WWOT: Battle over the past rages on in an evolving South...

[L_N_Love]

Who started the whole slavery thing anyway? The British? Weren't a lot of the slave traders Northerners?

[Rich in WI]

Of course they were British and Northerners. And Southerners and Africans and Arabs. This discussion got a bit side-tracked on the slavery issue. I don't think anyone was saying it was a good thing or a positive aspect of Southern culture or any culture. But it is Southerners who trumpet their deep felt love of heritage and seek to deny any negative aspect of their history. It's a strange sort of Southern PC way of thinking. And it's not all Southerners. Just some.

Rich

[C.R. Krieger]

Well, I might pause, too, but that's mostly because Jeff Davis was captured after the war disguised as a woman ...

Now hold on a minute, he might have been blind in one eye from a STD he got from a black prostitute, but the whole dressed as a women thing is very controversial, mostly exaggeratted by the Yankee Press.

Just wearing a woman's coat and shaw doesn't make you a drag queen, Does it? Read more here http://www.civilwarhistory.com/101899/D ... apture.htm

My own source is no more nor less convincing. A good friend of mine from some 25 years ago in Akron, OH, was a Civil War memorabilia collector. Among the usual expected things like uniforms and accessories, he had some books used by John Brown's son (at West Point?). If you'll recall, John Brown lived in Akron ... He showed me an original letter of several pages he'd tracked down. It was from a young woman who'd run off to follow the army, later became a prostitute, and ended up joining the Union Army disguised as a man (This wasn't all that uncommon!). It was written to her family after she'd found a new life and settled far from her old home and the shame she'd have endured, just to let them know she was OK.

Finally, there was the shawl (IIRC; it may have been a head covering). It came from the family of a Michigan soldier, along with documents recounting how his unit had captured Davis and he'd kept this item. Yeah; there could be some gaps in this story just as there could be some embellishment from Davis' wife in her letter.

Mostly, I repeated it just to get ya goin'

[fastpat]

[QUOTE="TCD"]Thankfully I left the south as soon as I became an adult so I could raise my kids elsewhere. The views of some southerners never cease to amaze me.

Todd[/QUOTE]

You did precisely the right thing. You didn't like the culture where you lived, so you seceded from it. An honoralble move.

Of course, you do know that there are more KKK members in Ohio than in all of the South added together, right? And that neighboring Indiana almost elected a KKK grand "whatever" as governor? No, not in the 19th century, but the 20th century.

If you're looking for a ethically clean area in America your search will be long and unproductive. Additionally may I point out that most former slaves remained in the south and that home ownership is higher for blacks living in the south, and always has been, than in any other area in America.

[fastpat]

[QUOTE="Rich in WI"]Pat, are you angry?

If not, you're coming across as so.

I think it's poor to proclaim this one professor (all bow to the PROFESSOR!) has the corner on THE facts.

But you might just be angry, I dunno.

Tom[/QUOTE]

Angry? what in Gods green earth make you arrive at that notion?

I mentioned only one book and you took that to mean that only one exists? Well, then, let me disabuse you of that idea as well. Here's the "King Lincoln" bibliography and archive: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html There's a huge body of evidence there. I don't hang my hat on research by one scholar, but I do depend on them for factual evidence, that's their proper role.

[BDK]

As far as the Confederate Flag goes, when a nation loses a war and is invaded by the winning forces, that nations flag is taken down and is never to be flown again, I agree with this, the south lost, their flag needs to go......
If the flag would leave maybe the ignorant racist that believe in it will go too....

No offense to anyone here,

Am I a racist, no I hate everyone the same.....LOL.....

I grew up in the SWFLA area and never knew that racism still existed until I moved to NC, now I know why the African Americans hate us so bad and I can't understand why the Native Amercians even talk to us for what we have done to them.....

As I have said before, TOLERANCE is what we need

I could really go off on this entire thread but I am eating and I don't need the heartburn....
Love ya!!!

[al525i]

I agree. I get sick of seeing the "I'm a victim" mentality from a variety of sources.
One thing I do dispise is the notion that if you have a Southern accent, than you must be an ignorant redneck that has married your cousin, has a 4x4 truck with a gun rack and lives in a trailer park. I'm assuming this sterotype has been reinforced by the entertainment industry.

FWIW, I'm an Iowa native, lived in Georgia for 20 years and I am temporarily in California. Talk about culture shocks!!

I live in south carolina, in one of the most backwoods areas of the state and i'll be glad to offer up that this stereotype is not as unrealistic as it first sounds. Of the less than 2,000 people who live in the town i'm from; Whitmire, sc a good chunk of the population fits into this stereotype with almost scary parallel.

The good Southern states were willing to have a slave be considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining representation in Congress (they wanted a full 1:1 ratio), but they weren't willing to make them citizens.

the only reason for the south counting the slaves was to have a higher population and gain a larger number of representatives in the legislature. If the southern states could have gotten the number of legislators they wanted, the slave population would not have been counted at all. In reading diaries of Plantation owners (slave holders), you relize that the owners honestly viewed the slaves as property and not as people. this view was easier to maintain in the first and second generation slaves because they had little to no ability to speak english which helped to de-humanize them from the position of the owners. When you read primary documents from the period right before the civil war, you begin to see that some owners had started to see the slaves as actual people, though on a lower level than themselves.

As far as the argument of the civil war and its reasons, slavery was a major one, but not the only one. I am a student at the University of South Carolina at Columbia and I happen to be a history major with a concentration on the period of and after the civil war and my senior thesis has a great deal to do with William Henry Gist, the seccessionist governor of South Carolina.

many of the statements made in this thread have been 100% correct but you can't say that the south secceeded from the union simply because of slavery. Another Major reason was the movement for States Rights during the time and the always present feeling of too much governmental control at the federal level.

An important fact to remember when weighing the secession in light of lincoln's election to the presedency is the number of electoral college votes he got from the secessionist states, zero. The leaders of the south felt this solidified their feelings of not being a member of the union anymore and having their opinions ignored. Before the Presedential election, Governor Gist had already sent letters to other southern states explaining South Carolina's problems with the union and explained that if Lincoln was elected south carolina would be secceeding from the union. The Governor felt so strongly about the differences that he had a member of his own family, States Rights Gist, deliver four of the letters personally.

Even the name helps give a glimpse of the tensions that had been building between the southern states and the federal government for quite some time. There were strong enough feelings of the importance of the state having control that a member of the family was named States Rights Gist and had enough time to mature and become a man before the war broke out, so the war was a long time coming and not some half-cocked idea that was cooked up one night over a glass of brandy.

I take it you don't know that most "Jim Crow" laws were enacted during the officially US government terrorism called Reconstruction, and not by southerners who were prohibited from voting during this time. Turning a discussion of the War of Agression against the Confederacy into a modern discussion of racism is a typical obfuscation ploy. It doesn't work.

Actually, most of the Jim crow laws were enacted after Reconstruction ended. During reconstruction, the secessionist states did not have control of their governments as the federal government made all the decisions. during the period of reconstruction many schools were desegregated and some african americans held lower level office. Once the period of reconstruction came to an end, the whites of the secessionist states took power once again. Once the federal government said that slavery was no longer legal, the plantation owners switched to a de-facto form of slavery. The former slaves still had their freedom, but it was only a verbal freedom. The plantation owners hired the former slaves to work for them, and in many cases paid them not in cash, but in vouchers that could only be redeemed at the plantation store for goods which were way over priced. This system of de-facto slavery went on and then the jim crow laws and segregation were introduced slowly untill society in the south was as segregated as it could be made. It was during this period after reconstruction that racism toward african americans was strengthened and became in-grained in the minds of the southern population.

okay, i'm finished and i'll shut up now but i want to say that the argument over confederate history is not a simple case of racist vs not racist that many people think it was. There is much history involved that both sides are not familar with and yet both sides claim to know everything. As far as some of the research i've done, i've spent many hundereds of countless hours in the state archives and the south caroliniana library which is another archive for the state of south carolina. If you want to know more about something, don't take the word of any author you read, go to your local archives and research the primary documents you can find on a subject and you'll find way more than you ever expected to find and probably dig up things that will totally change your ideas on a matter if you read the first hand account rather than what some biased historian told you in a book that he wrote for money. The South is rich in history and one cannot begin to know all of it even in a lifetime of learning but even knowing just a little is worth the work.

Now i'm gonna quit typing and go to class.

feel free to roast me if you like, its too cold here anyway

[fastpat]

I'll check out the book you reference. Sounds intruiging. I've been on a history kick lately, so it's good timing.[/quote

That's how I learned much about my native Confederate south. Little was taught in schools or university settings.

But I really disagree with you regarding the issue of slavery. The good Southern states were willing to have a slave be considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining representation in Congress (they wanted a full 1:1 ratio), but they weren't willing to make them citizens.

That was the case in every state in which slaves were held, that rule applied nationwide, not in just the southern states. The seven original southern states that seceded did so lawfully, and were invaded to prevent their lawful act. Slavery wasn't the issue, self government was the only issue with regard to the secessions, that has to be considered alone. If Lincoln hadn't committed acts of aggression against those seven states, the other southern states would likely have remained in the Union. Some of them had already held Secession Conventions and had declined to secede, Linclon actions stimulated them to reconsider and then to secede. The decision on the census counts were made in the 18th century and had no bearing on the War for Southern Independence at all, I'm afraid your compressing time to conjoin unrelated facts.

By using the same logic, illegal immigrants should be counted for purposes of legislative districting, but not given the right to vote. It's morally bankrupt when the foundation of the U.S. is based on representative gov't. The South wanted it both ways. Count the slaves, but don't let them be represented. But I don't think we're talking about slavery here. However - how much longer would slavery have existed in the South absent the Civil War? Some say it would have died out on its own. That doesn't speak too highly of

All the other countries which had slavery in the Western world ended it peacefully except one. Ending slavery did not require the deaths of one miliion humans. A little known fact is that most of the abolitionist movements were located in the south and were run by southern men and women of conscience.

I see a strange need in much of the South to romanticize history. Obviously the books were written by the victors. But there seems to be a denial on the part of many Southerners to pretend that they weren't responsible for anything negative. No Confederate ships transported slaves? Of course not. But that's based on a technicality rather than on some greatness of southern history. It's simply that there was no Confederacy during most of the slave trading. But conveniently the South did benefit. Hmmm.

Hmmm, I see denial here. It's important to realize that after 1783, most slaves were brought into North America by US flag carriers, virtually all of which were based in Yankee states, no not just northern states, but Yankee states. Additionally, just to drive home the point, going back a bit further, you'll find that the first English colony to legalize slavery was a Yankee state as well, Massachusetts. In other words, the ethical dilemma transcends one region of America, don't look at the south as the mean slaveholders, while the clean norherners had to teach them a lesson. As I stated before, slavery existed many northern states in 1860, and continued there until the 13th Amendment was ratified. But, as you say, enough of this.

The improtant issue is really that the several states, for whatever reason they chose, did chose to secede from the Constitutional compact of states and form a separate compact, all lawful and proper.

Whether the Civil War should be considered treason is an interesting point. From a legal perspective you are correct.

There cannot be another consideration; there's no moral or ethical basis for it. Either we are men that have governments of laws or we are not. The rogue actions of our federal government all during the 20th century and continuing today can be traced back to Lincoln's actions from 1861-65. Imprisoning men, whether lawful combatants or not, on military installations is one of those precedents set by Lincoln.

However, from the perspective of undermining the Union, you are incorrect. There is no doubt that the actions of the South undermined the overall strength of the Union and opened up the possibility of British or other take-over. Heck, the Confederacy even tried to get the British to help out. Looks like the slave traders stuck together.

Rich

Rich, there was no risk of an invasion of any part of North America by a european power, those days vanished during the December 1814 through January 1815 Battle of New Orleans victory. One of the primary stimuli for immediate military actions was the Confederate Constituton which prohibited tariffs on imported goods. The days following it's ratification saw a great hue and cry from norhtern industrial interests for the shelling of Southern ports to stop what they perceived as taking away their private markets.

As I have said, books on the period are published every year, including many that are bringing to light many facets of the War that couldn't be published in the past. That is a good thing. Just to be sure you've seen it, here's the bibliography on Lincoln and the period. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html in particular here's the article on Lincoln by Dr. Clyde Wilson, Professor of History, University of South Carolina, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson2.html I trust you will enjoy it.

[fastpat]

okay, i'm finished and i'll shut up now but i want to say that the argument over confederate history is not a simple case of racist vs not racist that many people think it was. There is much history involved that both sides are not familar with and yet both sides claim to know everything. As far as some of the research i've done, i've spent many hundereds of countless hours in the state archives and the south caroliniana library which is another archive for the state of south carolina. If you want to know more about something, don't take the word of any author you read, go to your local archives and research the primary documents you can find on a subject and you'll find way more than you ever expected to find and probably dig up things that will totally change your ideas on a matter if you read the first hand account rather than what some biased historian told you in a book that he wrote for money. The South is rich in history and one cannot begin to know all of it even in a lifetime of learning but even knowing just a little is worth the work.

Now i'm gonna quit typing and go to class.

feel free to roast me if you like, its too cold here anyway

Your position is accurate (we can discuss the Jim Crow timing in another thread) and entirely reasonable. Please say hello to Clyde Wilson for me, I think he's still in your department.

[al525i]

Pat,

I'm pretty sure i've heard the name of Clyde Wilson and i'll see if i can track him down some time. I'm sorry i went off like that, but its been one of those days and as i typed the words just kept flowing so i kept typing. I do thank you for reading it and you seem to be well versed in historical events of the civil war era.

if you are interested more in jim crow laws, i have a really good website to recommend that is about as easy to read and sums up Jim crow as well as anything i've read.
http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm

its a lot of good information that was written, (i believe), by teachers so it should be decently accurate.

I definately want to get deeper in the events surrounding the civil war but right now my focus lies mainly on the events surrounding it in South Carolina, or having a direct bearing on the interests of SC and i'd enjoy talking with you very much on the subject at some point if we ever meet in person.

later,

al525i- with a pounding brain from all the information i've been shoving in it lately !@#$

[Rich in WI]

Al525i,

Thanks for the essay! Good stuff. This has been an interesting thread. I hope people don't think I have an axe to grind against the South. I don't. I really like much of the South. But what I don't like is the chest thumpers that tout their heritage while ignoring their history. Do other cultures in the U.S. have problems? You'd better believe it. I just don't see any other culture in the U.S. that thumps its chest quite as hard as in the South.

I prefer a more humble view of human history and cultures. We all have our warts as a culture and as individuals. I much prefer looking to the future and avoiding the mistakes of the past. One of those mistakes is cultural tubthumping that elevates a culture or a people over others or via romanticising the past. In my mind the value of a culture is based on how all individuals are treated and how the culture provides opportunity for individuals to succeed.

Rich

[Shawn D.]

Rich has already mentioned "Deliverance" as being a prime suspect in fostering a negative image of the South. That was fiction and was quite a long time ago, before the days of political correctness. Unfortunately, it's still politically correct to denigrate the South, and Hollywood has no problem with outright lies if it suits their needs.

Case in point: "Ray." This biography of Ray Charles' life has gotten rave reviews and a number of awards and we're not even to the Oscars yet. The story is supposedly a truthful biography of his life, and while I can understand some artistic license is often necessary, there's one outright lie that burns me up. There's a situation where Ray is set to do a concert in Georgia, but he's convinced by protestors to cancel for political reasons, wherupon he is banned from Georgia and not allowed to return until many years later when the Georgia Legislature has a change of heart and approves "Georgia on My Mind" as the state song and Ray is allowed back in the state. The problem with this is that there was no such concert, no such protest, and never any such ban against him. Why they had to use this plot device is beyond me (there have to be many real situations that could have proved their point); I feel that the portrayal of this non-event damages Georgia's and the South's image unnecessarily. The fact that this situation that never happened is irrelevant now -- it will be burned into many people's minds because it's in a "truthful" biographical movie. Why the F did they have to make that up?

[Rich in WI]

Yeah, that's pretty sad. There's no need to make up something like that. It's a biography - it should be told as close to the truth as possible with some liscence only for dramatic effect.

The impact of Deliverance can't be underestimated. I can't believe the number of times I've told people I grew up in the mountains of VA that they end up "singing" the dueling banjos tune. It's crazy, really. It doesn't matter that the movie didn't take place there - just that it was in the South. And of course they confuse Southwest Virginia as West Virginia. I've had to carefully state SouthwestERN Virginia to make it clear I'm not from WVA. God, the embarrassment

I had roommates in college (Radford University) that were from the DC/Northern VA hellhole. What were they afraid of? Oh - don't go camping, you'll get raped by some smelly mountain man. And they really were worried about it. In some ways I didn't mind because I think it kept the campsites a bit less crowded.

Rich