Confederate History Month - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2010, 11:15 AM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Historical Fact: Lincoln did not send the US Army into the South to free to slaves, but to stop the rebellion.
Trust me I grew up with a civil war buff in my house, I've read and heard all the different revisions. You're right Lincoln did not send the US Army into the South to free slaves, BUT the rebellion was about slavery. Don't kid yourself.

Don't fall for it...
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 12:09 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You're right Lincoln did not send the US Army into the South to free slaves, BUT the rebellion was about slavery. Don't kid yourself.

Don't fall for it...
Which part of the slavery debate do you think caused the war? The absolute end of slavery, the limited expansion slavery, the federal government’s role in administrating slavery, the rights of the states to determine whether or not to allow slavery, the dignity of man (equal rights)…etc.? Even the slavery debate was multifaceted.

If you contend that the central issue surrounded the economics of slavery – then I would be more inclined to agree. If you are asserting that the war was fought to give blacks equal rights – I would wholeheartedly disagree.

American history is littered with events of the horrible treatment of blacks in the North. For instance, in Illinois (the Land of Lincoln and now Obama) was the scene of the 1917 race riots where hundreds of whites hung blacks from lampposts – this is about 50 years after the Civil War! In the North!

I think history demonstrates that wars are fought because of economics – and any “ideal” or “cause” attached to it is simply to pull in public support.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 01:34 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The average Confederate soldier fought bravely to save his country from invasion - I see nothing wrong with honoring those men.

what are your thoughts on conscripted German soldiers 1939-1945?

my best friend's grandfather was one. he wasn't a Nazi, just a German, and you did what you were told back then.

should he be honored and memorialized for fighting bravely as German cities were laid to waste?

(and i mean this seriously)
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 01:43 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what are your thoughts on conscripted German soldiers 1939-1945?

my best friend's grandfather was one. he wasn't a Nazi, just a German, and you did what you were told back then.

should he be honored and memorialized for fighting bravely as German cities were laid to waste?

(and i mean this seriously)
This is up the German people. Personally, I see nothing wrong with any country honoring the sacrifice of the common soldier. In general, soldiers fight for their brothers in arms or in some belief (sometimes a misguided one) they are protecting their country.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 01:46 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 11:02 PM
should we remember German soldiers from that period without mentioning genocide?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 02:12 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
should we remember German soldiers from that period without mentioning genocide?
Depends on the occasion I suppose. At a gravesite memorial for soldiers? It probably isn't needed. In the history books - certainly.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 02:52 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Which part of the slavery debate do you think caused the war? The absolute end of slavery, the limited expansion slavery, the federal government’s role in administrating slavery, the rights of the states to determine whether or not to allow slavery, the dignity of man (equal rights)…etc.? Even the slavery debate was multifaceted.

If you contend that the central issue surrounded the economics of slavery – then I would be more inclined to agree. If you are asserting that the war was fought to give blacks equal rights – I would wholeheartedly disagree.
Bingo

I never said it was about equal rights, just don't pretend it wasn't about slavery.

Both sides were wrong, just one was more wrong than the other.

So why celebrate being more wrong? Sounds like ignornace to me.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 02:55 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Bingo



So why celebrate being more wrong?
From my understanding, the idea was to honor the sacrifice of the Confederates, not to celebrate the glory days of slavery.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 03:21 PM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Would you honor the sacrifice of Nazis?

Sorry, but they were on the wrong side, honor the fact that you lost.

Honoring the sacrifice makes it seem like they are still on or sympathetic to that side, I grew up in the South and those hellbent on this type of honor are usually not neutral on this subject. They are often pretty scary.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 03:34 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 05:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what are your thoughts on conscripted German soldiers 1939-1945?

my best friend's grandfather was one. he wasn't a Nazi, just a German, and you did what you were told back then.

should he be honored and memorialized for fighting bravely as German cities were laid to waste?

(and i mean this seriously)
That's something we Germans are trying to figure out for 60 years now. For long it was tried to picture the Wehrmacht as being the apolitical military forces who just fought the war they were told to fight. And the SS being the political part of the army, perfectly disconnected from the regular Wehrmacht.
Then the so called Wehrmachtsausstellung went around Germany, which also examined how the Wehrmacht was involved in war crimes and mass killings and all. So, many people now are a bit confused how to reconciliate with that.
And still it's quite a debate whether we should honor the single, innocent soldier who thought he did the right thing, or rather see the murderer behind it and question if maybe he also took part in the slayings of innocent people.

But that's rather off topic.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 03:46 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
should we remember German soldiers from that period without mentioning genocide?
Do we mention the fire bombings of civilian cities during events that honor the sacrifice of WWII vets?
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 04:06 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Just sitting back and watching this.

Everybody has their own point of view.

History, what we call History are just stories created by certain people to advocate for their positions.

More books do not mean more truth, just more argument(s).

When history tells us that planes crashed into buildings on 9.11.2001 it is accurate. Once it goes beyond that, who crashed them, who planned it, who knew what? when?
What history will we be correct?
Whose stories will you believe?

I hate slavery, I think Lincoln, and the Founding Fathers are way over rated.

But, in this discussion Aeon is more correct than BVS.


And Mr. Vega,

The Holocaust was a failure of Christendom. At worst, church leaders and laity enthusiastically endorsed and were actively complicit in the rise of Nazism; at best, they silently acquiesced to its murderous agenda.

Does anyone really believe that America and the World did not know what was happening to Jewish people in Europe until after the war and the pictures came out.

Does anyone believe Americans did not know about heinous crimes of slavery until the book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, or South Carolina seceeded?
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 04:47 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,693
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
But, in this discussion Aeon is more correct than BVS.
We both agree the Civil War was about the economics of slavery, and that it wasn't truly about liberation.

So Aeon is "more correct" because he doesn't see the issue of celebrating or honoring their "sacrifice"?

Coming from someone who admits history is just stories, that's quite interesting.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 06:24 PM   #29
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:02 AM
If private organizations or individuals wish to commemorate and honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, let them--they already have that right, and no one's looking to prevent them from exercising it. The state, however, has no place getting involved here. One-third of VA's population at the time of the war was black slaves, and their descendants still comprise more than a fifth of VA's population today: expecting them, especially, to "honor the memory" of men who fought to defend a state and way of life built upon centuries of their ancestors' utter degradation and misery would be, yes, akin to expecting German Jews to "honor the memory" of men who fought to defend Nazi Germany. For the governor of Virginia--who by definition represents all its citizens--to do so in their names is unacceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
According to most writing at the time, slavery was NOT the main issue of the Civil War - it eventually morphed into the most important issue with the Emancipation Proclamation following a Union "victory" at Antietam.
The Confederate Vice President, Alexander Stephens, certainly seemed to believe slavery was the main issue at stake in his famous speech of March 1861--on the eve of war--defining the principles of the Confederate Republic and its constitution:
Quote:
"...The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics..."
Then there were all the last-ditch legislative attempts at averting war--the (failed) Crittenden Compromise, (failed) 1861 Peace Conference, etc.--the language of those focused exclusively on slavery. It's probably accurate to say that the "average Confederate soldier" never directly conceived of his participation in the war as "My Personal Statement On Slavery," but you really can't separate the defense of one's country and way of life from the defense of an institution so fundamental to those. Large slaveholders were the economic linchpins of their communities, and poor white laborers and subsistence farmers throughout the South depended on them for everything from odd jobs to supplies of farm equipment and livestock to status-enhancing turns on slave patrol duty. Small slaveholders, and better-off "yeoman farmers" who held out hopes of someday being able to afford slaves themselves, shared the large slaveholders' interest in the opportunities then opening up with the country's expansion out West--opportunities which in their minds depended on being able to bring their human "property" along with them (see: Dred Scott, "Bleeding Kansas," etc.)--as well as their anger over the economic pains of tariffs meant to protect Northern factories from foreign competition (not an independent variable, since slavery had everything to do with why their own, very different economic system was a viable one in the first place). I suppose it's a comforting thought for some of these "commemorators" that their soldier-ancestors acted out of some pure, innocently abstract "patriotism" which was somehow blind to all this context, but that's really unrealistic.

The moral contradictions of Northern pro-war arguments, Lincoln's initial willingness to preserve slavery to preserve the Union, etc., are really neither here nor there with regard to the thread topic, since no one is calling for publically honoring those. The question is the moral appropriateness of the government of VA wading into this, not whether the hypothetical "average Confederate soldier" was a hero or an evil racist scum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Honoring the sacrifice makes it seem like they are still on or sympathetic to that side, I grew up in the South and those hellbent on this type of honor are usually not neutral on this subject. They are often pretty scary.
Pretty much where I'm coming from as well. I don't know that much about this Sons of Confederate Veterans organization--I think they might be more of an old money group(?), and we really didn't have that type where I grew up since it was largely unpopulated before the war--but the "hellbent" types we did have...well, they were generally the descendants of poor landless whites who later became sharecroppers, never got anything from the old aristocratic system except the social consolations of whiteness, and here they were more than a century on, living in trailers on dirt roads with open sewers, waving rebel flags and tossing out more than enough racial slurs to drive home the connection between their "pride" in their Southernness and their contempt for black people, who needless to say don't figure into their picture of "real" Southerners. I don't feel sorry for them--they're continuing the same devil's bargain their ancestors made, and they're accountable for the consequences of that--but I did always find it sad.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2010, 07:08 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Historical Fact: Lincoln did not send the US Army into the South to free to slaves, but to stop the rebellion.
Its also a fact that the South rebelled because they feared restrictions by the federal government on slavery or that the federal government would eventually free the slaves.

Quote:
Historical Fact: Men like Robert. E. Lee did not claim to fight to protect slavery, but to defend his home and out of refusal to lead forces that would eventually invade his neighbors (remember, there has always been a mistrust of the armed forces on our own soil)
Its also a historical fact that Robert E. Lee led Marines to help put down the start of a slave revolt in Hapers Ferry Virginia.

Quote:
Historical Fact: Virginia did not leave the Union until the US Army decided to invade states that legally voted to leave the Union.
Well, the Union would say such a vote was illegal.

Quote:
Historical Fact: Lincoln did not promise to end slavery if elected, only to stop the expansion of slavery into new territory.
Its also true that he believed the institution of slavery was evil. He initially prefered a more gradual process to end it without a sudden action that could split the nation and cause a war. This would of course prove to be impossible.

Quote:
If the Southern states had not left the Union – there wouldn’t have been a Civil War and slavery would have (probably) been replaced by mechanization.
Not necessarily. There was already violence in Kansas and Missouri over the issue which likely would have continued and could have grown. In addition, by 1900, 60% of the country(higher in the southern states) were still engaged in agriculture for a living. Even in 2010, mechanization has not replaced all manual labor jobs which are often filled by millions of illegal and legal imigrants from latin America.

Even in the 21st century, there are still area's of the world where the institution of slavery still exists.

Quote:
Also, Lincoln wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa.
I've not heard of this, plus the movement of 3.5 million people(40% of the population of the southern states) such a distance in those times would have been logistically and economically too costly. Plus, you would be placing the vast majority of 3.5 million people into an environment that was totally foreign to them. Most language and cultural connections with Africa had been lost decades or even centuries ago.

Quote:
The Southern states believed that since they voted themselves into the Union, they could vote themselves out of the Union.
That was only true of the original 13 colonies. States formed since the Revolution were formed on land owned by the United States government.

Quote:
Hundreds of thousands of men died in what was the bloodiest war on earth to that point.
Not true. Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 alone led to more deaths than the US Civil War.



Historical Fact: Lincoln said the following about slavery in his inaugural address in 1865: "All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war".
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com