PDA

View Full Version : The Confederacy - lasting effects



David G
03-06-2017, 06:05 PM
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/article136721193.html

You don’t have to be an economist to see that forcing blacks – a third of the South’s laborers – to work without pay drove down wages for everyone else. And not just in agriculture. A quarter of enslaved blacks worked in the construction, manufacturing and lumbering trades; cutting wages even for skilled white workers.

Thanks to the profitability of this no-wage/low-wage combination, a majority of American one-per-centers were southerners. Slavery made southern states the richest in the country. The South was richer than any other country except England. But that vast wealth was invisible outside the plantation ballrooms. With low wages and few schools, southern whites suffered a much lower land ownership rate and a far lower literacy rate than northern whites.

The South Carolina Secessionist Party marked the one-year anniversary of the Confederate flag coming down from the South Carolina State House by raising the banner again on a temporary pole, Sunday, July 10, 2016.

My ancestor Canna Hyman and his two sons did own land and fought under that flag. A note from our family history says: “Someone came for them while they were plowing one day. They put their horses up and all three went away to the War and only one son, William, came back.”

Like Canna, most Southerners didn’t own slaves. But they were persuaded to risk their lives and limbs for the right of a few to get rich as Croesus from slavery. For their sacrifices and their votes, they earned two things before and after the Civil War. First, a very skinny slice of the immense Southern pie. And second, the thing that made those slim rations palatable then and now: the shallow satisfaction of knowing that blacks had no slice at all.

Lowering the flag because of the harm done to blacks is the right thing to do.

How did the plantation owners mislead so many Southern whites?

They managed this con job partly with a propaganda technique that will be familiar to modern Americans, but hasn’t received the coverage it deserves in our sesquicentennial celebrations. Starting in the 1840s wealthy Southerners supported more than 30 regional pro-slavery magazines, many pamphlets, newspapers and novels that falsely touted slave ownership as having benefits that would – in today’s lingo – trickle down to benefit non-slave owning whites and even blacks. The flip side of the coin of this old-is-new trickle-down propaganda is the mistaken notion that any gain by blacks in wages, schools or health care comes at the expense of the white working class.

Today’s version of this con job no longer supports slavery, but still works in the South and thrives in pro trickle-down think tanks, magazines, newspapers, talk radio and TV news shows such as the Cato Foundation, Reason magazine, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. These sources are underwritten by pro trickle-down one-per-centers like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch.

For example, a map of states that didn’t expand Medicaid – which would actually be a boon mostly to poor whites – resembles a map of the old Confederacy with a few other poor, rural states thrown in. Another indication that this divisive propaganda works on Southern whites came in 2012. Romney and Obama evenly split the white working class in the West, Midwest and Northeast. But in the South we went 2-1 for Romney.

Lowering the flag because of the harm done to blacks is the right thing to do. We also need to lower it because it symbolizes material harm the ideology of the Confederacy did to Southern whites that lasts even to this day.

One can love the South without flying the battle flag. But it won’t help to get rid of an old symbol if we can’t also rid ourselves of the self-destructive beliefs that go with it. Only by shedding those too, will Southern whites finally catch up to the rest of the country in wages, health and education.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/article136721193.html#storylink=cpy

bamamick
03-06-2017, 08:23 PM
O.k., here we go again.

I am not disputing the whole Civil War thing. Slavery is evil, absolutely. I am completely in agreement there. So let's talk about NOW.

Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, all states that traditionally struggle economically, so it makes sense that all three contribute far more than their fair share of military personnel to National Guard and reserve units (based on their state populations). They do this in part because patriotism is still a big deal in this part of the country, but mostly they do it for the money, access to the base PX's, and access to medical care for their families. In a region where the unemployment rate is generally a good bit higher than the national averages, some people think of being in the Guard as a good job.

So is there any difference between a farmer who felt he had to fight for the Confederacy to keep his family alive and the guy who signs up for the Alabama National Guard, unknowingly being sent to Afghanistan to protect the financial interests of corporate America? The 'plantation owners' are still out there, my friend. They just aren't aren't open and honest about it the way the Confederate leaders were back then, and they damn sure aren't willing to die for what they want in life. They are just willing to let those good southern boys do it for them.

Mickey Lake

bamamick
03-06-2017, 08:48 PM
Actually I just looked at a statistic that said Maine had more young people enlist than any other state other than Florida and Georgia, but the thought is the same. I have said it here many, many times, it is not racism that defines the lines drawn here in the south, and in other places like Maine, the Dakotas, etc., it is economic opportunity.

Mickey Lake

oznabrag
03-06-2017, 09:24 PM
Actually I just looked at a state that said Maine had more young people enlist than any other state other than Florida and Georgia, but the thought is the same. I have said it here many, many times, it is not racism that defines the lines drawn here in the south, and in other places like Maine, the Dakotas, etc., it is economic opportunity.

Mickey Lake

Mickey, I believe the OP is solidly on your side.

I think the author's intent is to illustrate how the 'old ways' permeate our culture in ways we may find difficult to see.

I was born in Alabama, both my parents are from Georgia.

My mother's Grandfather has the distinction of being the subject of the only Civil War Memorial Statue where an enlisted man is placed above his commanding officers.

Lee, Jackson, Pickett and Beauregard are at the corners of the pediment.

For many, many years, Berry's unsurrendered rifle was on display in a glass case at the bank across the street.

http://www.researchonline.net/tour/images/confederate1.jpg

Berry had the further distinction of saving the life of Leo Frank, by petitioning the Governor to commute his sentence on the grounds that, taken together, none of the evidence against Frank made any sense. Frank was taken from prison and lynched very soon after that.

All this to say that one might be hard pressed to find someone more Southern, or steeped in the traditions of the South than I am.

As have you, I have had it up to here with the South bashing, but we certainly have room for improvement, as I'm sure you will agree.


I am now 56 years old, and I've considered my position on these matters very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that Sherman was right. The entire Nation would now be in much better condition if the Union Army had hanged about 5,000 of the higher officers and plantation owners for the sedition they so merrily committed against the US Constitution.

As it was, the US attempted to 'Reconstruct' the South, and they were all too successful in that endeavor.

Within 20 years, the South was sending the likes of Ben Tillman to Congress, where he bragged about the number of former slaves he had killed ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE!!

I believe that the US Government is/was complicit in the murders/rapes/dispossesions/beatings of tens of thousands of her own citizens. Those citizens so recently elevated from slavery. They were abandoned to the likes of Tillman.


Until and unless we Sons of the South can confront this horror that was perpetrated in the name of greed and white supremacy all wrapped up in the disguise of Southern Honor, we will be saddled with that dreadful heritage.

ahp
03-06-2017, 09:32 PM
Slavery had another downside. It inhibits innovation. Why innovate when there is all that cheap, or free labor? The Confederacy was a technological and industrial backwater. In some ways it still is.

Osborne Russell
03-06-2017, 09:34 PM
So is there any difference between a farmer who felt he had to fight for the Confederacy to keep his family alive and the guy who signs up for the Alabama National Guard, unknowingly being sent to Afghanistan to protect the financial interests of corporate America?

Yes, one is a deluded traitor.

But your farmer is a fiction. Only rich people could afford slaves, as he well knew. He wasn't fighting to keep his family alive.

Reynard38
03-06-2017, 09:36 PM
One can love the South without flying the battle flag. But it won’t help to get rid of an old symbol if we can’t also rid ourselves of the self-destructive beliefs that go with it. Only by shedding those too, will Southern whites finally catch up to the rest of the country in wages, health and education.[/I]






Drove from Atlanta to Beaufort SC today. Saw one, yes one confederate battle flag. Some RW nutjob flies ome alongside I-16 near Metter, GA.
I saw more on a drive across southern Ohio between Chillicothe and Portsmouth.

The Klan was supposed to have held a rally in Douglasville, GA today. Problem was none of them showed up. Lack of interest apparently.

These days when we see one maybe flying from the back of a Bubba truck we laugh. It's a rarity and an oddity. Even most of the hard core rednecks are embarrassed to do so. Usually it's some stupid 17 year old in a clapped out Ford Ranger.

The vast majority of us have gotten over the flag, and the civil war. Maybe you should too.

johnw
03-06-2017, 09:38 PM
O.k., here we go again.

I am not disputing the whole Civil War thing. Slavery is evil, absolutely. I am completely in agreement there. So let's talk about NOW.

Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, all states that traditionally struggle economically, so it makes sense that all three contribute far more than their fair share of military personnel to National Guard and reserve units (based on their state populations). They do this in part because patriotism is still a big deal in this part of the country, but mostly they do it for the money, access to the base PX's, and access to medical care for their families. In a region where the unemployment rate is generally a good bit higher than the national averages, some people think of being in the Guard as a good job.

So is there any difference between a farmer who felt he had to fight for the Confederacy to keep his family alive and the guy who signs up for the Alabama National Guard, unknowingly being sent to Afghanistan to protect the financial interests of corporate America? The 'plantation owners' are still out there, my friend. They just aren't aren't open and honest about it the way the Confederate leaders were back then, and they damn sure aren't willing to die for what they want in life. They are just willing to let those good southern boys do it for them.

Mickey Lake


Not sure how fighting in Afghanistan helps corporate America, which has very little invested there. What's your view on why Southerners were so eager to fight?

oznabrag
03-06-2017, 09:40 PM
Yes, one is a deluded traitor.

But your farmer is a fiction. Only rich people could afford slaves, as he well knew. He wasn't fighting to keep his family alive.

I can not recommend this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124037/?ref_=nv_sr_1)highly enough.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTA4NTYyMTcwNTFeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDI0NTg0MDkx._ V1_UY268_CR1,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

David G
03-06-2017, 09:41 PM
Drove from Atlanta to Beaufort SC today. Saw one, yes one confederate battle flag. Some RW nutjob flies ome alongside I-16 near Metter, GA.
I saw more on a drive across southern Ohio between Chillicothe and Portsmouth.

The Klan was supposed to have held a rally in Douglasville, GA today. Problem was none of them showed up. Lack of interest apparently.

These days when we see one maybe flying from the back of a Bubba truck we laugh. It's a rarity and an oddity. Even most of the hard core rednecks are embarrassed to do so. Usually it's some stupid 17 year old in a clapped out Ford Ranger.

The vast majority of us have gotten over the flag, and the civil war. Maybe you should too.

Maybe you should be telling that to the nice Southern boy who wrote the article, and who thinks you should rethink your understanding of it... if you haven't already.

As for me... it's history. It's history I don't yet fully understand. So I'll keep looking at it. Maybe you should too?

Durnik
03-06-2017, 09:44 PM
'... no longer supports slavery'


https://twitter.com/i/web/status/838502375195279360


you're getting closer, David.. but you've a ways yet to go. The evil grows.

oznabrag
03-06-2017, 09:46 PM
Not sure how fighting in Afghanistan helps corporate America, which has very little invested there. What's your view on why Southerners were so eager to fight?

Really?

Geeze Louise!!!

Halliburton, GE, Blackwater, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Holy guacamole, John.

It isn't about INVESTING there, it's about having a place to blow up billions of dollars worth of ordnance that has to be replaced.

The Afghan War and the Iraq War were started as a highly inefficient but brutally effective means of transferring the wealth of the United States taxpayer into the pockets of Dick F Cheney, et al.

Why am I having to tell you this?

Gerarddm
03-06-2017, 10:14 PM
^ " We hold these truths to be self-evident ".

As for Southerners getting over the Civil War, there is a distressingly large chunk who evidently do not. At least not as large as they once were, thankfully.

The man I curse the most is John Wilkes Booth. How the nation would be different, and better, had Lincoln served out his second term, and possibly even a third.

Reynard38
03-06-2017, 10:25 PM
Maybe you should be telling that to the nice Southern boy who wrote the article, and who thinks you should rethink your understanding of it... if you haven't already.

As for me... it's history. It's history I don't yet fully understand. So I'll keep looking at it. Maybe you should too?

The article was in the Miami Herald. Miami is not the south. Far from it.
And having gone to high school and college here I've heard quite enough about the civil war, thank you very much.
I don't live in that south anymore. Few do. We choose to look forward. Maybe that's why Mercedes is building its new NA headquarters 4 miles from our house. Didn't build it in Oregon did they?

oznabrag
03-06-2017, 10:27 PM
^ " We hold these truths to be self-evident ".

As for Southerners getting over the Civil War, there is a distressingly large chunk who evidently do not. At least not as large as they once were, thankfully.

The man I curse the most is John Wilkes Booth. How the nation would be different, and better, had Lincoln served out his second term, and possibly even a third.



I'm sorry, my Yankee friend, but this attitude is simply wrong-headed.

The ENTIRE NATION needs to 'get over' the Civil War.


Unfortunately for you, that means owning the fact that the US Government handed the newly-freed slaves their citizenship, and promptly abandoned them to the tender mercies of the KKK.



I swear before the Lord God Jehovah, son, if the horror and agony that was visited upon our African brothers had been occurring in some OTHER country, the Yankees would have been up in arms demanding that the US invade and put a stop to the senseless carnage.

Instead, they looked the other way.

You have to internalize that truth, my friend, before the oozing wound that remains from that conflict can heal.


We are now in the grip of a white supremacist madman PRECISELY BECAUSE your political forbears were all to eager to blame white Southern men for that horror, AND refuse to acknowledge that they, themselves had turned their backs on the victims.

The article linked in the OP makes a much better case than the snippet posted.

oznabrag
03-06-2017, 10:29 PM
The article was in the Miami Herald. Miami is not the south. Far from it.
And having gone to high school and college here I've heard quite enough about the civil war, thank you very much.
I don't live in that south anymore. Few do. We choose to look forward. Maybe that's why Mercedes is building its new NA headquarters 4 miles from our house. Didn't build it in Oregon did they?

The article wqas in the Miami Herald, true enough, but it was written by
Frank Hyman lives in Durham,where he has held two local elected offices. He’s a carpenter and stonemason and policy analyst for Blue Collar Comeback. This essay originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch and is reprinted with permission.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/article136721193.html#storylink=cpy


Is Richmond South enough for you?

Phillip Allen
03-06-2017, 10:32 PM
looks like we're going through a second reconstruction... lots of hate directed at the south

Reynard38
03-06-2017, 10:39 PM
^ " We hold these truths to be self-evident ".

As for Southerners getting over the Civil War, there is a distressingly large chunk who evidently do not. At least not as large as they once were, thankfully.

The man I curse the most is John Wilkes Booth. How the nation would be different, and better, had Lincoln served out his second term, and possibly even a third.

Distressingly large? I guess that's a matter of opinion. Certainly there are some. When I first moved to GA in 1976 I was very into cycling. My cousin and I used to ride up to Lake Lanier to go swimming. At the Fulton/Forsyth County line there was a billboard warning blacks with the words "N****r don't let the sun set on you a** in Forsyth county."
Now in that same spot is a Mexican Restaurant. Just up the street is the shop that works on my cars. Owner is from South Africa, his top BMW/Audi mechanic is from Lebanon.

The nutjobs get all the publicity. The people that quietly get along rarely get mentioned.

Reynard38
03-06-2017, 10:52 PM
The article wqas in the Miami Herald, true enough, but it was written by [/B]

Is Richmond South enough for you?

It is, and I still disagree with it as it singles out the south when the attitude he alludes to exists much further afield. One has to look no further than the recent shootings of Indian Immigrants including the Sikh who was attacked in Seattle.
BTW there is a Sikh house of worship, a Mosque AND several synagogues within 5 miles of my home.
Also the spate of attacks on Jewish cemetery's was NOT confined to the south.

Osborne Russell
03-06-2017, 10:56 PM
I can not recommend this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124037/?ref_=nv_sr_1)highly enough.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTA4NTYyMTcwNTFeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDI0NTg0MDkx._ V1_UY268_CR1,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

Yeah, been wanting to check that one out.

Osborne Russell
03-06-2017, 11:03 PM
Really?

Geeze Louise!!!

Halliburton, GE, Blackwater, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Holy guacamole, John.

It isn't about INVESTING there, it's about having a place to blow up billions of dollars worth of ordnance that has to be replaced.

The Afghan War and the Iraq War were started as a highly inefficient but brutally effective means of transferring the wealth of the United States taxpayer into the pockets of Dick F Cheney, et al.

Why am I having to tell you this?

Sell bomb. Explode bomb. Sell another bomb. Jobs for Americans.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLBjhzpUR-g

oznabrag
03-06-2017, 11:06 PM
It is, and I still disagree with it as it singles out the south when the attitude he alludes to exists much further afield. One has to look no further than the recent shootings of Indian Immigrants including the Sikh who was attacked in Seattle.
BTW there is a Sikh house of worship, a Mosque AND several synagogues within 5 miles of my home.
Also the spate of attacks on Jewish cemetery's was NOT confined to the south.
I think you may be glossing over the author's intent.
To me, he makes perfect sense. He is not beating on the South, but on the philosophy that justified slavery, and is still used to smash unions, today.
That line of reasoning did not die at Appomattox.

skuthorp
03-06-2017, 11:09 PM
You civil war is far too recent for you to 'get over it'. Give maybe another 150 odd years and you may be. By that time the decedents of the civil war who care will be in a quite small minority, and some non partisan perspective may be possible.
OTOH the Serbs are still fretting about a war in the 1300's so maybe not.

Canoeyawl
03-06-2017, 11:11 PM
^ " We hold these truths to be self-evident ".

As for Southerners getting over the Civil War, there is a distressingly large chunk who evidently do not.

They have a lot more in common with Muslims than they know, when it comes to holding a grudge they are the undisputed champs!

Lew Barrett
03-06-2017, 11:32 PM
Yeah, been wanting to check that one out.

I liked it. One can hope the story isn't too varnished. If it's as shown, it's a hell of an overlooked bit of history.

We're working on learning the south. The most obvious thing to my eye so far is the deep hold religion has on the place. Also, the food seems better along the coast than it is inland.

David G
03-07-2017, 01:12 AM
The article was in the Miami Herald. Miami is not the south. Far from it.
And having gone to high school and college here I've heard quite enough about the civil war, thank you very much.
I don't live in that south anymore. Few do. We choose to look forward. Maybe that's why Mercedes is building its new NA headquarters 4 miles from our house. Didn't build it in Oregon did they?

So... apparently you didn't even bother to read the article before getting defensive. Baahhh!

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 07:33 AM
You civil war is far too recent for you to 'get over it'. Give maybe another 150 odd years and you may be. By that time the decedents of the civil war who care will be in a quite small minority, and some non partisan perspective may be possible.
OTOH the Serbs are still fretting about a war in the 1300's so maybe not.


God, I love a good typo!:D



They have a lot more in common with Muslims than they know, when it comes to holding a grudge they are the undisputed champs!

We Celts have those silly Muslims completely out-classed on that score.



I liked it. One can hope the story isn't too varnished. If it's as shown, it's a hell of an overlooked bit of history.

We're working on learning the south. The most obvious thing to my eye so far is the deep hold religion has on the place. Also, the food seems better along the coast than it is inland.


The next time I see that movie, I will take especial care to note the number of historians credited, as I can not seem to find that info anywhere else. As I recall, though, it was upwards of 2 dozen.

The movie suffered from trying to pack too much history into a Hollywood film, toward the end, but I feel as though they pulled it off well enough.



So... apparently you didn't even bother to read the article before getting defensive. Baahhh!

Apparently you have no understanding OR empathy for us.

We've been picked on long enough.

The number of us who owned slaves was small to begin with, and that cohort has been dead for 150 years.


I suppose you are willing to chastise, lambaste and ridicule US Vietnam veterans, because they went to war for Pepsi?


What part of 'drafted' do you not get?

Will you be willing to flagellate YOURSELF, when the Iraqis come for your hide?

You ARE an 'American', after all, so each is as guilty as the other, by your so-called 'logic'.


Perhaps YOU should read the article?


You don’t have to be an economist to see that forcing blacks – a third of the South’s laborers – to work without pay drove down wages for everyone else.

I have yet seen no clearer indictment of the 'ruling class' of the Antebellum South in modern terms, but you fall back immediately upon the same, tired old garbage.

David G
03-07-2017, 11:32 AM
Oz - I posted the article - with little or no comment, and no judgement at all. I don't care how long you've been picked on, or have much use for the resulting defensiveness. I care about ferreting out the facts, and developing an understanding. And I freely admitted that my understanding of the Civil War is incomplete. So I enjoyed the article, and thought it a useful perspective to share. Precisely because it went beyond the usual shallow blame-game. I thought from your comments further above showed that you had grasped that. Baaahhh, again.

Chris Coose
03-07-2017, 11:38 AM
i can not recommend this movie (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124037/?ref_=nv_sr_1)highly enough.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/m/mv5bmta4ntyymtcwntfeqtjeqwpwz15bbwu4mdi0ntg0mdkx._ v1_uy268_cr1,0,182,268_al_.jpg

good god!

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 11:51 AM
Oz - I posted the article - with little or no comment, and no judgement at all. I don't care how long you've been picked on, or have much use for the resulting defensiveness. I care about ferreting out the facts, and developing an understanding. And I freely admitted that my understanding of the Civil War is incomplete. So I enjoyed the article, and thought it a useful perspective to share. Precisely because it went beyond the usual shallow blame-game. I thought from your comments further above that you had grasped that. Baaahhh, again.

There's someone here with a signature line about the difference between a sharp stick and a smile.

The 1% handed y'all a sharp stick 150 years ago, and you haven't figured it out, yet.

Osborne Russell
03-07-2017, 11:52 AM
I agree with the basic propositions of the article but I think it leaves out the culture angle, and the linkage to the confederate flag muddies the waters to no purpose.

The basic propositions are that the trickle down rhetoric of today is essentially the same as the rhetoric of slavery, and that a body of sophisticated techniques has been developed to exploit it.


. . . slave ownership as having benefits that would – in today’s lingo – trickle down to benefit non-slave owning whites and even blacks. The flip side of the coin of this old-is-new trickle-down propaganda is the mistaken notion that any gain by blacks in wages, schools or health care comes at the expense of the white working class.

There's more than economic interest involved, there's cultural and and self-identity. The article takes a common tack, which is that the duped are "mistaken" in their assessment of their own interest, like they pushed the wrong elevator button. That doesn't come close to recognizing, let alone explaining the persistence of the error and how fervently it's held.

Then you go talking about taking down the Confederate Flag because it celebrates the duping of whites, you're asking them to look at it being another simple mistake that has a simple remedy.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 11:52 AM
good god!

Please elucidate.

Perhaps you were unaware of the Jones County story?

Keith Wilson
03-07-2017, 11:59 AM
Guys - it would be well to remember that none of us were alive in 1860. None of have any responsibility for what people did then. All we can control, all we can take credit or blame for is what we ourselves do, and God help us, that's more than enough.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 11:59 AM
I agree with the basic propositions of the article but I think it leaves out the culture angle, and the linkage to the confederate flag muddies the waters to no purpose.

The basic propositions are that the trickle down rhetoric of today is essentially the same as the rhetoric of slavery, and that a body of sophisticated techniques has been developed to exploit it.



There's more than economic interest involved, there's cultural and and self-identity. The article takes a common tack, which is that the duped are "mistaken" in their assessment of their own interest, like they pushed the wrong elevator button. That doesn't come close to recognizing, let alone explaining the persistence of the error and how fervently it's held.

Then you go talking about taking down the Confederate Flag because it celebrates the duping of whites, you're asking them to look at it being another simple mistake that has a simple remedy.

I think the author's POINT was that the Confederate Battle Flag should not be used as a symbol of any State Government, so it would be rather difficult for him to make that point without mentioning the flag.

When you say "takes a common tack, which is that the duped are "mistaken" in their assessment of their own interest, like they pushed the wrong elevator button. That doesn't come close to recognizing, let alone explaining the persistence of the error and how fervently it's held.", you make a trap for yourself.

The alternative that suggests itself that "the duped" are not mistaken at all, but are self-destructive and have chosen this as a malevolent, proactive course of action with the aim of destroying themselves along with those the 1% say are out to get them.

I don't buy it.

"That doesn't come close to recognizing, let alone explaining the persistence of the error and how fervently it's held."

The fervency and persistence are easily explained by tribalism.

Absent mass communication and the written word, such beliefs hang on for thousands of years.

David G
03-07-2017, 12:08 PM
I’ve lived 55 years in the South, and I grew up liking the Confederate flag. I haven’t flown one for many decades, but for a reason that might surprise you.

I know the South well. We lived wherever the Marine Corps stationed my father: Georgia, Virginia, the Carolinas. As a child, my favorite uncle wasn’t in the military, but he did pack a .45 caliber Thompson submachine gun in his trunk. He was a leader in the Ku Klux Klan. Despite my role models, as a kid I was an inept racist. I got in trouble once in the first grade for calling a classmate the N-word. But he was Hispanic.

As I grew up and acquired the strange sensation called empathy (strange for boys anyway), I learned that for black folks the flutter of that flag felt like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And for the most prideful flag waivers, clearly that response was the point. I mean, come on. It’s a battle flag.

What the flag symbolizes for blacks is enough reason to take it down. But there’s another reason that white southerners shouldn’t fly it. Or sport it on our state-issued license plates as some do here in North Carolina. The Confederacy – and the slavery that spawned it – was also one big con job on the Southern, white, working class. A con job funded by some of the ante-bellum one-per-centers, that continues today in a similar form.

You don’t have to be an economist to see that forcing blacks – a third of the South’s laborers – to work without pay drove down wages for everyone else. And not just in agriculture. A quarter of enslaved blacks worked in the construction, manufacturing and lumbering trades; cutting wages even for skilled white workers.

Thanks to the profitability of this no-wage/low-wage combination, a majority of American one-per-centers were southerners. Slavery made southern states the richest in the country. The South was richer than any other country except England. But that vast wealth was invisible outside the plantation ballrooms. With low wages and few schools, southern whites suffered a much lower land ownership rate and a far lower literacy rate than northern whites.

My ancestor Canna Hyman and his two sons did own land and fought under that flag. A note from our family history says: “Someone came for them while they were plowing one day. They put their horses up and all three went away to the War and only one son, William, came back.”

Like Canna, most Southerners didn’t own slaves. But they were persuaded to risk their lives and limbs for the right of a few to get rich as Croesus from slavery. For their sacrifices and their votes, they earned two things before and after the Civil War. First, a very skinny slice of the immense Southern pie. And second, the thing that made those slim rations palatable then and now: the shallow satisfaction of knowing that blacks had no slice at all.

Lowering the flag because of the harm done to blacks is the right thing to do.

How did the plantation owners mislead so many Southern whites?

They managed this con job partly with a propaganda technique that will be familiar to modern Americans, but hasn’t received the coverage it deserves in our sesquicentennial celebrations. Starting in the 1840s wealthy Southerners supported more than 30 regional pro-slavery magazines, many pamphlets, newspapers and novels that falsely touted slave ownership as having benefits that would – in today’s lingo – trickle down to benefit non-slave owning whites and even blacks. The flip side of the coin of this old-is-new trickle-down propaganda is the mistaken notion that any gain by blacks in wages, schools or health care comes at the expense of the white working class.

Today’s version of this con job no longer supports slavery, but still works in the South and thrives in pro trickle-down think tanks, magazines, newspapers, talk radio and TV news shows such as the Cato Foundation, Reason magazine, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. These sources are underwritten by pro trickle-down one-per-centers like the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch.

For example, a map of states that didn’t expand Medicaid – which would actually be a boon mostly to poor whites – resembles a map of the old Confederacy with a few other poor, rural states thrown in. Another indication that this divisive propaganda works on Southern whites came in 2012. Romney and Obama evenly split the white working class in the West, Midwest and Northeast. But in the South we went 2-1 for Romney.

Lowering the flag because of the harm done to blacks is the right thing to do. We also need to lower it because it symbolizes material harm the ideology of the Confederacy did to Southern whites that lasts even to this day.

One can love the South without flying the battle flag. But it won’t help to get rid of an old symbol if we can’t also rid ourselves of the self-destructive beliefs that go with it. Only by shedding those too, will Southern whites finally catch up to the rest of the country in wages, health and education.

Frank Hyman lives in Durham,where he has held two local elected offices. He’s a carpenter and stonemason and policy analyst for Blue Collar Comeback. This essay originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch and is reprinted with permission.



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/article136721193.html#storylink=cpy

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 12:15 PM
Guys - it would be well to remember that none of us were alive in 1860. None of have any responsibility for what people did then. All we can control, all we can take credit or blame for is what we ourselves do, and God help us, that's more than enough.

Certainly none of us were alive in 1860, though I do have some doubts about [Name redacted :ycool:].That is

not the point, and you know it.

None of us were alive in 1776, either, but we are heirs to the philosophies and actions undertaken by those who were.



Whether your ancestors fought in those wars or not. Whether your ancestors came to the New World in 1617 or 2017, the history is in place, and our relative environments play a huge role in our own internalization of that History.


What has gotten glossed over is that the US Government was/is complicit in the murder/rape/dispossession/beating of tens of thousands of its own citizens, and the blame for that was shifted onto the shoulders of people who found those crimes to be unconscionable just as solidly as it was shifted onto the actual perpetrators.

Nonetheless, the actual perpetrators walked away scot free, the wealth remained in the hands of the oppressors, and the black people were ground into paste.

I see ZERO acknowledgement of these facts on the part of the Government OR of the Northeast, Liberal, Intellectual Elites that Steve Bannon loathes so much, either.
Georgetown University recently made some gesture toward this, but it is not nearly enough to heal the wound.

The denial of this genocidal crime creates the space where Bannon's evil vine is rooted, and it is my opinion that the election of 1876 led directly and inexorably to the present lump of garbage in the White House.

The argument that somehow the arrival date of one's ancestors, or one's year of birth exempt one from the tide of history is marvelously similar to the whole 'States' Rights' rabbit hole.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 12:16 PM
. . .

Are you just that desperate that you're repeating yourself?

Canoeyawl
03-07-2017, 12:22 PM
Guys - it would be well to remember that none of us were alive in 1860. None of have any responsibility for what people did then. All we can control, all we can take credit or blame for is what we ourselves do, and God help us, that's more than enough.

Speak for yourself... :d
Judging from their regressive and racist views, I'm pretty sure there are some here that were alive and well during the rise and fall of the Confederacy.

David G
03-07-2017, 12:22 PM
Are you just that desperate that you're repeating yourself?

Desperate? No. I can't imagine why you'd think that. But people are saying a lot of things that tell me they didn't actually read the article before commenting. I thought perhaps copying it entire would possibly help.

It seems that you have given this whole issue a lot of thought. And you have developed your own firm (unique?) understanding of the history and the meaning. Perhaps its time for you to write the full essay laying it all out so the rest of us can see the connections as clearly as you do.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 12:25 PM
Desperate? No. I can't imagine why you'd think that. But people are saying a lot of things that tell me they didn't actually read the article before commenting. I thought perhaps copying it entire would possibly help.

It seems that you have given this whole issue a lot of thought. And you have developed your own firm (unique?) understanding of the history and the meaning. Perhaps its time for you to write the full essay laying it all out so the rest of us can see the connections as clearly as you do.

Perhaps so.

I shall immediately liquidate my measly tool kit, return to Mississippi, and undertake a Doctoral Thesis on the matter.

See you in 6 years.

David G
03-07-2017, 12:45 PM
Perhaps so.

I shall immediately liquidate my measly tool kit, return to Mississippi, and undertake a Doctoral Thesis on the matter.

See you in 6 years.

I see clarity. I bet you could have the first draft done in one all-nighter.

Keith Wilson
03-07-2017, 12:46 PM
Yes, the standard not-very-detailed narrative of US history (high school history courses, for example) has indeed left out the sorry tale of the end of Reconstruction and the effective re-enslavement of southern blacks (as far as possible within the new laws). We're working on correcting that; it's pretty well-known around here.

But I think the article is right in that there are some alarming similarities between the effective propaganda of the slave-owning aristocracy and the effective propaganda of the early-21st-century aristocracy, in getting the white working class, particularly (although not at all exclusively) the southern white working class, to support policies that enrich the aristocracy and screw themselves. Getting folks who are struggling to blame those slightly below them on the economic ladder, rather than those at the top is a time-honored strategy, and it works better when the folks getting blamed can be made to seem fundamentally different - different skin color, different language, different national origin, different religion, recent immigrants . . . those damned Papist Irish, coming over and taking all the jobs, breeding like rabbits! Join the Know-Nothing Party!

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 12:55 PM
Desperate? No. I can't imagine why you'd think that. But people are saying a lot of things that tell me they didn't actually read the article before commenting. I thought perhaps


copying it entire would possibly help.


All the while ignoring the fact that the Yankees have been poking with that sharp stick for a long, long time.

If you wish to engender a genuine discussion, you must EXPECT that we will come to the table bristling for a fight.

That's all y'all have ever offered to us.

The onus is on YOU to extend the olive branch, and make us understand your position.



Yes, the standard not-very-detailed narrative of US history (high school history courses, for example) has indeed left out the sorry tale of the end of Reconstruction and the effective re-enslavement of southern blacks (as far as possible within the new laws). We're working on correcting that; it;s pretty well-known around here.

But I think the article is right in that there are some alarming similarities between the effective propaganda of the slave-owning aristocracy and the effective propaganda of the early-21st-century aristocracy, in getting the white working class, particularly the southern white working class, to support policies that enrich the aristocracy and screw themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Wilson.

Perhaps Mr. Coose would care to elaborate on his comment about The Free State of Jones?

Osborne Russell
03-07-2017, 12:56 PM
I get the idea of federal complicity. But that doesn't amount to federal causation of Jim Crow. The abandonment of Reconstruction wasn't forced on the South.

More like accessory after the fact. Now that I know you robbed the bank, I'll help you get away. The new crime played no part in the original crime.

Keith Wilson
03-07-2017, 01:08 PM
Plenty of blame to go around there. The Republican party in 1876 abandoned southern blacks to the tender mercies of the southern white folks for political advantage, and we all know what happened. Not preventing a crime is indeed not the same as committing one, but it's bad enough.

But arguments about it doesn't help, particularly between those of us who ought to stand together. It happened, it was, awful, but none of us had anything to do with it, although we all live with the consequences. Some of the indirect consequences are detailed in the article in the OP.

John of Phoenix
03-07-2017, 01:27 PM
I've lived in the South for many years - OK, TX, AL, LA, GA, FL. I was always a little peeved that radio and TV stations would play Dixie when signing on or off the air in the 70's and 80s.

My older sister married a man who was born and raised in NC who was a klansman. In addition to his hate talk, he often pondered what the country would be like had the South won the Civil War.

I went on a Mississippi River cruise a few years ago that featured a stop a high school reenactment of a Civil War ball and battle with all the actors dressed in Confederate uniforms and Southern Belle regalia. The gym was packed to capacity with shouts of "The South will rise again!" (It's been 150+ years. What's the hold up?)

My impression over the years is that the Southern culture lives and breathes the Civil War. What's the point of that?

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 01:57 PM
I've lived in the South for many years - OK, TX, AL, LA, GA, FL. I was always a little peeved that radio and TV stations would play Dixie when signing on or off the air in the 70's and 80s.

My older sister married a man who was born and raised in NC who was a klansman. In addition to his hate talk, he often pondered what the country would be like had the South won the Civil War.

I went on a Mississippi River cruise a few years ago that featured a stop a high school reenactment of a Civil War ball and battle with all the actors dressed in Confederate uniforms and Southern Belle regalia. The gym was packed to capacity with shouts of "The South will rise again!" (It's been 150+ years. What's the hold up?)

My impression over the years is that the Southern culture lives and breathes the Civil War. What's the point of that?

A couple of things.

One, the 'upper crust', disgusting as they are, inherited the philosophy of the 1% as described in the OP. Thus the Confederate uniforms and the Southern Belle regalia.

You won't see the lower classes acting that way, unless they're too stupid to know better (quite possible), or have 'aspirations'.


For another thing, I think it should be clear to you that the US did not win that war in any meaningful sense of the word. Sure, it is no longer legal for one person to own another person OUTRIGHT, but the 'traditions' live on to this day. Like playing 'Dixie' at sign off, or flying the Confederate Battle Flag over the Statehouse. There is no 'hold-up' to the South rising again.

It already did.

The North never took on the underlying evils, and those have persisted and grown over the years until now, their Champion is in the White House.


Someone mentioned their hatred of John Wilkes Booth, earlier. I agree.

The only problem there is that, while Lincoln's death was tragic and unnecessary, he was the one who forbade Sherman from executing the entire Confederate Officer's Corps. Sherman 'Got it'.

Taking those people out of the equation would have helped a LOT, but taking the plantation owners too would have been better.

There were a LOT of plantations that were owned by Northerners, and we shoulda hung those, too.


By the way, have you ever heard the phrase 'Find 'em, and pile on'?

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 02:06 PM
I get the idea of federal complicity. But that doesn't amount to federal causation of Jim Crow. The abandonment of Reconstruction wasn't forced on the South.

More like accessory after the fact. Now that I know you robbed the bank, I'll help you get away. The new crime played no part in the original crime.

I see.

You posit a bank robbery, let me posit a genocide.

I see you committing a genocide, pop my head in the door, shoot up the place , force the genocide to stop, fail to disarm the perpetrators, say 'Y'all play nice, now, ya hear?' and go away.

The perpetrators simply resume the slaughter.

I didn't CAUSE the genocide, but I didn't stop it when I had the chance.


The central thing to remember in this, is that the US Government had no interest in justice OR freedom, they just didn't want the South to secede.


Any claim of Northern moral superiority is bogus.

Chris Coose
03-07-2017, 02:07 PM
Perhaps you were unaware of the Jones County story?

Yes, I was unaware. I understand that a Hollywood script isn't going to bring me the whole story but that film is certainly good at transmitting the potential for government to deliver the ugliest nature of human beings. Besides I think McConaughnay is one on America's best male actors. Thanks for posting that tip.

John of Phoenix
03-07-2017, 02:09 PM
By the way, have you ever heard the phrase 'Find 'em, and pile on'?"Find the bastards, then pile on" is the way I know it. The motto of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. My roommate from flight school, who rescued me in Cambodia the first time I was shot down, was "Black Horse 21", 11th ACR. I have a warm spot for those guys.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/77/f0/f0/77f0f02e752753de0ec2ec7dc709db01.jpg

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 02:13 PM
Plenty of blame to go around there. The Republican party in 1876 abandoned southern blacks to the tender mercies of the southern white folks for political advantage, and we all know what happened. Not preventing a crime is indeed not the same as committing one, but it's bad enough.

But arguments about it doesn't help, particularly between those of us who ought to stand together. It happened, it was, awful, but none of us had anything to do with it, although we all live with the consequences. Some of the indirect consequences are detailed in the article in the OP.

I disagree.

Arguments about it are the only thing that CAN help.

One must remember the wise counsel of Osborne Russell. We can not argue with the Morons, because they know they're wrong, and so they do not want an argument. They want a fight. They figure they can win a fight with us wimpy 'libs', so their might will make right once again.

My purpose in joining this conversation was to NOT allow it to devolve into a fight.


As long as it is an argument, we both stand to learn something.


As I have said before, the Civil War is the underlying cause of a great deal of division in the US polity even to this day, and I am also quite certain that these underlying problems helped propel the Moron King into the White House.


So, if my thesis is even REMOTELY true, we all have a vested interest in understanding just how that happened.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 02:16 PM
"Find the bastards, then pile on" is the way I know it. The motto of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment. My roommate from flight school, who rescued me in Cambodia the first time I was shot down, was "Black Horse 21", 11th ACR. I have a warm spot for those guys.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/77/f0/f0/77f0f02e752753de0ec2ec7dc709db01.jpg

They learned it from this guy. Learned it a great cost.

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/nathan-bedford-forrest-4.jpg

Keith Wilson
03-07-2017, 02:29 PM
My purpose in joining this conversation was to NOT allow it to devolve into a fight. As long as it is an argument, we both stand to learn something. Ah, a difference in terminology. I'd say we'd learn from a discussion, not from an argument. Same thing, different words.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 03:05 PM
Ah, a difference in terminology. I'd say we'd learn from a discussion, not from an argument. Same thing, different words.

That will be fine.

I was drawing my term from a venue where one presents an 'argument', but 'discussion works for me.

Once again, Mr. Wilson, I would like to express my gratitude for your unfailing 'reasonableness', or at the very least your 'trying to be reasonable'.

John of Phoenix
03-07-2017, 03:07 PM
That will be fine.

I was drawing my term from a venue where one presents an 'argument', but 'discussion works for me.

Once again, Mr. Wilson, I would like to express my gratitude for your unfailing 'reasonableness', or at the very least your 'trying to be reasonable'.You do a fine job yourself, buddy.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 03:09 PM
You do a fine job yourself, buddy.

I'm sure Scot would disagree, from time to time, but thanks!

Quite the compliment!

skuthorp
03-07-2017, 03:10 PM
"The central thing to remember in this, is that the US Government had no interest in justice OR freedom, they just didn't want the South to secede."

The exact point I was about to make Ozna.

johnw
03-07-2017, 03:12 PM
What's your view on why Southerners were so eager to fight?

I still don't have an answer to this question.

skuthorp
03-07-2017, 03:17 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by johnw http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5178786#post5178786)
What's your view on why Southerners were so eager to fight?

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 03:19 PM
I still don't have an answer to this question.

Perhaps Mickey has better things to do, but in his absence, I'll take a shot at it.


They were eager to fight because they were told their way of life was endangered and, being a bunch of Scots-Irish farm hands, they thought it would be quite a lark.

I know Berry Benson had a BLAST.

The OP outlines the propaganda machine that the 1% had in place to ensure their willingness.

ETA:

Cross post with Jeff, who makes a far better explanation than I.

johnw
03-07-2017, 03:28 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by johnw http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5178786#post5178786)
What's your view on why Southerners were so eager to fight?

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”



Perhaps Mickey has better things to do, but in his absence, I'll take a shot at it.


They were eager to fight because they were told their way of life was endangered and, being a bunch of Scots-Irish farm hands, they thought it would be quite a lark.

I know Berry Benson had a BLAST.

The OP outlines the propaganda machine that the 1% had in place to ensure their willingness.

ETA:

Cross post with Jeff, who makes a far better explanation than I.
.

I suppose the two of you have that right. Prior to WW I, people expected glory in wars, for one thing.

But they did fight for a way of life, and after they lost the war, they fought for that way of life in different ways. Maybe the north should have prevented them from having that way of life -- certainly, Grant tried, for the course of his presidency, to protect the voting rights of freed slaves -- but in the end, the South got what it wanted. Andrew Jackson bears a good deal of the blame. He didn't want to rebuild the South differently, he just wanted them in the Union, and he was inclined to leave the power structure in the South much as it was before the war.

But even so, I don't think the South could ever rely on the North to change them, and to the extent it tried, it only received resentment in return.

Jimmy W
03-07-2017, 03:53 PM
People want to know why the South is so interested in the Civil War. I had maybe, it's a rough guess, about fifty fistfights in my life. Out of those fifty fistfights, the ones that I had the most vivid memory of were the ones I lost. I think that's one reason why the South remembers the war more than the North does.

As a Southerner I would have to say that one of the main importances of the War is that Southerners have a sense of defeat which none of the rest of the country has.

From Shelby Foote who went to school with my mother and uncle. Uncle Paul didn't care for Shelby, I wonder if they ever fought.

My favorite part of the OP article was:
But it won’t help to get rid of an old symbol if we can’t also rid ourselves of the self-destructive beliefs that go with it. Only by shedding those too, will Southern whites finally catch up to the rest of the country in wages, health and education.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 04:15 PM
.

I suppose the two of you have that right. Prior to WW I, people expected glory in wars, for one thing.

But they did fight for a way of life, and after they lost the war, they fought for that way of life in different ways. Maybe the north should have prevented them from having that way of life -- certainly, Grant tried, for the course of his presidency, to protect the voting rights of freed slaves -- but in the end, the South got what it wanted. Andrew Jackson bears a good deal of the blame. He didn't want to rebuild the South differently, he just wanted them in the Union, and he was inclined to leave the power structure in the South much as it was before the war.

But even so, I don't think the South could ever rely on the North to change them, and to the extent it tried, it only received resentment in return.

Oh, dear.

Try this on for size:

The South sues for peace, Grant accepts their unconditional surrender, then directs Sherman to 1) Hang every one of them above the rank of Lieutenant, and 2) Hang every owner of more than 2 slaves.

Then the land owned by those hung gets divided among the former slaves.


At that point, if the Yankee slave holders are treated equally, we don't have any of the problems you describe.

There are no more propagandists, black people are equal to white people, and the world is spinning in greased grooves.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM is NOT that the South was recalcitrant, whatever, the CENTRAL PROBLEM is that the US Government entered that war with an amoral end: To preserve the Union.

Once that end was achieved, their interest in the South in general, and the Southern black man in particular was at an end.


You keep rattling on about how "they fought for that way of life in different ways. Maybe the north should have prevented them from having that way of life" as if every, single person in the South moved in lock step.

If you caught yourself referring in that fashion to ANY OTHER group as defined by geography or genetics, you would be appalled at yourself.

johnw
03-07-2017, 04:28 PM
Oh, dear.

Try this on for size:

The South sues for peace, Grant accepts their unconditional surrender, then directs Sherman to 1) Hang every one of them above the rank of Lieutenant, and 2) Hang every owner of more than 2 slaves.

Then the land owned by those hung gets divided among the former slaves.


At that point, if the Yankee slave holders are treated equally, we don't have any of the problems you describe.

There are no more propagandists, black people are equal to white people, and the world is spinning in greased grooves.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM is NOT that the South was recalcitrant, whatever, the CENTRAL PROBLEM is that the US Government entered that war with an amoral end: To preserve the Union.

Once that end was achieved, their interest in the South in general, and the Southern black man in particular was at an end.


You keep rattling on about how "they fought for that way of life in different ways. Maybe the north should have prevented them from having that way of life" as if every, single person in the South moved in lock step.

If you caught yourself referring in that fashion to ANY OTHER group as defined by geography or genetics, you would be appalled at yourself.
.

Good heavens, no one should ever generalize, should they? Or is that a generalization?

Of course I don't think all Southerners marched in lockstep. But the fact is, no general had the right to take the steps you propose. Certainly, radical Republicans wanted to do something like that, but were stymied by Andrew Johnson, who they proceeded to impeach. We don't know what Lincoln would have done, but given what he said in the Gettysburg Address, I doubt he'd have introduced a northern Terror to the South.

Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign. Do you imagine the South had nothing to do with how Reconstruction ended? Take a look at how the vote totals were calculated in certain Southern states to produce the crisis of 1876.

In any case, hasn't the Civil War been over long enough for the South to take responsibility for its own power structure? Hasn't it had plenty of time to shape its own culture? Hell, most of my ancestors were still in Europe when that war happened.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 04:39 PM
.

Good heavens, no one should ever generalize, should they? Or is that a generalization?

Of course I don't think all Southerners marched in lockstep. But the fact is, no general had the right to take the steps you propose. Certainly, radical Republicans wanted to do something like that, but were stymied by Andrew Johnson, who they proceeded to impeach. We don't know what Lincoln would have done, but given what he said in the Gettysburg Address, I doubt he'd have introduced a northern Terror to the South.

Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign. Do you imagine the South had nothing to do with how Reconstruction ended? Take a look at how the vote totals were calculated in certain Southern states to produce the crisis of 1876.

In any case, hasn't the Civil War been over long enough for the South to take responsibility for its own power structure? Hasn't it had plenty of time to shape its own culture? Hell, most of my ancestors were still in Europe when that war happened.

OK.

Enough Americans want the slimy POS in the White House, too.


The South was broken, but not broken badly enough.


Why can't the US Government take responsibility for keeping its black citizens safe?

It seems to be enough for you to simply say, 'well, a lot of powerful white people want them dead'.

Perhaps I expect too much, and should launch a career based on amoral predation, instead of asking my government to actually govern.

bamamick
03-07-2017, 05:40 PM
Yes, I was unaware. I understand that a Hollywood script isn't going to bring me the whole story but that film is certainly good at transmitting the potential for government to deliver the ugliest nature of human beings. Besides I think McConaughnay is one on America's best male actors. Thanks for posting that tip.

There was a similar story in Alabama, and I think pretty much half the state of Tennessee was against succession. Poor farmers had very little reason to fight for the south, though as I tried to say last night, many felt that they had to because even if the big land owners didn't own their farms, they owned the stores, the schools, the churches, and they owned public opinion through the newspapers. Provosts and home guards patrolled the roads harassing those whose choice didn't align with the Confederate government's (like they did in New England during the War of 1812). They could make life a living hell for those who did not see things their way.

I get tired of reading this stuff here. My daily life is so very different from all of this Civil War stuff. I have said it numerous times but it seems to go mostly un-noticed, what will break the chains of inequality in the south is economic opportunity and only economic opportunity. This is why we welcome foreign investment with open arms the way we do. We need good paying jobs so that our children can go to better schools and better prepare themselves for the job market, and for whatever reason, very little American investment found it's way down here. With heavy investment from Korea, Japan, Germany, Australia, Finland and China, to name a few, Alabama families are finally getting that chance. All Alabamians.

Mickey Lake

bobbys
03-07-2017, 06:00 PM
The OP looks to the conferderacy to relive the liberal guilt of gentrification where portland hipsters drive out blacks from historic black neighborhoods to build libster liberal nirvana..

One might ask why his efforts are not directed in any way to help portland blacks.

Well , it's fine to stand on a soap box and rant about the civil war whole not bothering oneself to actully live near the blacks....

One can see just how white liberals in a city run by democrats act out the " problem" of having blacks in their backyard.

What hypocrites..

Gerarddm
03-07-2017, 06:35 PM
People who blame immigrants, or whatever social class they deem lesser than them, could never be a Seahawk. Coach Pete Carroll's mantra is ALWAYS COMPETE, and the losers who whine about immigrants and the dregs of society are the very epitome of loserdom. " To the privileged, equality feels like oppression".

I hate to toss this sports metaphor into this discussion, but since sports is America's secular religion, particularly American football, I thought it apropos.

johnw
03-07-2017, 07:19 PM
OK.

Enough Americans want the slimy POS in the White House, too.


The South was broken, but not broken badly enough.


Why can't the US Government take responsibility for keeping its black citizens safe?

It seems to be enough for you to simply say, 'well, a lot of powerful white people want them dead'.

Perhaps I expect too much, and should launch a career based on amoral predation, instead of asking my government to actually govern.
.

Well, you sure have some strange ideas about what I think.

What has happened is, Reconstruction started again with the Civil Rights movement. At first is was bipartisan, but the Republican Party decided to take advantage of people who resented the movement, and as a result most of the South is now Republican. Now, I happen to think the civil rights movement and the legislation that went with is was a good idea. And it involved making some real progress in defending black citizens. Terrible things still happen, but the kind of terror against African Americans that was common a century ago is uncommon now. But getting there involved stirring up a lot of resentment among those who didn't want it to happen.

A big part of what happened was the federal government being willing to prosecute people who committed acts of racial terror.

I think you give the South too little credit for the progress it's made, and the feds too little credit for their role in helping bring that about.

If you don't think the South is changing, look at this map. Based on surveys taken in October, this is the voting preference of millennials.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw0WxbZUoAA0tXo.jpg

Young people in the South didn't find Trump's racist campaign at all appealing. Every part of the country is changing. Sometimes, though, we have to make progress one funeral at a time, because it isn't the old people changing.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 07:31 PM
.



Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign.


.

Well, you sure have some strange ideas about what I think.



You seem to be saying what you think quite well.

You justified the golden era of lynch law by saying Southerners wanted it.

That's not any way for the greatest country on Earth to act, now is it?


We went to war to subjugate those bursteds, then decided they could do whatever they wanted?



The entire Civil War was a complete waste of lives and resources except for the fact that the South remained in the Union, for whatever good that did anybody.


Pretty stupid.


"We 'freed the slaves' to be slaughtered, tortured, beaten, robbed and raped because our vanquished foe decided that was how he wanted to treat several million of our fellow citizens for the next 100 years."

Isn't that the case you just built?

Would you like, perhaps, to reconsider?

Jimmy W
03-07-2017, 07:49 PM
To add to Mickey's post.

In his book Lincoln's Loyalists, historian Richard Current indicates that as many as 100,000 white Southerners became Union soldiers at some point over the course of the war, and that 70 percent of those came from Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Georgia supplied fewer Union troops than did any other Southern state except South Carolina. Approximately 400 Georgians enlisted in Union military units, compared with around 5,000 in North Carolina, more than 3,000 in Alabama, and a remarkable 42,000 in Tennessee.
Of the few Georgians who chose to join Union forces, most were from the mountains and had to cross state lines to enlist. As many as 270 Georgians enlisted in the First Alabama Cavalry, organized near Huntsville in mid-1862. Nearly half the Fifth Tennessee Mounted Infantry consisted of exiled Georgia Unionists. In November 1864 eight men from Fannin, Towns, and Union counties, all poor farmers who had deserted the Confederate army, were on their way to join the Fifth Tennessee in Cleveland, Tennessee, when they encountered John P. Gatewood's notorious Confederate guerrilla force near the state line. In what came to be known as the Madden Branch Massacre, Gatewood's men captured six of the eight, lined them up, and gunned them down at close range.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/unionists

johnw
03-07-2017, 08:22 PM
You seem to be saying what you think quite well.

You justified the golden era of lynch law by saying Southerners wanted it.

I've said nothing of the kind, and you know it. That's about the most disgusting thing I've seen you write.




That's not any way for the greatest country on Earth to act, now is it?


We went to war to subjugate those bursteds, then decided they could do whatever they wanted?



The entire Civil War was a complete waste of lives and resources except for the fact that the South remained in the Union, for whatever good that did anybody.


Pretty stupid.


"We 'freed the slaves' to be slaughtered, tortured, beaten, robbed and raped because our vanquished foe decided that was how he wanted to treat several million of our fellow citizens for the next 100 years."

Isn't that the case you just built?

Would you like, perhaps, to reconsider?
.

No, that isn't the case I've built, it's the case you've built. You seem to be arguing that the north should have left the South to go its own way, with slavery intact, or have changed the South in ways it was unwilling to change.

And of course, the South bears no responsibility, because those bad old Yankees didn't make them behave better.

I was born in Louisiana, and my folks have told some interesting stories about that time (both are from Oregon.) One is about having dinner with some neighbors, and one of them remarked that the economy wasn't good because of the war. Did they mean WW II, which had ended a few years earlier? No, they meant the Civil War.

And now here you are, generations later, telling me that the South is the way it is because of the way the North treated it.

Seems like it's just another way of packaging Southern resentment of the North.

Where I live, we weren't even a state when the Civil War happened, and we don't think about it much. Seems like people ought to be over it by now, and ready to take responsibility for their own lives.

Jimmy W
03-07-2017, 08:50 PM
A rather interesting thing about the south. These figures are several years old, probably even higher now.

The segment of black interracial marriage is interesting as well, since it looks like the majority of black/white marriages (51%) are happening in the southern region of the country–in fact the majority of ALL interracial marriages are happening in the south (39%)!! Looks like the South is rising, but who woulda thunk it would rise this way?

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd41/jimmywga/Duwayne%20Burnside%202_zpsl0gyny6x.jpg

johnw
03-07-2017, 09:08 PM
A rather interesting thing about the south. These figures are several years old, probably even higher now.


http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd41/jimmywga/Duwayne%20Burnside%202_zpsl0gyny6x.jpg
.

More evidence the South is changing? Or has this been the case all along?

Jimmy W
03-07-2017, 09:14 PM
I think it is evidence of a change.

oznabrag
03-07-2017, 10:29 PM
I've said nothing of the kind, and you know it. That's about the most disgusting thing I've seen you write.




.

No, that isn't the case I've built, it's the case you've built. You seem to be arguing that the north should have left the South to go its own way, with slavery intact, or have changed the South in ways it was unwilling to change.

And of course, the South bears no responsibility, because those bad old Yankees didn't make them behave better.

I was born in Louisiana, and my folks have told some interesting stories about that time (both are from Oregon.) One is about having dinner with some neighbors, and one of them remarked that the economy wasn't good because of the war. Did they mean WW II, which had ended a few years earlier? No, they meant the Civil War.

And now here you are, generations later, telling me that the South is the way it is because of the way the North treated it.

Seems like it's just another way of packaging Southern resentment of the North.

Where I live, we weren't even a state when the Civil War happened, and we don't think about it much. Seems like people ought to be over it by now, and ready to take responsibility for their own lives.


Really?

Fine.

You seem to be laboring under a lot of defensiveness.

In hindsight, that position may well be correct.

620,000 soldiers dead, God only knows how many soldiers wounded/maimed for life, God knows how many civilians dead/maimed/dispossessed, God knows how much property destroyed, and for what?

It sure wasn't to free the slaves, buddy, those people are STILL enslaved in large part.

You can sit there and write all the anecdotal bushwa you'd like, but the FACT of the matter is that the US abandoned the former slaves to what amounts to their own, little Holocaust, but with a twist.

In this case, the horror lasted for a century, and still continues to this day, AND will resume its former magnitude, if Bannon has his way.



Oregon wasn't founded after Bannon made it to the White House was it?

As I told Keith earlier, you live in the United States of America. The history of the Civil War is YOUR history, whether you like it or not.

As to the other half of your assertion, that I would like to see the 'South changed in ways it was unwilling to change' what in the world do you think that war was about in the first place? The South wanted to change in ways the US was unwilling to let it change! They wanted to leave, and the US forced them to stay!

The US spent 4 gory years and untold, inestimable misery to force them to stay, but they couldn't be bothered to have them quit murdering their fellow citizens?

Really?

Yer *(*^$^$%%RTIUamn right I would like to have seen the US Government change the South in ways it was unwilling to change!

We stomped in there, killed everybody, burned everything, said the slaves were free and turned our backs.

When we try to pull that crap in Iraq these days, the International Community is very much taken aback.

Why do you feel that was an appropriate course of action?



I really do not understand why it is you feel you can wash your hands of this just because you live in the Northwest.

You are a US Citizen. You own this shtuff. Yes, it's a terrible chapter, but no, it's not over. Every time the school-to-prison pipeline dumps another young black man in the pen, Ben Tillman cackles with glee.

Why do you not get that?

Why is it that you can not address that without blaming it on Southern people? Do you think that black men are incarcerated at ten times the rate of white men only in the South?

It may have been the fault of the Southern people for about 10 minutes, but all those people were lynched, beaten, raped and/or robbed under the US. The US had a responsibility to them, and we abandoned that responsibility, and we have spent the past 150 years blaming those victims for their trouble.

It's what we Americans do best.

It was not the Confederate States of America. That entity had been dissolved. If we were not going to impose our will on them, then why the heck did we fight a war with them?

Osborne Russell
03-08-2017, 01:30 PM
You could accuse the nation as a whole as moving kind of slowly on slavery. At some point it did divide into north and south. There was civil war which of course is long over. Then the nation moved kind of slowly on civil rights.

The idea that "the south" and/or "southerners" are primarily responsible for the civil rights part just isn't so. I've never in my life heard anyone say that. Not the most ignorant white person, and certainly no African-American.

The north gained from the pre-civil war part, too. Looked the other way and took the goodies.

Is that what all this is about?

This is the part I don't get:


You justified the golden era of lynch law by saying Southerners wanted it.

Somebody wanted it. Who votes in the south? If northerners wanted it in the north, why didn't they enact it?

Why would it have been in the interest of the rest of the country to support it, but only in the south?

oznabrag
03-08-2017, 01:57 PM
You could accuse the nation as a whole as moving kind of slowly on slavery. At some point it did divide into north and south. There was civil war which of course is long over. Then the nation moved kind of slowly on civil rights.

The idea that "the south" and/or "southerners" are primarily responsible for the civil rights part just isn't so. I've never in my life heard anyone say that. Not the most ignorant white person, and certainly no African-American.

The north gained from the pre-civil war part, too. Looked the other way and took the goodies.

Is that what all this is about?

This is the part I don't get:



Somebody wanted it. Who votes in the south? If northerners wanted it in the north, why didn't they enact it?

Why would it have been in the interest of the rest of the country to support it, but only in the south?


Perhaps the actual battlefield hostilities are over, but that conflict is alive and well, as you yourself have stated so eloquently.

I do not have the time to respond to the rest of your post, right this minute, but John W posted this:



Good heavens, no one should ever generalize, should they? Or is that a generalization?

Of course I don't think all Southerners marched in lockstep. But the fact is, no general had the right to take the steps you propose. Certainly, radical Republicans wanted to do something like that, but were stymied by Andrew Johnson, who they proceeded to impeach. We don't know what Lincoln would have done, but given what he said in the Gettysburg Address, I doubt he'd have introduced a northern Terror to the South.

Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign. Do you imagine the South had nothing to do with how Reconstruction ended? Take a look at how the vote totals were calculated in certain Southern states to produce the crisis of 1876.

In any case, hasn't the Civil War been over long enough for the South to take responsibility for its own power structure? Hasn't it had plenty of time to shape its own culture? Hell, most of my ancestors were still in Europe when that war happened.

Which sure looks like an assertion that the South wanted to establish lynch law, and the North said "OK!"

I'm sure there is a case to be made that this is true, but my question remains, Why did the US spend all that time, money and misery, if we were unwilling to actually WIN that freaking war?

We lost that war.

The evidence is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Furthermore, He makes the lame cop-out that he lives in the Northwest, and his State didn't even exist at that time, to which I reply 'So, what?'.

The United States of America is an IDEA, not a plot of land.

The History of the US belongs to EVERY US citizen, regardless of where they reside.
Look at the sentence I bolded above:
the vote totals were calculated in certain Southern states to produce the crisis of 1876.


This is FURTHER evidence that the US lost that war. What in the heck were those people doing VOTING? Why were they in a position to manipulate politics? I'll tell you why. Because the US lost the Civil War, and were STUPID enough to try and assimilate millions of sworn traitors.


This is precisely the error that Donald F Trump wants to project onto the Democratic Party. He says that the Democrats want completely open borders so that the Radical Islamist Terrorists can come in and set up shop. It isn't TRUE, mind you, but that is what he says. The United States of America chose to ignore the fact that a million or more of the former Confederates were STILL out to destroy the Union, and by Zeus, they've come to a point where that goal is within their grasp.


Along the way, the US chose to ignore that those self-same traitors were murdering their fellow-citizens by the thousands.

sandtown
03-08-2017, 02:42 PM
I disagree with much of what has been written here.
A key aspect of the southern mentality was, and remains, Cavalier Culture,
which is a type of feudalism.
Many southern elites do not see poor whites, blacks, women or northern whites as true human beings; and
thus have zero respect for democratic norms such as voting rights, quality schools, etc.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/puritans-vs-cavaliers/?_r=0

johnw
03-08-2017, 03:27 PM
Really?

Fine.

You seem to be laboring under a lot of defensiveness.

In hindsight, that position may well be correct.

620,000 soldiers dead, God only knows how many soldiers wounded/maimed for life, God knows how many civilians dead/maimed/dispossessed, God knows how much property destroyed, and for what?

It sure wasn't to free the slaves, buddy, those people are STILL enslaved in large part.

You can sit there and write all the anecdotal bushwa you'd like, but the FACT of the matter is that the US abandoned the former slaves to what amounts to their own, little Holocaust, but with a twist.

In this case, the horror lasted for a century, and still continues to this day, AND will resume its former magnitude, if Bannon has his way.



Oregon wasn't founded after Bannon made it to the White House was it?

As I told Keith earlier, you live in the United States of America. The history of the Civil War is YOUR history, whether you like it or not.

As to the other half of your assertion, that I would like to see the 'South changed in ways it was unwilling to change' what in the world do you think that war was about in the first place? The South wanted to change in ways the US was unwilling to let it change! They wanted to leave, and the US forced them to stay!

The US spent 4 gory years and untold, inestimable misery to force them to stay, but they couldn't be bothered to have them quit murdering their fellow citizens?

Really?

Yer *(*^$^$%%RTIUamn right I would like to have seen the US Government change the South in ways it was unwilling to change!

We stomped in there, killed everybody, burned everything, said the slaves were free and turned our backs.

When we try to pull that crap in Iraq these days, the International Community is very much taken aback.

Why do you feel that was an appropriate course of action?



I really do not understand why it is you feel you can wash your hands of this just because you live in the Northwest.

You are a US Citizen. You own this shtuff. Yes, it's a terrible chapter, but no, it's not over. Every time the school-to-prison pipeline dumps another young black man in the pen, Ben Tillman cackles with glee.

Why do you not get that?

Why is it that you can not address that without blaming it on Southern people? Do you think that black men are incarcerated at ten times the rate of white men only in the South?

It may have been the fault of the Southern people for about 10 minutes, but all those people were lynched, beaten, raped and/or robbed under the US. The US had a responsibility to them, and we abandoned that responsibility, and we have spent the past 150 years blaming those victims for their trouble.

It's what we Americans do best.

It was not the Confederate States of America. That entity had been dissolved. If we were not going to impose our will on them, then why the heck did we fight a war with them?

This has remarkably little to do with what I actually wrote. If you can't get what I'm saying, it's because you don't want to.

johnw
03-08-2017, 03:29 PM
I disagree with much of what has been written here.
A key aspect of the southern mentality was, and remains, Cavalier Culture,
which is a type of feudalism.
Many southern elites do not see poor whites, blacks, women or northern whites as true human beings; and
thus have zero respect for democratic norms such as voting rights, quality schools, etc.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/puritans-vs-cavaliers/?_r=0

So, we're still fighting the English Civil War? They seem to be over it.

oznabrag
03-08-2017, 03:37 PM
This has remarkably little to do with what I actually wrote. If you can't get what I'm saying, it's because you don't want to.

Right back atcha, pal.

Keith Wilson
03-08-2017, 04:41 PM
So, we're still fighting the English Civil War? They seem to be over it.My head's pretty round, all in all.

Jimmy W
03-08-2017, 04:55 PM
My head's pretty round, all in all.

"Our heads are round, so our thoughts can change direction." - artist Francis Picabia

bobbys
03-08-2017, 07:01 PM
Right back atcha, pal..

You are overmatched debating with John.

Don't feel bad , so yam eye.

oznabrag
03-08-2017, 07:10 PM
.

You are overmatched debating with John.

Don't feel bad , so yam eye.

I see.


So, THAT'S why he gave up!


:p

johnw
03-08-2017, 07:28 PM
.

You are overmatched debating with John.

Don't feel bad , so yam eye.

No, we just don't seem to be communicating. This often happens when a Yankee and a Southerner try to talk about the Civil War.

Osborne Russell
03-08-2017, 08:21 PM
The thread title could be taken the wrong way. The story of the Confederacy and its lingering effects is part of the larger story, not the cause of it.

skuthorp
03-08-2017, 08:30 PM
Looking at the last Fed election, it seems that the states and their populations are still not what you might call 'united'.

Keith Wilson
03-08-2017, 08:57 PM
Looking at the last Fed election, it seems that the states and their populations are still not what you might call 'united'.If you look at the electoral vote maps of the 35 presidential elections since the end of Reconstruction, you can see the Confederacy (more or less) in well over 20 of them. (Historical maps here (http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/))

Jimmy W
03-08-2017, 09:13 PM
Those maps sure show how the South changed from blue to red after the 1964 Civil Rights Act except for Carter.

Keith Wilson
03-08-2017, 10:11 PM
Some exceptions, though; Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats in '48, Goldwater in '64, and Wallace in '68. But you can almost always make out the borders of the Confederacy.

oznabrag
03-08-2017, 10:32 PM
I still don't have an answer to this question.

That's because you allow your confirmation biases to stop your ears.

oznabrag
03-08-2017, 10:44 PM
I've said nothing of the kind, and you know it. That's about the most disgusting thing I've seen you write.


You want disgusting?

Take a look at this:

.


No, that isn't the case I've built, it's the case you've built. You seem to be arguing that the north should have left the South to go its own way, with slavery intact, or have changed the South in ways it was unwilling to change.

Going to war with someone means forcing them to make a change they are unwilling to make.


And of course, the South bears no responsibility, because those bad old Yankees didn't make them behave better.

Now, you're insulting me.


I was born in Louisiana, and my folks have told some interesting stories about that time (both are from Oregon.) One is about having dinner with some neighbors, and one of them remarked that the economy wasn't good because of the war. Did they mean WW II, which had ended a few years earlier? No, they meant the Civil War.

And? I can cite countless stories where Southerners are bemoaning the fact that the amoral lump of crap known as Ronald Reagan was President, but that doesn't mean he didn't carry Mississippi.



And now here you are, generations later, telling me that the South is the way it is because of the way the North treated it.

Now, because you're desperate, you are allowing your confirmation bias to drive you to insult me AGAIN.


Seems like it's just another way of packaging Southern resentment of the North.

And AGAIN.


Where I live, we weren't even a state when the Civil War happened, and we don't think about it much. Seems like people ought to be over it by now, and ready to take responsibility for their own lives.

This is just an enormous cop-out, and a perfect example of the philosophy that drove the South to secede. Just because Oregon (or is it Washington?) was not part of the US during the CW, doesn't mean you are not a US citizen. Because you are a US citizen, the CW is part of your history.

bobbys
03-09-2017, 12:46 AM
No, we just don't seem to be communicating. This often happens when a Yankee and a Southerner try to talk about the Civil War.
.

well Ya know what Obama said 8 years ago........




we Won.....

Keith Wilson
03-09-2017, 08:56 AM
Oznabrag, while some of it may be justified, isn't that enormous chip on your shoulder kind of heavy to carry around? None of us are responsible for what our ancestors did. All we can affect is what we ourselves do.

oznabrag
03-09-2017, 09:12 AM
Chip?

Somehow or other, I am supposed to tolerate the insults of the entire Nation, outside the South, and accept the blame for the black holocaust by virtue of the place of my birth, just because a bunch of ignorant Northwesterners think they're exempt from history for the sole reason that their State wasn't a part of the Union at the time of the Civil War?

Really?

I wish to eradicate the cult of ignorance that clouds this issue and let the light of reason illuminate our public discourse so the better we may understand the enemies of reason, and the weapons they wield against us and our liberty, therefore I am out of line?

Really?


The wisdom contained in the quote below will be drawn, quartered and hanged at sunrise by people who believe it can not be true, simply because it was written by a Southerner.





The past isn't dead. It isn't even past.

William Faulkner

Keith Wilson
03-09-2017, 09:59 AM
. . . and accept the blame for the black holocaust by virtue of the place of my birth, No, sir. Faulkner's right, of course (see the thread title), but you are not required to accept the blame for anything you didn't do with your own two hands. That's your schtick, not that of those you're arguing with, and certain not Mr. Watkins'. If anyone tries to lay that on you, tell them to stuff it.

bobbys
03-09-2017, 11:27 AM
Oznabrag, while some of it may be justified, isn't that enormous chip on your shoulder kind of heavy to carry around? None of us are responsible for what our ancestors did. All we can affect is what we ourselves do.
.

Well one has to ponder why he roams the bilge with a noose in every thread.

oznabrag
03-09-2017, 01:00 PM
No, sir. Faulkner's right, of course (see the thread title), but you are not required to accept the blame for anything you didn't do with your own two hands. That's your schtick, not that of those you're arguing with, and certain not Mr. Watkins'. If anyone tries to lay that on you, tell them to stuff it.

I have a schtick?

Keith Wilson
03-09-2017, 02:13 PM
Everybody's got a schtick (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shtick); at least one. Some folks have several. ;)

johnw
03-09-2017, 03:15 PM
That's because you allow your confirmation biases to stop your ears.

Right back at ya.

Osborne Russell
03-10-2017, 11:36 AM
Oznabrag, the dumbest people I ever encountered were in the Army. A subset of these were a subset of Northeasterners. Eighteen year olds. They couldn't get over hearing a southern accent in real life. They would draw a peak in the air over their heads and say, Where's your hood? Where's your sheet? It was like, painfully stupid.

Such ignorance exists, but it's not "the insults of the entire Nation" being hurled at the South, only the clowning of a handful of nitwits. What they say is so dumb, it makes an impression larger than their numbers would warrant.

The real problem is that in school, it is taught that the story began, suddenly, out of nowhere, with the Civil War. The slave-owning South versus the northern champions of human liberty. Maybe they mention Reconstruction. Then it's over, straight on to the Spanish American War, maybe. Often straight to WW1. And this is the only history people carry with them throughout the rest of their lives, this mere sketch. It's not enough to ward off the influence of the ignorant bigotry they will encounter among their peers, and adopt out of peer pressure.

oznabrag
03-10-2017, 11:54 AM
Oznabrag, the dumbest people I ever encountered were in the Army. A subset of these were a subset of Northeasterners. Eighteen year olds. They couldn't get over hearing a southern accent in real life. They would draw a peak in the air over their heads and say, Where's your hood? Where's your sheet? It was like, painfully stupid.

Such ignorance exists, but it's not "the insults of the entire Nation" being hurled at the South, only the clowning of a handful of nitwits. What they say is so dumb, it makes an impression larger than their numbers would warrant.

The real problem is that in school, it is taught that the story began, suddenly, out of nowhere, with the Civil War. The slave-owning South versus the northern champions of human liberty. Maybe they mention Reconstruction. Then it's over, straight on to the Spanish American War, maybe. Often straight to WW1. And this is the only history people carry with them throughout the rest of their lives, this mere sketch. It's not enough to ward off the influence of the ignorant bigotry they will encounter among their peers, and adopt out of peer pressure.

Apparently the regionalist bigoptry has spread to the Great Northwest.


It is as I have said this time, and many times before, and I think you agree with me in principle, the US Civil War was the coming-to-a-head of the basic conflict within this country. The conflict you have so eloquently described elsewhere.

There is one forumite who derided me for describing the Civil War in what he said was 'Marxist' terms.

Now, I do not hold a college degree, nor have I read any Marx, or Lenin, or Adam Smith either, so I'm not sure what exactly that means, but he seems to have meant that I was blaming Capital for the whole thing, and I think that's not terribly unfair.

In the South, Capital was Land and Labor. The Southern Capitalist did not want his greed to be limited by fuzzy notions of whether or not owning people outright was 'moral' or not, so he attempted to get out.


He was stymied in that attempt, so proceeded to change the system from within.

One look at so-called 'health care' in this country should make the case.

Forbidden from owning people outright, those self-same monsters shackle as many as possible to their desks with employer-provided health care. Develop an expensive 'condition'? Say good bye to ever working for any other company, because if you try, your present employer will cancel your policy, and you have a 'preexisting condition'.

Your employer holds the power of life and death over you, just like a field hand from 160 years ago.

That is just one facet of this 'jewel'.

johnw
03-10-2017, 02:45 PM
Apparently the regionalist bigoptry has spread to the Great Northwest.


It is as I have said this time, and many times before, and I think you agree with me in principle, the US Civil War was the coming-to-a-head of the basic conflict within this country. The conflict you have so eloquently described elsewhere.

There is one forumite who derided me for describing the Civil War in what he said was 'Marxist' terms.

Now, I do not hold a college degree, nor have I read any Marx, or Lenin, or Adam Smith either, so I'm not sure what exactly that means, but he seems to have meant that I was blaming Capital for the whole thing, and I think that's not terribly unfair.

In the South, Capital was Land and Labor. The Southern Capitalist did not want his greed to be limited by fuzzy notions of whether or not owning people outright was 'moral' or not, so he attempted to get out.


He was stymied in that attempt, so proceeded to change the system from within.

One look at so-called 'health care' in this country should make the case.

Forbidden from owning people outright, those self-same monsters shackle as many as possible to their desks with employer-provided health care. Develop an expensive 'condition'? Say good bye to ever working for any other company, because if you try, your present employer will cancel your policy, and you have a 'preexisting condition'.

Your employer holds the power of life and death over you, just like a field hand from 160 years ago.

That is just one facet of this 'jewel'.

Oz, do you think calling me a bigot helps you change anyone's mind? Insults are what you resort to when you don't have an argument. You're a smart guy, you don't need to do this. Drop the insults and maybe we can have a discussion. You've acted on this thread as if it's fine for you to insult anyone and any region, but only you are allowed to say anything even moderately negative about the South. Apply the same standards to your own conduct as you apply to others.

Chip-skiff
03-10-2017, 02:55 PM
Given Oz's view that the victors, the Union, should have finished the job in the South, rather than abandoning the former slaves, it seems fair to ask what finishing the job would have entailed?

Executing or imprisoning all the officers of the Confederate armies, along with all officials of the government? Could you give us an outline?

johnw
03-10-2017, 03:11 PM
Given Oz's view that the victors, the Union, should have finished the job in the South, rather than abandoning the former slaves, it seems fair to ask what finishing the job would have entailed?

Executing or imprisoning all the officers of the Confederate armies, along with all officials of the government? Could you give us an outline?


See post #4.

oznabrag
03-10-2017, 04:03 PM
Given Oz's view that the victors, the Union, should have finished the job in the South, rather than abandoning the former slaves, it seems fair to ask what finishing the job would have entailed?

Executing or imprisoning all the officers of the Confederate armies, along with all officials of the government? Could you give us an outline?


See post #4.

Yep.

I would include a few hundred of the Yankee Plantation owners, just to be sure the point was made.

Of course, JohnW clearly hasn't really read anything I've written in response to his questions on this thread, but what the heck.

bobbys
03-10-2017, 05:35 PM
In my whole life I only met one Confederate .

I was a tree trimmer for Asplund,.

They sent us a guy from the south..

I could not even understand what he was saying..

He was a lotta fun though, He rented a ford pinto and went wheeling with it up the tote roads.

Smashed it while drinking..

I told him do not call the Jackson whites. The Ń word as they prefer to be called Indians.

He kept being beat up in the dive bars then went back south.

Only real hill billy redneck Guy with a kepi hat I ever knew..

That's it. Just one in my life.

Chip-skiff
03-10-2017, 06:07 PM
I am now 56 years old, and I've considered my position on these matters very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that Sherman was right. The entire Nation would now be in much better condition if the Union Army had hanged about 5,000 of the higher officers and plantation owners for the sedition they so merrily committed against the US Constitution.

As it was, the US attempted to 'Reconstruct' the South, and they were all too successful in that endeavor.

That merciless treatment of those who had served and surrendered, and also noncombatants, would have made things much worse, with a larger burden of loss, hatred, and bitterness than what resulted from the loss of the war and the Reconstruction era.

Interesting reading, this:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51DMKD4NkzL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

"In the closing days of 1862, just three weeks before Emancipation, the administration of Abraham Lincoln commissioned a code setting forth the laws of war for US armies. It announced standards of conduct in wartime—concerning torture, prisoners of war, civilians, spies, and slaves—that shaped the course of the Civil War. By the twentieth century, Lincoln’s code would be incorporated into the Geneva Conventions and form the basis of a new international law of war.

In this deeply original book, John Fabian Witt tells the fascinating history of the laws of war and its eminent cast of characters—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Lincoln—as they crafted the articles that would change the course of world history. Witt’s engrossing exploration of the dilemmas at the heart of the laws of war is a prehistory of our own era. Lincoln’s Code reveals that the heated controversies of twenty-first-century warfare have roots going back to the beginnings of American history. It is a compelling story of ideals under pressure and a landmark contribution to our understanding of the American experience."

oznabrag
03-10-2017, 06:30 PM
OK, you just made the case that the US should have let the South go.

The US 'won', yet could not impose its will on the South. The South commenced to flout the law, murdering its citizens with utter impunity, wreaking havoc upon the peace and dignity of the US, and, ultimately, pushing the Cheeto Jesus into the White House.


We went to war with no intention of winning.

The results have been disastrous ever since.


Lincoln was a great, kind-hearted and utterly indefatigable genius of a President, but there was no way out of that trap.



His attitude toward the South was just like some poor, misguided woman who wishes to keep her adulterous, drunken, abusive husband, with the thought that she can change him.

She can't.

Neither could the US change the inhuman monsters that controlled the South from being the inhuman monsters they were, and still are today.


By accepting that these 'people' would stay in the Union and retain their power and position, it was also accepted that they had won.


If you get into a fight with some guy who is hitting on your date, beat him down hard until he's lying in a pool of his own blood begging for you to stop, and he still runs off with your date, who 'won' that fight?

johnw
03-10-2017, 08:28 PM
Yep.

I would include a few hundred of the Yankee Plantation owners, just to be sure the point was made.

Of course, JohnW clearly hasn't really read anything I've written in response to his questions on this thread, but what the heck.
Oh, I've really read all you've written. I just don't agree with all of it. For example, the primary war aim of the North was to preserve the union. They achieved that aim. Changing the power structure of the South was never a war aim. You've ably argued that it would have been a worthwhile one, but I doubt it could have been sold to the people of the North, who weren't uniformly enthusiastic about the war to start with.

oznabrag
03-10-2017, 09:18 PM
So, what?

Jimmy W
03-10-2017, 09:45 PM
"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.

Lincoln was murdered 5 days after Lee surrendered. Things might have turned out differently if he had lived. I'm not comfortable with putting the blame for the faults of the South on the North.

oznabrag
03-11-2017, 12:03 AM
Lincoln was murdered 5 days after Lee surrendered. Things might have turned out differently if he had lived. I'm not comfortable with putting the blame for the faults of the South on the North.

Nor am I, my friend.

Neither am I comfortable with putting the blame for the faults of the North on the South.

Reynard38
03-11-2017, 12:28 AM
In my whole life I only met one Confederate .

.

You must be really old. Last ones died long ago.

Chip-skiff
03-11-2017, 01:06 AM
OK, you just made the case that the US should have let the South go.

The US 'won', yet could not impose its will on the South. The South commenced to flout the law, murdering its citizens with utter impunity, wreaking havoc upon the peace and dignity of the US, and, ultimately, pushing the Cheeto Jesus into the White House.

We went to war with no intention of winning.

The results have been disastrous ever since.

It's hard to understand your notion that "The South" is a single malevolent entity. Aren't the black people who were murdered, oppressed and robbed of the right to vote part of "The South?" Let alone Jews? New Orleans Creoles and Cajuns? Immigrant miners? Plain old working folks with no ax to grind?

The bad stuff was done by individuals and those acting in concert, based on a shared sense of identity and/or grievance.

The South was largely devastated by the war, industrial centers in ruins, railroads and highways cut, supply networks in tatters. That's hardly being "let go."

To treat one's former countrymen, in defeat, with a measure of decency and compassion, however short it might fall, is not to me a cause for shame. That Germany and Japan are now US allies shows that the strategy is not a wrong one. But perhaps there's some poisonous moral residue that makes the South a special case.

Jimmy W
03-11-2017, 01:48 AM
In my hometown of Greenville, Mississippi, the first mayor was Jewish. Earlier in the last century, Greenville had the largest Jewish population in the state. When the white population, of Greenville decided to boycott Hodding Carter's newspaper for advocating against segregation, the Jews of the area kept him in business.

oznabrag
03-11-2017, 10:32 AM
You must be really old. Last ones died long ago.



Nice one!


It's hard to understand your notion that "The South" is a single malevolent entity. Aren't the black people who were murdered, oppressed and robbed of the right to vote part of "The South?" Let alone Jews? New Orleans Creoles and Cajuns? Immigrant miners? Plain old working folks with no ax to grind?

What IS IT with you people? Did you not read #4? Even after Mr. Supercilious pointed it out to you?

Do you have ANY reason to believe I am not familiar with the South?

Are you simply engaging in a desperate attempt to paint me as a regionalist bigot?

WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!


]The bad stuff was done by individuals and those acting in concert[/B], based on a shared sense of identity and/or grievance.

Really? You mean to say that individuals are sometimes bad actors? Really? WOW!!! I couldn't possibly have imagined that!


The South was largely devastated by the war, industrial centers in ruins, railroads and highways cut, supply networks in tatters. That's hardly being "let go."

Really? Devastated? Oh, my! Do you REALLY believe that the US should have gone to war with those 'people', devastated their homes and farms and industry and THEN just let them go? There seems to be some sort of short-circuit or deeply-imbedded malware in that thing between your ears, my friend, because the time the South should have been let go, if it was to BE let go, was before Sumter.


To treat one's former countrymen, in defeat, with a measure of decency and compassion, however short it might fall, is not to me a cause for shame. That Germany and Japan are now US allies shows that the strategy is not a wrong one. But perhaps there's some poisonous moral residue that makes the South a special case.

What IS IT with you people?

How many times must I say this? The 1% of the Antebellum South should have been treated like we treated the Nazi elites at Nuremberg.

The problem with trying to re-assimilate those monsters is that their core ideology is at odds with the Constitution. Please be aware that I am using the present tense INTENTIONALLY.

In the Declaration, the phrase 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' had them muttering 'except white people are more equal than others' under their breath.

I mentioned Marx, earlier. I am in large part ignorant of that man's writings, so I am left to wonder what he might have had to say about an economic system where Capital owned both the means of production AND the labor? The OP of this thread does touch on that question, by the way.

This conflict started before the Declaration, erupted at Fort Sumter, simmered between 1864 and '76, and has been steadily gaining steam until the present day, when that same, evil, anti-Constitutional, anti-democratic, greed-driven, sack of ratfreakers have placed their Moron King in the White House, there to profit from as much depriving people of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as he can possibly get away with.

If you simply are unable to wrap your mind around this simple truth, I don't know what to tell you.


In my hometown of Greenville, Mississippi, the first mayor was Jewish. Earlier in the last century, Greenville had the largest Jewish population in the state. When the white population, of Greenville decided to boycott Hodding Carter's newspaper for advocating against segregation, the Jews of the area kept him in business.

Thanks for that, Jimmy.

Keith Wilson
03-11-2017, 10:36 AM
It's hard to understand your notion that "The South" is a single malevolent entity.Likewise 'The North'. There was a lot of difference of opinion about what to do after the war. For a while, the Radical Republicans ( an extinct species, those who wanted to actually enforce civil equality for ex-slaves) had a lot of influence - establishing the Freedmen's Bureaus, passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and enforcing blacks' voting rights to some degree. Eventually, those who didn't care much about that issue - or cared more about retaining power in 1876 - took over. Assuming the folks of either the south or north all agreed then is just as silly as assuming we all do now.

Despite Mr Trump, 'steadily gathering steam' is not even close to accurate. I expect in 100 years, his presidency will be seen as the last disastrous gasp of an older social order. I could be wrong.

oznabrag
03-11-2017, 01:29 PM
Likewise 'The North'. There was a lot of difference of opinion about what to do after the war. For a while, the Radical Republicans ( an extinct species, those who wanted to actually enforce civil equality for ex-slaves) had a lot of influence - establishing the Freedmen's Bureaus, passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, and enforcing blacks' voting rights to some degree. Eventually, those who didn't care much about that issue - or cared more about retaining power in 1876 - took over. Assuming the folks of either the south or north all agreed then is just as silly as assuming we all do now.

Despite Mr Trump, 'steadily gathering steam' is not even close to accurate. I expect in 100 years, his presidency will be seen as the last disastrous gasp of an older social order. I could be wrong.

I sure hope you're right.

It's the 'disastrous' part that worries me.

johnw
03-11-2017, 02:59 PM
So, what?

So, the North achieved its war aim, and went further, but eventually settled for having won. Now, I realize that you are going to micharacterize what I've said and find some new insult to throw at me, but think about this. The North was trying to preserve the union. They did so. That's winning. They then went further, tried to change the power structure and culture of the South, but finally gave that up as an impossible project in 1876. Then, Reconstruction started again in the form of the Civil Rights movement. That battle is still being fought.

Looking at the attitudes of younger people, I think there's hope that battle will be won.

oznabrag
03-11-2017, 03:12 PM
So, the North achieved its war aim, and went further, but eventually settled for having won. Now, I realize that you are going to micharacterize what I've said and find some new insult to throw at me, but think about this. The North was trying to preserve the union. They did so. That's winning. They then went further, tried to change the power structure and culture of the South, but finally gave that up as an impossible project in 1876. Then, Reconstruction started again in the form of the Civil Rights movement. That battle is still being fought.

Looking at the attitudes of younger people, I think there's hope that battle will be won.


That's been your modus during this entire conversation.

You have clearly not grasped a single thing I've written, here, and you have thrown copious, prodigious insults at my character and my intellect.

I usually associate this level of projection with Republicans.

oznabrag
03-11-2017, 05:37 PM
I can't figure out how you and johnw got crosswise on this thread.
Reckon I'll have to read the entire thread again!
I must have missed something!:)

When you get it figgered, I hope you'll let me know.

I like and respect Mr. W, for the most part, but I am not entirely sure the feeling is mutual.

Chip-skiff
03-12-2017, 12:53 AM
What IS IT with you people? Did you not read #4? Even after Mr. Supercilious pointed it out to you?

Read it. Twice. Disagreed both times. Is there some requirement that whatever you say must be believed?


Do you have ANY reason to believe I am not familiar with the South?

I'd say quite a few people are. So what? Why are you the final authority.


Are you simply engaging in a desperate attempt to paint me as a regionalist bigot?

WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!

No idea what you're talking about. Who do imagine "YOU PEOPLE" might be?


Really? You mean to say that individuals are sometimes bad actors? Really? WOW!!! I couldn't possibly have imagined that!

Snide and weak.


Really? Devastated? Oh, my! Do you REALLY believe that the US should have gone to war with those 'people', devastated their homes and farms and industry and THEN just let them go? There seems to be some sort of short-circuit or deeply-imbedded malware in that thing between your ears, my friend, because the time the South should have been let go, if it was to BE let go, was before Sumter.

A first shot was fired— they didn't just stumble into it. Not sure who you're talking about or what you mean by "let go." The Union never officially recognized the Confederacy as a legal entity, i.e. a nation. It seems like you're saying that either the Union should have let the Confederacy secede with no armed opposition, or gone in after the surrender and started shooting and hanging the people you call "the 1%."

(I trust my brain and my thinking. I'm not calling you names. I just think you're both wrong and rude.)


What IS IT with you people?

More you people. Who do you think we are?


How many times must I say this? The 1% of the Antebellum South should have been treated like we treated the Nazi elites at Nuremberg.

The problem with trying to re-assimilate those monsters is that their core ideology is at odds with the Constitution.

There were trials at Nuremburg. I don't think there was the ability, on the part of the Union, nor the will to single out persons who'd committed no crime according to the law of the era, and start killing them, ex-judicio. What you propose seems like a roundup and slaughter. Killing people by the thousands after a state of war has ended, without due process is also at odds with the Constitution. I think many of the Union officers and soldiers would have refused to take part.


This conflict started before the Declaration, erupted at Fort Sumter, simmered between 1864 and '76, and has been steadily gaining steam until the present day, when that same, evil, anti-Constitutional, anti-democratic, greed-driven, sack of ratfreakers have placed their Moron King in the White House, there to profit from as much depriving people of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as he can possibly get away with.

To generalize so harshly over that span of history requires shedding a lot of details (and truth) in the process. Care to outline it?


If you simply are unable to wrap your mind around this simple truth, I don't know what to tell you.

If you think truth is simple, you've already told me quite enough.

oznabrag
03-12-2017, 09:36 AM
Clearly you have no wish to understand my position.

Clearly, you wish to paint my position as cruel and outlandish and 'unreasonable'.

Why that is, I no longer care.

Your ideas/concepts of my position are stuck in some 18th Century backwater, and I think you may remain there, as far as I am concerned.

Thanks for playing.

Canoeyawl
03-12-2017, 11:16 AM
"There were trials at Nuremburg."
True, for the ones that survived and were not captured by the Russians or given sanctuary here in the US as employees of the state developing weapons. The trials for most of them amounted to a slap on the wrist.

See; "Operation Paper Clip"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
and; Ratlines
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_aftermath)

Keith Wilson
03-12-2017, 12:13 PM
The trials for most of them amounted to a slap on the wrist.This is simply wrong. While one could certainly argue that more Nazis should have been tried, of the 24 who were, three were acquitted, one committed suicide in prison before his trial was done, one died of natural causes, four were sentenced to between 10 and 20 years imprisonment, three were sentenced to life imprisonment, and twelve were sentenced to death (one in absentia). Ten were executed, one committed suicide before his execution. The remains of Martin Bormann were found in 1972; he had also committed suicide.

Describing the results of the trials as 'a slap on the wrist' is silly. The scientists and engineers brought to the US were never tried, nor were many lower-level Nazis.

johnw
03-12-2017, 12:35 PM
That's been your modus during this entire conversation.

You have clearly not grasped a single thing I've written, here, and you have thrown copious, prodigious insults at my character and my intellect.

I usually associate this level of projection with Republicans.
.

That's a mirror you're looking at, not a window.

johnw
03-12-2017, 01:10 PM
When you get it figgered, I hope you'll let me know.

I like and respect Mr. W, for the most part, but I am not entirely sure the feeling is mutual.
.

I like and respect you, but I do not automatically agree with you. You seem to think that if people understood your position, they would believe the same as you. This is not the case.

You are putting a strain on our friendship. In post #63, you were condescending and accusative. In post #65, you made this claim:


Why can't the US Government take responsibility for keeping its black citizens safe?

It seems to be enough for you to simply say, 'well, a lot of powerful white people want them dead'.

I had said nothing of the kind.

In post 70, you made this claim:



You justified the golden era of lynch law by saying Southerners wanted it.

and


"We 'freed the slaves' to be slaughtered, tortured, beaten, robbed and raped because our vanquished foe decided that was how he wanted to treat several million of our fellow citizens for the next 100 years."

Isn't that the case you just built?

I'm sure you knew that wasn't true. You have a problem with demonizing people who differ from your opinions. You may be exaggerating to make a point, but it comes across as accusing people of things they haven't said.

Having been repeatedly attacked, I defended myself. Your response? Post #76:



You seem to be laboring under a lot of defensiveness.

News flash: If you attack people by claiming they've said terrible things that they have, in fact, not said, they will defend themselves. Learn to live with that.

And in post #76:



I really do not understand why it is you feel you can wash your hands of this just because you live in the Northwest.



What I actually said was that the Civil War seems more distant to me than to you. Based on how passionately you've argued about it, I really do think that is the case. Again, if you keep mischaracterizing what I've said, how can we have a civil discussion?

Post 93, an accusation that I can't see the truth because I'm biased.

Post 94, a series of accusations that I'm a terrible person who has said terrible things.

Post 104:


Apparently the regionalist bigoptry has spread to the Great Northwest.

I'm clearly who you're talking about. You call me a bigot, then claim you like and respect me? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

Post 108:


Of course, JohnW clearly hasn't really read anything I've written in response to his questions on this thread, but what the heck.

Trust me, I've read every insult and accusation you've leveled at me.

Post 123:


You have clearly not grasped a single thing I've written, here, and you have thrown copious, prodigious insults at my character and my intellect.

The technical term for this is projective identification. I have not impugned your character or your intellect. You, on the other hand, have accused me of being a bigot, and of justifying lynchings and the brutality of slavery. You are accusing me of the very tactics you've employed against me.

Honestly, I've tried to respond to your insults and accusations with some degree of civility without letting you walk all over me. It seems to me you don't want a civil discussion. You keep pushing for a flame war, and I think you're frustrated that I haven't given you one.

Canoeyawl
03-12-2017, 03:03 PM
This is simply wrong. While one could certainly argue that more Nazis should have been tried, of the 24 who were, three were acquitted, one committed suicide in prison before his trial was done, one died of natural causes, four were sentenced to between 10 and 20 years imprisonment, three were sentenced to life imprisonment, and twelve were sentenced to death (one in absentia). Ten were executed, one committed suicide before his execution. The remains of Martin Bormann were found in 1972; he had also committed suicide.

Describing the results of the trials as 'a slap on the wrist' is silly. The scientists and engineers brought to the US were never tried, nor were many lower-level Nazis.

Trials and a subsequent "humane" death sentence or opportunity to swallow your cyanide is a slap on the wrist compared to the scale of atrocities committed. There were other trials in which the defendants received sentences from only a few years to death sentences for all.
I have some emotion attached to this because of our recent populist political upheaval which clearly resembles the rise of both the fascist and the Nazi regimes.
Note that is now considered "Okay-Donkey" by a relatively large percentage of the population to both torture "war" prisoners and persecute non-white citizens and non-citizens. And here we go into Syria...

"And the victors will become the vanquished"

Keith Wilson
03-12-2017, 04:27 PM
. . . a slap on the wrist compared to the scale of atrocities committed. Well, yes. Anything one could do to a single human being wouldn't be much compared to Nazi atrocities, but there's no help for that. I suppose that's why people invented the idea of hell.

bobbys
03-12-2017, 07:08 PM
You must be really old. Last ones died long ago..

About the same time the last sane democrat passed on........

oznabrag
03-13-2017, 01:42 PM
[In response to answers for his question about why the Confederate commoner went to war]



.

I suppose the two of you have that right. Prior to WW I, people expected glory in wars, for one thing.

But they did fight for a way of life, and after they lost the war, they fought for that way of life in different ways. Maybe the north should have prevented them from having that way of life -- certainly, Grant tried, for the course of his presidency, to protect the voting rights of freed slaves -- but in the end, the South got what it wanted. Andrew Jackson bears a good deal of the blame. He didn't want to rebuild the South differently, he just wanted them in the Union, and he was inclined to leave the power structure in the South much as it was before the war.

But even so, I don't think the South could ever rely on the North to change them, and to the extent it tried, it only received resentment in return.


You seem to have no grasp of war.

The 'traditional' end to a war is that one side DEFEATS the other, and FORCES them to act differently, to act in accordance with the will of the 'victors'.

When the 'victims' resent it, the traditional remedy has been more forceful domination of those victims until their instigators are either dead or imprisoned, and that traditional remedy has worked very, very well.

War is ugly, wait, no: "War is Hell."


W. T. Sherman had a grasp of war.



Having 'won the war', there can be no question that the US failed miserably to 'win the peace'. Your own description of that 'win' gives the lie to your assessment of the situation.


The Antebellum South was in the control of an oligarchy. An oligarchy who gave not one rotten rip about the Constitution their representatives had signed and, in point of fact, they committed multiple acts of high treason against that document.

When the 'victors' cleared out, those self-same treasonous oligarchs were STILL in control, for the simple reason that the US didn't have the stomach to hang them all.

That is the traditional remedy for Treason.

The aim of the US in entering that war was met, but nothing else had changed.

The 'legal status' of the African American people had changed, but their material situation was almost precisely the same.

Besides, as YOU SAY, the freedom of those people was never important to the US.



Still isn't.







Previously posted, and included here for the sake of continuity:

Oh, dear.

Try this on for size:

The South sues for peace, Grant accepts their unconditional surrender, then directs Sherman to 1) Hang every one of them above the rank of Lieutenant, and 2) Hang every owner of more than 2 slaves.

Then the land owned by those hung gets divided among the former slaves.


At that point, if the Yankee slave holders are treated equally, we don't have any of the problems you describe.

There are no more propagandists, black people are equal to white people, and the world is spinning in greased grooves.

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM is NOT that the South was recalcitrant, whatever, the CENTRAL PROBLEM is that the US Government entered that war with an amoral end: To preserve the Union.

Once that end was achieved, their interest in the South in general, and the Southern black man in particular, was at an end.


You keep rattling on about how "they fought for that way of life in different ways. Maybe the north should have prevented them from having that way of life" as if every, single person in the South moved in lock step.

If you caught yourself referring in that fashion to ANY OTHER group as defined by geography or genetics, you would be appalled at yourself.


So, here's the money shot:


.

Good heavens, no one should ever generalize, should they? Or is that a generalization?

Of course I don't think all Southerners marched in lockstep. But the fact is, no general had the right to take the steps you propose. Certainly, radical Republicans wanted to do something like that, but were stymied by Andrew Johnson, who they proceeded to impeach. We don't know what Lincoln would have done, but given what he said in the Gettysburg Address, I doubt he'd have introduced a northern Terror to the South.

Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign. Do you imagine the South had nothing to do with how Reconstruction ended? Take a look at how the vote totals were calculated in certain Southern states to produce the crisis of 1876.

In any case, hasn't the Civil War been over long enough for the South to take responsibility for its own power structure? Hasn't it had plenty of time to shape its own culture? Hell, most of my ancestors were still in Europe when that war happened.

What smattering of difference or distinction can be found between "Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign"' as justification for refusing responsibility for the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' of 10 million new citizens, and " 'well, a lot of powerful white people want them dead'."

What, precisely is the difference.



Are we down to Buddhist Philosophy on this?

You know, the Buddhist fishermen who are forbidden by their religion to take any life, so cast their nets and heave the fish up onto the river bank to keep them from drowning? These fishermen then eat the fish, because the fish no longer have any use for their bodies.


What, precisely, is the difference?


[Included for clarity/continuity]

OK.

Enough Americans want the slimy POS in the White House, too.


The South was broken, but not broken badly enough.


Why can't the US Government take responsibility for keeping its black citizens safe?

It seems to be enough for you to simply say, 'well, a lot of powerful white people want them dead'.

Perhaps I expect too much, and should launch a career based on amoral predation, instead of asking my government to actually govern.



.

A big part of what happened was the federal government being willing to prosecute people who committed acts of racial terror.

I think you give the South too little credit for the progress it's made, and the feds too little credit for their role in helping bring that about.

If you don't think the South is changing, look at this map. Based on surveys taken in October, this is the voting preference of millennials.



Young people in the South didn't find Trump's racist campaign at all appealing. Every part of the country is changing. Sometimes, though, we have to make progress one funeral at a time, because it isn't the old people changing.

I have no doubt that the South is changing. I just do not see that the US Government really had anything to do with that.

The gov was the follower, not the leader on that. That is just my opinion, though.

However eloquent and learned you may be, the post above shows very clearly that you have missed my point entirely.

The point is that the evil that is slavery and the people who value it, adore it and practice it are still around. Their evil has permeated/percolated through to every middlesex, village and town.

THEIR MORON KING IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

While we can not go back in time, and change the administration of that period in our history, we CAN and SHOULD try to understand how badly the US screwed up the aftermath of that war, and how that series of blunders has now resurfaced to pose an existential threat to our Constitution, yet again.

I would be very grateful if you would engage your remarkable ability with Type 2 thinking.

If your Type 2 brain was engaged, you would see very clearly that your statement that "Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign"

has no difference in meaning to the guy dangling from a tree limb from the version in my post below:



You seem to be saying what you think quite well.

You justified the golden era of lynch law by saying Southerners wanted it.

That's not any way for the greatest country on Earth to act, now is it?


We went to war to subjugate those bursteds, then decided they could do whatever they wanted?



The entire Civil War was a complete waste of lives and resources except for the fact that the South remained in the Union, for whatever good that did anybody.


Pretty stupid.


"We 'freed the slaves' to be slaughtered, tortured, beaten, robbed and raped because our vanquished foe decided that was how he wanted to treat several million of our fellow citizens for the next 100 years."

Isn't that the case you just built?

Would you like, perhaps, to reconsider?

Because it sure looks like that is the case you just built.


.

I like and respect you, but I do not automatically agree with you. You seem to think that if people understood your position, they would believe the same as you. This is not the case.

You are putting a strain on our friendship. . .


If you were to read more carefully, you would see that I am assigning blame to the US, not 'the North'.



Saying that I am just looking for a way to blame 'the North' is just about as close to a mortal insult as one could deliver to me. Sir.



I would like to give full credit to ljb5 and Keith Wilson for having helped me to clear up some of the muddier aspects of my thinking, but I am not now, nor have I ever been a social Confederate. Sir.


The Southern Oligarchy was AND IS, wrong, and the fact that they were enabled in their reign of terror for 100 years and more, the fact that they still exist, is squarely upon the shoulders of the 'victors'.

Osborne Russell
03-13-2017, 01:53 PM
The North did largely fail to implement the Civil War Amendments. But they were brand new, and it would have been a loser issue, politically. Railroads to build, Indians to kill.

Keith Wilson
03-13-2017, 02:06 PM
Oy! http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Can somebody slip a little valium in these guys' coffee, please? Or at least switch 'em to decaf?

johnw
03-13-2017, 02:13 PM
[In response to answers for his question about why the Confederate commoner went to war]





You seem to have no grasp of war.

The 'traditional' end to a war is that one side DEFEATS the other, and FORCES them to act differently, to act in accordance with the will of the 'victors'.

When the 'victims' resent it, the traditional remedy has been more forceful domination of those victims until their instigators are either dead or imprisoned, and that traditional remedy has worked very, very well.

War is ugly, wait, no: "War is Hell."


W. T. Sherman had a grasp of war.



Having 'won the war', there can be no question that the US failed miserably to 'win the peace'. Your own description of that 'win' gives the lie to your assessment of the situation.


The Antebellum South was in the control of an oligarchy. An oligarchy who gave not one rotten rip about the Constitution their representatives had signed and, in point of fact, they committed multiple acts of high treason against that document.

When the 'victors' cleared out, those self-same treasonous oligarchs were STILL in control, for the simple reason that the US didn't have the stomach to hang them all.

That is the traditional remedy for Treason.

The aim of the US in entering that war was met, but nothing else had changed.

The 'legal status' of the African American people had changed, but their material situation was almost precisely the same.

Besides, as YOU SAY, the freedom of those people was never important to the US.



Still isn't.








So, here's the money shot:



What smattering of difference or distinction can be found between "Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign"' as justification for refusing responsibility for the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' of 10 million new citizens, and " 'well, a lot of powerful white people want them dead'."

What, precisely is the difference.



Are we down to Buddhist Philosophy on this?

You know, the Buddhist fishermen who are forbidden by their religion to take any life, so cast their nets and heave the fish up onto the river bank to keep them from drowning? These fishermen then eat the fish, because the fish no longer have any use for their bodies.


What, precisely, is the difference?





I have no doubt that the South is changing. I just do not see that the US Government really had anything to do with that.

The gov was the follower, not the leader on that. That is just my opinion, though.

However eloquent and learned you may be, the post above shows very clearly that you have missed my point entirely.

The point is that the evil that is slavery and the people who value it, adore it and practice it are still around. Their evil has permeated/percolated through to every middlesex, village and town.

THEIR MORON KING IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

While we can not go back in time, and change the administration of that period in our history, we CAN and SHOULD try to understand how badly the US screwed up the aftermath of that war, and how that series of blunders has now resurfaced to pose an existential threat to our Constitution, yet again.

I would be very grateful if you would engage your remarkable ability with Type 2 thinking.

If your Type 2 brain was engaged, you would see very clearly that your statement that "Enough Southerners wanted to retain the old power structure to mount quite an effective campaign"

has no difference in meaning to the guy dangling from a tree limb from the version in my post below:




Because it sure looks like that is the case you just built.




If you were to read more carefully, you would see that I am assigning blame to the US, not 'the North'.



Saying that I am just looking for a way to blame 'the North' is just about as close to a mortal insult as one could deliver to me. Sir.



I would like to give full credit to ljb5 and Keith Wilson for having helped me to clear up some of the muddier aspects of my thinking, but I am not now, nor have I ever been a social Confederate. Sir.


The Southern Oligarchy was AND IS, wrong, and the fact that they were enabled in their reign of terror for 100 years and more, the fact that they still exist, is squarely upon the shoulders of the 'victors'.

I really don't think we can talk to each other on this topic. You are just too bitter.

oznabrag
03-13-2017, 02:32 PM
I don't think we can talk on this subject.

I don't view my position as bitter.

At all.