracks the population of slaves in the area. So apparently plenty of people other than the aristocracy understood the war was largely about slavery.
Anyone doing even a cursory examination of the political issues of the preceeding decades would understand this as well. It was *all* about slavery.
I totally agree, one only has to look at the situation in Appalachia to understand that.
Hadn't heard of Winston County Alabama, but looking it up it seems similar in circumstances to Jones County.
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2009, 11:38:54 AM
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.
The antebellum South was a pretty diverse place geographically and economically. There was always a certain conflict of interest between the big plantation owners (who typically were operating fairly close to a major source of water transport) and the more farmsteader types and townspeople in places like East Tennessee or upcountry Georgia. The planter elite were for free trade and small government, but some of the upcountry Southerners could see the benefit in canal systems, roads, and other internal improvements that would help link them with the growing national economy. Hence the popularity of the Whig Party in certain parts of the South in the 1840s. But southern Whiggery would be destroyed by the clash over the institution of slavery.
I think that is at least one reason why the South became an economic backwater -- while the north pushed ahead aggressively with canal building, roads, and later railways, the South did not. The northern states knitted together a powerful unified economic zone stretching from the Atlantic coast to the new cities on the shores of Lake Michigan, all linked together by the most modern transport links then available. The South didn't and hence much of the South was cut off from the rising new continental economy, with the exception of a few entrepot cities scattered along the Atlantic Coast and the Mississippi River. And with regard to the later, the slave system ensured that these would be relegated to the role of distribution point for primary goods. Basically, the South consigned itself to be a colonial-style producer of primary goods for manufacturing metropoli to the North and overseas, and with the upcountry nearly cut off entirely from economic interaction from the rest of the country. This situation would persist for decades after the war, until the interstate highway system, air travel, and air conditioning provided the infrastructural and technological basis for the integration of the South into the greater national economy.
Tim pops his cork at stupid shit? OUTRAGE! :angry:
Tim, please read this carefully. The president's recognition of the sheer human cost to both sides of the American Civil War is by no means equal to the condoning, pardoning, or even toleration of treason or of slavery.
Also, our government was set to be a representation of the people and for the people. In addition to the "treason" that you're bitching at, the ACW also represents our government's failure to live up to that principle. That we had to resort to bloody violence to subdue and bring to heel our peers in eleven states meant we violated the first eleven words of the US Constitution that we hold so sacred in order to serve what we perceived as a greater good. As far as I'm concerned, the Confederate soldiers deserve recognition for that failure and not to be marginalized so that we don't come to that point again.
Now lay off the goddamn caffeine.
I enjoyed everybody abusing Tim today.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 05, 2009, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 05, 2009, 10:44:29 AM
Why deal with the problems of today when we can deal with the problems of... two centuries ago! :lol:
Tim, you are a waste of flesh, bone, plastic and radiation therapy.
No plastic in me, it's all metal. And I never had radiation therapy either. :contract:
Will the metal ever come out, or will you be buried with it?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2009, 03:15:25 PM
The antebellum South was a pretty diverse place geographically and economically. There was always a certain conflict of interest between the big plantation owners (who typically were operating fairly close to a major source of water transport) and the more farmsteader types and townspeople in places like East Tennessee or upcountry Georgia. The planter elite were for free trade and small government, but some of the upcountry Southerners could see the benefit in canal systems, roads, and other internal improvements that would help link them with the growing national economy. Hence the popularity of the Whig Party in certain parts of the South in the 1840s. But southern Whiggery would be destroyed by the clash over the institution of slavery.
I think that is at least one reason why the South became an economic backwater -- while the north pushed ahead aggressively with canal building, roads, and later railways, the South did not. The northern states knitted together a powerful unified economic zone stretching from the Atlantic coast to the new cities on the shores of Lake Michigan, all linked together by the most modern transport links then available. The South didn't and hence much of the South was cut off from the rising new continental economy, with the exception of a few entrepot cities scattered along the Atlantic Coast and the Mississippi River. And with regard to the later, the slave system ensured that these would be relegated to the role of distribution point for primary goods. Basically, the South consigned itself to be a colonial-style producer of primary goods for manufacturing metropoli to the North and overseas, and with the upcountry nearly cut off entirely from economic interaction from the rest of the country. This situation would persist for decades after the war, until the interstate highway system, air travel, and air conditioning provided the infrastructural and technological basis for the integration of the South into the greater national economy.
Indeed. The political elite of the South had always been the planter class, land-and-slave rich but cash poor. The real fear that they had of industrialization was the rise of a political rival in the "new rich." They were largely able to frame the issue, though, as an issue of avoiding the crowded cities, hordes of immigrants, pollustion, crie, and urban poverty that so characterized the early industrial revolution (and accurately described big chunks of the North), and so got the support of the yeoman farmers in those areas of the South still diminated by the planter political class.
In those areas of the South where the planters had never had much power, the attractions of succession and the fears of the industrial revolution had much less traction.
I have always regarded the acts of succession more about fear of the future than about any rational decision that southern values were incompatable with the Union. One can read tons of pre-war letters, speeches, newspaper editorials, and the like all decrying the fact that Northern moneybags were enslaving the South with their railroads and the like.
Of course, the idyllic Jeffersonian South that was being "defended" by the common Confederate soldies did not exist and had never actually existed. But how were they to know? The local teachers, judges, lawyers, and preachers all told them it did, and that it was worth dying to defend.
I would note that the "more perfect Union" the Northern soldiers were willing to die for didn't actually exist, either, but at least the differences between the talk and the reality were somewhat smaller.
I think it's quite a nice touch actually. I mean it's common for especially French and German leaders to commemorate the normal soldiers who died in the world wars of either nations and to visit each other's war cemetaries. I think Reagan went to a cemetary of German soldiers - though this became controversial because there were some SS officers there - if that's acceptable, and I think it is, I don't see how acknowledging and remembering the dead of your own country, even if they fought against your nation, can be a wrong or a bad thing.
I'm sorry pipple, but in terms of evilness
Confederate = Nazi = Bolshevik = Chinese Communist
Yeah.. no.
Maybe Obama could send a wreath to the shrine for Japanese War Dead, too, since we've moved on since WWII and are best buds now.
Couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread but did Obama actually send a wreath to the Mohammed Atta memorial? Fuck that.
Regarding 'finally' honouring these veterans, the Confederates have recieved a memorial from every president since wilson.
All Obama did was continue the trend. A man named Ed Sebesta made great efforts to see that this wasnt so- I had a ball taunting him.
The rest of the thread, most particularly the claims the South basked in ignorance compared to the South, or that the Confederate cause equates to the Nazi one, are things I wont begin to argue.
Quote from: Lettow77 on June 06, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
The rest of the thread, most particularly the claims the South basked in ignorance compared to the South... are things I wont begin to argue.
Agree that it is better to show than to tell. :P
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2009, 07:27:53 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on June 06, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
The rest of the thread, most particularly the claims the South basked in ignorance compared to the South... are things I wont begin to argue.
Agree that it is better to show than to tell. :P
That is the beginning of a severe downward spiral...
We may now have to come to grips with the possibility our president is a slavery sympathizer who is racist against black people.
Quote from: PDH on June 06, 2009, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2009, 07:27:53 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on June 06, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
The rest of the thread, most particularly the claims the South basked in ignorance compared to the South... are things I wont begin to argue.
Agree that it is better to show than to tell. :P
That is the beginning of a severe downward spiral...
Stupid is as Stupid does.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2009, 11:40:09 AM
We may now have to come to grips with the possibility our president is a slavery sympathizer who is racist against black people.
YES WE CAN. ^_^
Quote from: KRonn on June 05, 2009, 10:02:03 AM
I heard about this on the news on Memorial Day. I was mainly surprised that Pres Obama was the first President to put a wreath on the Black soldier monument, or at least that's what I recall reported. As for the Confederate monument, I'm not sure, a bit ambivalent about it perhaps. The article does point out some things on both sides of the issue, how slavery was a part of the nation, as heinous as it was. But it did divide the nation as a huge open sore, until the ACW ended it.
Don't be so hard on yourself. If the Japanese government can commemorate their war criminals, so can you guys. :)
Quote from: PDH on June 06, 2009, 09:27:23 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 06, 2009, 07:27:53 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on June 06, 2009, 07:15:58 AM
The rest of the thread, most particularly the claims the South basked in ignorance compared to the South... are things I wont begin to argue.
Agree that it is better to show than to tell. :P
That is the beginning of a severe downward spiral...
TBR sanctity! :mad:
This thread needs a good old Civil War marching tune:
QuoteMew! To the boys in butternut,
Those smashing southern gents.
Each is worth ten Yankees
Even if the double up in tents!
Mew! To the boys of Lee,
Of Bragg and Van Dorn too.
Mew and woofness always
So southern dreams come true!
...I forget the rest...
Yes, its true. I made a typo in the wee hours- you caught me.
What is the reason for the rest of the time?
Quote from: PDH on June 06, 2009, 07:01:28 PM
What is the reason for the rest of the time?
Yankee conspiracy. They took control of the Newton Station telegraph office.
But, What If?...
The south had won, would the president lay a wreath in the Union part of Arlington?
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 07, 2009, 10:57:19 PM
But, What If?...
The south had won, would the president lay a wreath in the Union part of Arlington?
/nitpick:
If the south had won, Arlington would have reverted back to the Lee family.
Squee
Quote from: lustindarkness on June 07, 2009, 10:57:19 PM
But, What If?...
The south had won, would the president lay a wreath in the Union part of Arlington?
If the South had won, they would have fought a war later on, as the economically poor south would inevitably turn to military adventurism in order to maintain order at home.
Quote from: Martinus on June 06, 2009, 04:42:13 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 05, 2009, 10:02:03 AM
I heard about this on the news on Memorial Day. I was mainly surprised that Pres Obama was the first President to put a wreath on the Black soldier monument, or at least that's what I recall reported. As for the Confederate monument, I'm not sure, a bit ambivalent about it perhaps. The article does point out some things on both sides of the issue, how slavery was a part of the nation, as heinous as it was. But it did divide the nation as a huge open sore, until the ACW ended it.
Don't be so hard on yourself. If the Japanese government can commemorate their war criminals, so can you guys. :)
The Japanese government does no such thing. The Yasukuni shrine is dedicated to everybody who died in japans armed forces, yes, including war criminals. It is an equivalent of the tomb of the unknown soldier in western countries and remembers all the uniformed dead in war.
Quote from: Viking on June 08, 2009, 08:54:23 AM
The Japanese government does no such thing. The Yasukuni shrine is dedicated to everybody who died in japans armed forces, yes, including war criminals. It is an equivalent of the tomb of the unknown soldier in western countries and remembers all the uniformed dead in war.
You are correct that the Japanese government has not explicitly honored the 15 war criminals, but incorrect in the assumption that the Yasukuni shrine does not explicitly honor the 14 executed "Class A" war criminals. They have, in fact, their own shrine there. The decision to erect it was made by the temple authorities, not the government. Since that shrine was erected, no emperor has visited Yasukuni.