Should Confederate soldiers be honored

[Giraffe]

Wow, this is an interesting thread. One thing I found most interesting is that the original poster posted no personal opinion just a fact and a question yet in the first 2 pages many answered in a hostile manner as if the poster had suggested it was wrong. I don't know if the op later posted against honoring Confederate soldiers or not since the thread is now 10 pgs (too long for me to read every single post) but apparently it is a hot button issue who would have thought.

 

I've read most, but not all, the pages and responded too. I never intended my responses to be hostile (well, maybe the one about Sherman, but I meant it as jest, too!). I hope I didn't offend y'all! If so, my apologies!

[jvenice]

It's strange to me that this still opens the proverbial 'can of worms'. If this were about tax dollars or President Obama holding special ceremonies for confederates, well that would be a different issue, but this is about the daughters of the confederacy...their relatives memorializing confederates. Let them memorialize their relatives, or we can just agree to disagree.

[mommaduck]

Everyone who wants to claim that it was "all about slavery" had better look up all the Union states that also permitted slavery. In fact, the last slave holding state was a Union State and did not become otherwise until almost 2yrs after the war, I believe (New Hampshire).

[elizabeth]

:blush: Thanks. I didn't mean to make my debut in such a controversial thread, but I really think that primary sources shed a lot of light on the discussion, and many people haven't encountered them before.

 

But anyway, um, hi. My 5-year-old has five more days of nursery school before she is a full-time homeschooler. (We've been playing around with math for a year or so, and reading for about six months.) I don't know if I'm going to wind up calling myself classical, but this certainly is an interesting place.

 

Greetings to you and welcome to the board. I remember the earliest days of our home education journey with great fondness . We began right after kindergarten and I have to say in retrospect that the leap of faith I took to do this was one of the best things that ever happened in our lives. Very pleased to meet you.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is nothing but revisionist history. Of course many, many Southerners did not themselves own slaves, and many Confederate soldiers fought out of loyalty to their state and their companions. But the Confederate cause was solidly based on slavery. The Confederate states' "declarations of causes of secession" make it clear that they seceded because of slavery. Not states' rights as an absolute principle - after all, where was their love of states' rights when they were the party in power and they passed the Fugitive Slave Act? - but their right to own slaves.

 

Their own words make it very clear.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

 

Here's the very first two sentences of Georgia's declaration of the causes of secession:

 

 

Mississippi:

 

 

Texas:

 

 

And here is a statement by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens in 1861:

 

 

 

Individual Confederate soldiers may indeed have been honorable men, but they were fighting for a treasonous and morally corrupt cause.

[/b][/i]

 

Thanks for the great post:)

[Orthodox6]

It's strange to me that this still opens the proverbial 'can of worms'. If this were about tax dollars or President Obama holding special ceremonies for confederates, well that would be a different issue, but this is about the daughters of the confederacy...their relatives memorializing confederates. Let them memorialize their relatives, or we can just agree to disagree.

 

I never shall understand why people continue to "live this extinct war" as if it were ongoing. -- :confused: -- As soon as I saw the thread topic, I knew it would wax long and furious. I'm a little surprised that the moderators have not aborted the onslaught, as the topic is blatantly political !

[Blessedfamily]

:blush: Thanks. I didn't mean to make my debut in such a controversial thread, but I really think that primary sources shed a lot of light on the discussion, and many people haven't encountered them before.

 

But anyway, um, hi. My 5-year-old has five more days of nursery school before she is a full-time homeschooler. (We've been playing around with math for a year or so, and reading for about six months.) I don't know if I'm going to wind up calling myself classical, but this certainly is an interesting place.

 

RIvka,

 

I appreciated your post and the direct quotes. Somehow the quote button doesn't work well when you try to quote a post with quotes in it. (Confusing)

 

Anyway, thanks.

[Blessedfamily]

I'd suggest you check your library for the Drama of American History series and get the volume on the lead-up to the Civil War. You could read it in a couple of hours, and I think you would be every pleasantly surprised (and probably shocked, frankly) at what a reasonable and fair-minded a job historians can do.

 

Rather than painting one side in a good light and the other as evil, the causes of the conflict are well-laid out. The "North", it is pointed out, was mostly indifferent to the plight of the slaves with the exception of abolitionist forces who (while a distinct minority) had influence beyond their numbers. Most Southerners did not own slaves, those who did commonly owned few. And not all Southerners supported slavery prior to hostilities.

 

The addition of States in the west complicated the one-to-one balance between slave and free states, and the South felt threatened that the political balance would shift and they lose in this re-alignment of power.

 

See for yourself, if you have the interest. I think you would be impressed.

 

Bill

 

Thanks. I'll have a look, as we are just going through the Revolutionary War (went to Yorktown) and should be up to the civil war this summer.

[Spy Car]

Thanks. I'll have a look, as we are just going through the Revolutionary War (went to Yorktown) and should be up to the civil war this summer.

 

It is a whole series, so you know (perhaps you figured that out :D) that would be an alternative to something like Joy Hakim. Really top notch based on the 2 volumes I've read.

 

Bill

[Mergath]

...and many who did treated them kindly.

 

I hope that most people would find the two to be mutually exclusive. Treating a person well means not treating them like cattle. And actually, most slave-owners didn't treat their slaves well. We spent a great deal of time on slavery when I studied American Lit in college, and treating a slave "kindly" was expensive. As most who owned slaves didn't really consider them to be human, they mostly treated them like working dogs. They were given basic food and shelter, if they were lucky, but they had no rights. If someone took your children away and sold them into lifelong slavery, then said, "Well, at least I didn't beat you," would you consider that kindness?

 

Also, whatever privileges the slaves were given, such as attending church on Sunday, were given to keep the slaves just content enough to prevent a revolt.

 

Nothing about any of that is kind. And to answer the op's question, no, I don't think the Confederate soldiers should be honored.

[Pink Fairy]

I hope that most people would find the two to be mutually exclusive. Treating a person well means not treating them like cattle. And actually, most slave-owners didn't treat their slaves well. We spent a great deal of time on slavery when I studied American Lit in college, and treating a slave "kindly" was expensive. As most who owned slaves didn't really consider them to be human, they mostly treated them like working dogs. They were given basic food and shelter, if they were lucky, but they had no rights. If someone took your children away and sold them into lifelong slavery, then said, "Well, at least I didn't beat you," would you consider that kindness?

 

Also, whatever privileges the slaves were given, such as attending church on Sunday, were given to keep the slaves just content enough to prevent a revolt.

 

Nothing about any of that is kind. And to answer the op's question, no, I don't think the Confederate soldiers should be honored.

 

I was wondering if someone would address that outrageous comment. I wanted to, but my attempts were, um, a little too strong to survive moderation, so I just deleted before posting. Good job!

Edited May 20, 2010 by Mamabegood

[Rivka]

Everyone who wants to claim that it was "all about slavery" had better look up all the Union states that also permitted slavery. In fact, the last slave holding state was a Union State and did not become otherwise until almost 2yrs after the war, I believe (New Hampshire).

 

My own state of Maryland was a slave state which only stayed in the Union because Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and threw half the Maryland legislature in jail so they couldn't vote to secede. The first Union soldiers who died were killed by a Baltimore mob.

 

I don't think that anyone who is arguing that the Confederate cause was primarily in support of slavery is unaware of widespread racism and oppression of black people in the Northern states. Clearly there were very few people in the 19th century who could pass for what we might consider "racially enlightened" today.

 

But if your position is that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, you have to somehow reconcile the statements of Confederate governments which placed primary emphasis on slavery. How do you propose to do that?

 

And BTW, you may be technically correct about New Hampshire, but the balance of the facts don't bear you out:

 

 

Slaves were removed from the rolls of taxable property in 1789, but the act appears to have been for taxing purposes only. The 1790 census counted 158 slaves; but in 1800, there were only 8. Portsmouth traders participated legally in the slave trade until 1807. No slaves were counted for the state in 1810 and 1820, but three are listed in 1830 and one in 1840. A commonly accepted date for the end of slavery in New Hampshire is 1857, when an act was passed stating that "No person, because of decent, should be disqualified from becoming a citizen of the state." The act is interpreted as prohibiting slavery. By a strict interpretation, however, slavery was outlawed only on Dec. 6, 1865, when the 13th amendment went into effect. (Ratified by New Hampshire July 1, 1865.

 

Obviously even one slave is one slave too many, but compared to approximately 3.5 million slaves in the Confederacy, the 1 in New Hampshire, 2 in Kansas, 15 in Nebraska, 18 in New Jersey don't create a moral equivalence. (Go ahead and say whatever you want about Maryland and Delaware, though.)

[Blessedfamily]

I hope that most people would find the two to be mutually exclusive. Treating a person well means not treating them like cattle. And actually, most slave-owners didn't treat their slaves well. We spent a great deal of time on slavery when I studied American Lit in college, and treating a slave "kindly" was expensive. As most who owned slaves didn't really consider them to be human, they mostly treated them like working dogs. They were given basic food and shelter, if they were lucky, but they had no rights. If someone took your children away and sold them into lifelong slavery, then said, "Well, at least I didn't beat you," would you consider that kindness?

 

Also, whatever privileges the slaves were given, such as attending church on Sunday, were given to keep the slaves just content enough to prevent a revolt.

 

Nothing about any of that is kind. And to answer the op's question, no, I don't think the Confederate soldiers should be honored.

Bolding mine.

 

 

 

While I'm aware of the motivations of BOTH north and south, I would certainly not use the word "kindly" to describe "most" slaves' treatment. If they were treated so kindly then....

 

"......who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?"

 

John F Kennedy on civil rights, June 11, 1963

[mommaduck]

My own state of Maryland was a slave state which only stayed in the Union because Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and threw half the Maryland legislature in jail so they couldn't vote to secede. The first Union soldiers who died were killed by a Baltimore mob.

 

I don't think that anyone who is arguing that the Confederate cause was primarily in support of slavery is unaware of widespread racism and oppression of black people in the Northern states. Clearly there were very few people in the 19th century who could pass for what we might consider "racially enlightened" today.

 

But if your position is that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, you have to somehow reconcile the statements of Confederate governments which placed primary emphasis on slavery. How do you propose to do that?

 

And BTW, you may be technically correct about New Hampshire, but the balance of the facts don't bear you out:

 

 

 

Obviously even one slave is one slave too many, but compared to approximately 3.5 million slaves in the Confederacy, the 1 in New Hampshire, 2 in Kansas, 15 in Nebraska, 18 in New Jersey don't create a moral equivalence. (Go ahead and say whatever you want about Maryland and Delaware, though.)

Yes, but who ran the slave trade? Northern families. When slaves ran North, they weren't completely safe unless they went to Canada. Lincoln was a racist himself. And no, I'm not one to state that it wasn't about slavery at all. It simply wasn't only about slavery, nor was it the PRIMARY issue.

[Firefly]

I hope that most people would find the two to be mutually exclusive. Treating a person well means not treating them like cattle. And actually, most slave-owners didn't treat their slaves well. We spent a great deal of time on slavery when I studied American Lit in college, and treating a slave "kindly" was expensive. As most who owned slaves didn't really consider them to be human, they mostly treated them like working dogs. They were given basic food and shelter, if they were lucky, but they had no rights. If someone took your children away and sold them into lifelong slavery, then said, "Well, at least I didn't beat you," would you consider that kindness?

 

Also, whatever privileges the slaves were given, such as attending church on Sunday, were given to keep the slaves just content enough to prevent a revolt.

 

Nothing about any of that is kind. And to answer the op's question, no, I don't think the Confederate soldiers should be honored.

 

I was wondering if someone would address that outrageous comment. I wanted to, but my attempts were, um, a little too strong to survive moderation, so I just deleted before posting. Good job!

 

I totally agree. Thank you, Mergath.

[ereks mom]

I'd suggest you check your library for the Drama of American History series and get the volume on the lead-up to the Civil War. You could read it in a couple of hours, and I think you would be every pleasantly surprised (and probably shocked, frankly) at what a reasonable and fair-minded a job historians can do.

 

Rather than painting one side in a good light and the other as evil, the causes of the conflict are well-laid out. The "North", it is pointed out, was mostly indifferent to the plight of the slaves with the exception of abolitionist forces who (while a distinct minority) had influence beyond their numbers. Most Southerners did not own slaves, those who did commonly owned few. And not all Southerners supported slavery prior to hostilities.

 

The addition of States in the west complicated the one-to-one balance between slave and free states, and the South felt threatened that the political balance would shift and they lose in this re-alignment of power.

 

See for yourself, if you have the interest. I think you would be impressed.

 

Bill

 

I'll read them and see what I think. Thanks!

[Spy Car]

I'll read them and see what I think. Thanks!

 

I would like to hear what you think when you have the opportunity.

 

Bill

[littleWMN]

I hope that most people would find the two to be mutually exclusive. Treating a person well means not treating them like cattle. And actually, most slave-owners didn't treat their slaves well. We spent a great deal of time on slavery when I studied American Lit in college, and treating a slave "kindly" was expensive. As most who owned slaves didn't really consider them to be human, they mostly treated them like working dogs. They were given basic food and shelter, if they were lucky, but they had no rights. If someone took your children away and sold them into lifelong slavery, then said, "Well, at least I didn't beat you," would you consider that kindness?

 

Also, whatever privileges the slaves were given, such as attending church on Sunday, were given to keep the slaves just content enough to prevent a revolt.

 

Nothing about any of that is kind. And to answer the op's question, no, I don't think the Confederate soldiers should be honored.

 

Agreed. "Treating a slave kindly" is kind of an oxymoron, no?

[Audrey]

No. Confederate soldiers should not be honored for their role in attempting to destroy the American Union and fighting (and killing fellow Americans) to perpetuate human slavery. There is nothing honorable here to celebrate.

 

As people, I'm sure there were many fine boys and men among the Confederate soldiers who got caught up in a very bad cause. Should they be remembered? Sure. But not "honored" for their actions. No.

 

Bill

 

 

See? Again, you said what I was going to say, but in a much, much nicer way. :001_smile:

[Audrey]

First of all, I find it humorous to be called the War of Northern Aggression when who started the war in the first place? As I recall it commenced by an attack of South Carolina militia on Fort Sumter. But I could be wrong.

 

Secondly, of course it was about slavery. It can be couched in any convenient way you want, but it was about the South's right to perpetuate the institution of slavery.

 

 

This was brought up in another thread, but bears repeating. If you are not from the South it does sound kind of odd to hear the American Civil War referred to that way.

 

If you are from the South, you know that only certain folks use the phrase "War of Northern Aggression." I feel that it's important to point out that not all Southerners are those kind of folks.

[Spy Car]

Agreed. "Treating a slave kindly" is kind of an oxymoron, no?

 

I'm not sure that it is. I mean in any situation where a one person in bonded to another in servitute there is a loss of freedom. Granted.

 

However, in many cultures slaves have not been considered sub-humans, and were expected to be treated as simply chattel-property, and subject to any kind of human cruelty.

 

Even in the American South, where treating Africans as fully human and deserving of human dignity was optional, it is clear from reading Slave Narratives that there were "kindly masters" whose treatment of those they enslaved was drastically more humane from the possible alternatives. Slave holders who were basically descent people, if wrong in their slave-holding, which they may have been able to justify in their minds as being in a tradition of the Bible, Greece, Rome. Nothing new.

 

And the northern Southern States had a much better reputation for humane treatment than did the deep South. Being sold "down the river" was such a terrifying threat because the enslaved realived there was a difference between "kindly treatment" and unkindly treatment.

 

So, while in no measure underplaying the situation of the enslaved in this country, I have little doubt there would have been slave-holders who were considered kindly, and others where the description did not apply.

 

Bill

[mom4knights]

. . .

 

The war did enable Lincoln to "save" the Union, but only in a geographic sense. The country ceased being a Union, as it was originally conceived, of separate and sovereign states. Instead, America became a "nation" with a powerful federal government. It initiated a process of centralization of government that has substantially restricted liberty and freedom in America, as historians Charles Adams and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel have argued – Adams in his book,

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (published in 2000); and Hummel in his book, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (1996).

 

 

 

 

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp).

 

 

 

 

The rallying call in the North at the beginning of the war was "preserve the Union," not "free the slaves." . . .

 

 

 

 

Black and White Americans sustained racial and political wounds from the war and the subsequent Reconstruction that proved deep and long lasting. Northern abolitionists wanted southern Black slaves to be freed, but certainly did not want them to move north and live alongside them. Indiana and Illinois, in particular, had laws that barred African-Americans from settling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Jcodevilla for this post.

 

I hope that most people would find the two to be mutually exclusive. Treating a person well means not treating them like cattle. And actually, most slave-owners didn't treat their slaves well. We spent a great deal of time on slavery when I studied American Lit in college, and treating a slave "kindly" was expensive. As most who owned slaves didn't really consider them to be human, they mostly treated them like working dogs. They were given basic food and shelter, if they were lucky, but they had no rights. If someone took your children away and sold them into lifelong slavery, then said, "Well, at least I didn't beat you," would you consider that kindness?

 

Also, whatever privileges the slaves were given, such as attending church on Sunday, were given to keep the slaves just content enough to prevent a revolt.

 

Nothing about any of that is kind. And to answer the op's question, no, I don't think the Confederate soldiers should be honored.

 

I thought I should add that you shouldn't trust everything you read in your college American Lit class. I am in no way condoning slavery or trying to say that the horrific things you mentioned never happened. However, it comes across as all those who "owned" slaves fit into that "neatly" mentioned category and it is just not true.

 

I have relatives from all sides involved (including being part Native American which could open a whole new discussion on the treatment of human beings, but anyway . . .) One of my great-great-grandfathers (GG) at one time owned slaves. He actually gave them their freedom before the war, but they all returned to him to work because he was a fair man who treated them with kindness. My GG actually trained some of the men in business and financial matters as well. One of the families wrote my GG a letter thanking him and his family for the kindness they received and were grateful for the opportunities they now had by just being in this great nation. The father told my GG about the life he had as a child in Africa and how that differed from what he was able to offer his family.

 

Now, am I saying that my GG was perfect or his scenario was the "norm"? No and no because I don't know any other "personal" stories other than my own. But to say that all "slave owners" treated their slaves like you mentioned above is not true either. According to my grandfather, his grandfather believed in treating all people with dignity and respect. His "slaves" were considered that by paper only but treated as someone hired to work the family business - with pay.

 

Why do some forget that slavery was not just something happening in the US but all over the world at that time? It still doesn't make it right but it would be good for us to remember the context of the times. Who was doing the selling of the slaves from Africa?? Unfortunately, in many cases, it was those with means in Africa - black and white. The poor have always been easy to exploit and have been since the beginning of time.

 

Unfortunately, unfair treatment of black Americans did not end b/c the war did. Slavery is still occurring today and not just to black Americans.

[mommaduck]

I'm not sure that it is. I mean in any situation where a one person in bonded to another in servitute there is a loss of freedom. Granted.

 

However, in many cultures slaves have not been considered sub-humans, and were expected to be treated as simply chattel-property, and subject to any kind of human cruelty.

 

Even in the American South, where treating Africans as fully human and deserving of human dignity was optional, it is clear from reading Slave Narratives that there were "kindly masters" whose treatment of those they enslaved was drastically more humane from the possible alternatives. Slave holders who were basically descent people, if wrong in their slave-holding, which they may have been able to justify in their minds as being in a tradition of the Bible, Greece, Rome. Nothing new.

 

And the northern Southern States had a much better reputation for humane treatment than did the deep South. Being sold "down the river" was such a terrifying threat because the enslaved realived there was a difference between "kindly treatment" and unkindly treatment.

 

So, while in no measure underplaying the situation of the enslaved in this country, I have little doubt there would have been slave-holders who were considered kindly, and others where the description did not apply.

 

Bill

There may have also been those well meaning souls that believed that another human being would be best bought by them, working alongside them on their small farm (very common), than to be sold to heaven knows who or even to a known, cruel neighbour. Yes, slavery as an institution itself still being wrong, but perhaps someone else trying to do what they could in the society they were in...and this goes for both North and South. Eventually, there were people living and fighting on both sides that also wanted to end slavery, just as much as there were people on both sides that would keep it.

 

This war had the good, the bad, and the very ugly on both sides.

[junepep]

I believe that the issue that's causing the problem is what are the scholars who are against putting the wreaths on confederate graves really saying? They are in no way saying that confederates were not citizens and they are also not saying that they did something terrible by leaving the union. They are saying that you supporting slavery by honoring confederate veterans because the War Between the States has devolved into a question of African American rights and liberties - not the facts about the men or the war itself. The 40+ scholars who protested laying a wreath on the memorial believe that you are supporting the agenda of racists thereby perpetuating racism.

 

To the actual points of history:

The war and the origin of the war were very complex...

 

Southerners had serious problems throughout the 1850s with economic policies being proposed in congress. There were quite a few people proposing to leave the union throughout the period from the 1830s through the start of the 1860s primarily on the basis of political divisions. The idea of succession was not new

 

Within the south Slavery WAS economic. To try to say that the civil war wasn't primarily about economics is a blatant logical fallacy because the ownership of, and income from, slaves was the cornerstone of the southern economy. You might enjoy the analysis below if you're interested in this:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us

 

As to the first shots ... did you know that the northern soldiers had been asked to leave and told that there would be shots fired if they did not comply? Also, did you know that during the firing on Ft Sumpter, THERE WERE NO CASUALTIES (you can check out americancivilwar.com if you're interested in more information, but I've put a little quote in below)

"Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely while firing a salute during the evacuation on April 14."

 

Then there's the question of whether they Federal Govt even had the right to create a nation "indivisible", which the constitution gives no direct advice on.

 

The view from Britain was that Lincoln was in many ways a fool and that this was a ridiculous conflict in so far as there was no reason why the South shouldn't secede (especially since that would benefit Britain).

 

On a side note, for some amusing reading of primary sources for your kids you should definitely check out some of the Punch Magazine articles if you can get your hands on them, these are the ones available online (unfortunately not covering the war years): http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Punch_%28Bookshelf%29

Edited May 21, 2010 by junepep
edited to correct my statement re: founding fathers -- mistyped

[Greta]

I'd suggest you check your library for the Drama of American History series and get the volume on the lead-up to the Civil War.

 

Bill, is this the series by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier? Just want to make sure I'm looking at the right books. Worth owning, or more like a quick read from the library? (I'm thinking for my 10 yo dd)

 

Thanks!

[Spy Car]

Bill, is this the series by Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier? Just want to make sure I'm looking at the right books. Worth owning, or more like a quick read from the library? (I'm thinking for my 10 yo dd)

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, that is the series. Moira has made a list of all the books. There are quite a few. I think they would make a wonderful addition to a personal library, but could be used to good effect as library books as well.

 

While the authors (smartly and purposefully) keep the historical narrative on track (appropriate for this age child) the individual books are not exactly "fast reads." Nor are they overly-long. They do deal with the serious issues in a thoughtful and fair-minded ways, at least from my perspective. I'm curious to hear what Ereks Mom thinks of these.

 

As I read the two volumes I previewed I kept thinking what a great job the authors had done in making the story interesting, and in the balance of perspectives they were able to show. It is how I would try to present the story, correcting for my own bias (to the best of my ability) and showing disputants as having their own reasons, faults, foibles, and virtues.

 

And they are engagingly written. Every attempt I made to pre-read Joy Hakimn ended in my truncating the attempt due to her writing style, of which I'm not a fan.

 

I don't mean to highjack the thread.

 

Bill

[TXMary2]

Of course they should. They were Americans fighting for a multitude of reasons.

[Greta]

Yes, that is the series. Moira has made a list of all the books. There are quite a few. I think they would make a wonderful addition to a personal library, but could be used to good effect as library books as well.

 

While the authors (smartly and purposefully) keep the historical narrative on track (appropriate for this age child) the individual books are not exactly "fast reads." Nor are they overly-long. They do deal with the serious issues in a thoughtful and fair-minded ways, at least from my perspective. I'm curious to hear what Ereks Mom thinks of these.

 

As I read the two volumes I previewed I kept thinking what a great job the authors had done in making the story interesting, and in the balance of perspectives they were able to show. It is how I would try to present the story, correcting for my own bias (to the best of my ability) and showing disputants as having their own reasons, faults, foibles, and virtues.

 

And they are engagingly written. Every attempt I made to pre-read Joy Hakimn ended in my truncating the attempt due to her writing style, of which I'm not a fan.

 

I don't mean to highjack the thread.

 

Bill

 

Well, I'm grateful for the hijack. This is really helpful. We've been reading This Country of Ours, and I like it, but it's not super engaging to my dd. I'd read pretty mixed reviews of Hakim - not that I think her personal bias would bother me, but I was more concerned about the writing style, which seems to grate on the nerves of many. So it's nice to hear about another option. Thank you for the review!

[mommaduck]

Of course they should. They were Americans fighting for a multitude of reasons.

And none of us should presume upon each soldier's reason.

[nevergiveup]

I believe that the issue that's causing the problem is what are the scholars who are against putting the wreaths on confederate graves really saying? They are in no way saying that confederates were not citizens and they are also not saying that they did something terrible by leaving the union. They are saying that you supporting slavery by honoring confederate veterans because the War Between the States has devolved into a question of African American rights and liberties - not the facts about the men or the war itself. The 40+ scholars who protested laying a wreath on the memorial believe that you are supporting the agenda of racists thereby perpetuating racism.

 

 

 

From the letter:

"The Arlington Confederate Monument is a denial of the wrong committed against African Americans by slave owners, Confederates, and neo-Confederates, through the monument’s denial of slavery as the cause of secession and its holding up of Confederates as heroes." The 45+ scholars actually said that the monument stands for the legitimacy of secession, opposition to Reconstruciton, and glorifies the principles of Confederacy, along with promoting white supremacy.

 

It also sounds like the 9 history professors, 4 assistant history professors, and 2 associate professors of history who signed the letter believe that slavery was the cause of secession and that the Confederates should not be considered heroes.

[mommaduck]

From the letter:

"The Arlington Confederate Monument is a denial of the wrong committed against African Americans by slave owners, Confederates, and neo-Confederates, through the monument’s denial of slavery as the cause of secession and its holding up of Confederates as heroes." The 45+ scholars actually said that the monument stands for the legitimacy of secession, opposition to Reconstruciton, and glorifies the principles of Confederacy, along with promoting white supremacy.

 

It also sounds like the 9 history professors, 4 assistant history professors, and 2 associate professors of history who signed the letter believe that slavery was the cause of secession and that the Confederates should not be considered heroes.

Then let's tear down all the Union memorials as well. For they are a denial of the Union's major role in the slave trade and their own racism and instead try to portray themselves as heros who truly felt that slaves were equals. Yep, if we are going to broadbrush, then the entire country is guilty and should bear the burden.

[shea]

Then let's tear down all the Union memorials as well. For they are a denial of the Union's major role in the slave trade and their own racism and instead try to portray themselves as heros who truly felt that slaves were equals. Yep, if we are going to broadbrush, then the entire country is guilty and should bear the burden.

 

 

:iagree:

[MSNative]

I believe that the issue that's causing the problem is what are the scholars who are against putting the wreaths on confederate graves really saying? They are in no way saying that confederates were not citizens and they are also not saying that they did something terrible by leaving the union. They are saying that you supporting slavery by honoring confederate veterans because the War Between the States has devolved into a question of African American rights and liberties - not the facts about the men or the war itself. The 40+ scholars who protested laying a wreath on the memorial believe that you are supporting the agenda of racists thereby perpetuating racism.

 

To the actual points of history:

The war and the origin of the war were very complex...

 

Southerners had serious problems throughout the 1850s with economic policies being proposed in congress. There were quite a few people proposing to leave the union throughout the period from the 1830s through the start of the 1860s primarily on the basis of political divisions. The idea of succession was not new

 

Within the south Slavery WAS economic. To try to say that the civil war wasn't primarily about economics is a blatant logical fallacy because the ownership of, and income from, slaves was the cornerstone of the southern economy. You might enjoy the analysis below if you're interested in this:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/ransom.civil.war.us

 

As to the first shots ... did you know that the northern soldiers had been asked to leave and told that there would be shots fired if they did not comply? Also, did you know that during the firing on Ft Sumpter, THERE WERE NO CASUALTIES (you can check out americancivilwar.com if you're interested in more information, but I've put a little quote in below)

"Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely while firing a salute during the evacuation on April 14."

 

Then there's the question of whether they Federal Govt even had the right to create a nation "indivisible", which the constitution gives no direct advice on.

 

 

The view from Britain was that Lincoln was in many ways a fool and that this was a ridiculous conflict in so far as there was no reason why the South shouldn't secede (especially since that would benefit Britain).

 

On a side note, for some amusing reading of primary sources for your kids you should definitely check out some of the Punch Magazine articles if you can get your hands on them, these are the ones available online (unfortunately not covering the war years): http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Punch_%28Bookshelf%29

 

Well that wasn't nice at all. I had lots of things to get done and instead I got sucked into your links. :) Just kidding. I found the Ransom article extremely interesting and am printing out a couple of Punch mags for the kids. Thank you for sharing.

 

Random note - the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't written until well after the Civil War in 1892 and has been modified four times since then. I hadn't known that until you mentioned indivisibility which caused me to look it up.

[junepep]

From the letter:

"The Arlington Confederate Monument is a denial of the wrong committed against African Americans by slave owners, Confederates, and neo-Confederates, through the monument’s denial of slavery as the cause of secession and its holding up of Confederates as heroes." The 45+ scholars actually said that the monument stands for the legitimacy of secession, opposition to Reconstruciton, and glorifies the principles of Confederacy, along with promoting white supremacy.

 

It also sounds like the 9 history professors, 4 assistant history professors, and 2 associate professors of history who signed the letter believe that slavery was the cause of secession and that the Confederates should not be considered heroes.

 

I said that you cannot separate slavery the fact that it was the backbone of their economic system. To use one without the recognition of the other is a logical fallacy. Slavery was their way of life, it was economic and social backbone of their states. To abolish slavery would (in their minds) destroy them and everything that they had built for themselves.

 

What's ultimately sad is that the lives of freed slaves (and their financial opportunities) after the civil war were little different before as 30 years after. The war, in and of itself did nothing more than to abolish slavery in this country and to maintain the union between the states. Ultimately the south reaped exactly what it feared would happen by staying in the union. The crippling of its economic system (and ultimately after reconstruction they did wind up rebuilding it in the same way that they had before (with an agrarian base built off of an extremely cheap supply of labour) and have only recently (last 40 years after the full impact of civil rights movement had settled through the country) begun to bring factories and other businesses to the southern States in large numbers.

 

I don't recall saying that Confederate Soldiers are heroes. I merely pointed out that the majority of the argument against putting a NATIONAL wreath on the DoC monument says more about where we stand as a nation 150 years after the war in regards to race and the history of slavery than it does about whether these men should be honored by the Daughters of the Confederacy (a group which you cannot be a member of without having had a distant family member who fought in the war).

 

Being honored for your service is different than being called a hero. Today we bandy about the word hero far too frequently. The men who fought for the north were no more heroic than those fighting for the south. Being a hero means more than fighting, you have to know what you're fighting for (and win ;)).

 

George Washington is a hero. He fought an impossible war and managed to lead this country through it's first 4 years of nationhood. He was also a slaveholder 90 years before the civil war (for more about this the wiki article is pretty decent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery). As in interesting coincidence, 90 years after the civil war we had another group of people, many of whom I would consider heroes but particularly Martin Luther King, who's message of hope and change from within and without spurred people on to stand up and finally say that the way that we treat our fellow man in this country is Wrong!

 

You can decide that the scholars were ultimately saying that the confederacy was nothing but a bunch of egoists that wanted to brutalize other humans and that the DoC is wrong to honor their memory, but for me, history is far more complex than that.

[junepep]

Well that wasn't nice at all. I had lots of things to get done and instead I got sucked into your links. :) Just kidding. I found the Ransom article extremely interesting and am printing out a couple of Punch mags for the kids. Thank you for sharing.

 

Random note - the Pledge of Allegiance wasn't written until well after the Civil War in 1892 and has been modified four times since then. I hadn't known that until you mentioned indivisibility which caused me to look it up.

 

I totally know what you mean :D I just can't stay away!! I try to walk away, but just keep getting sucked back in ;) a victim of my own curiosity really.

 

 

This was an offshoot of my thesis topic in college -- The view of Britain's Media of the war between the states (as they called it) or some such nonsense -- I can't remember the quite lovely alliterative title that I'd dreamed up for it at the time :lol:

[MSNative]

I totally know what you mean :D I just can't stay away!! I try to walk away, but just keep getting sucked back in ;) a victim of my own curiosity really.

 

 

This was an offshoot of my thesis topic in college -- The view of Britain's Media of the war between the states (as they called it) or some such nonsense -- I can't remember the quite lovely alliterative title that I'd dreamed up for it at the time :lol:

 

How sad that my first instinct was to ask you to post it or at least your bibliography? Your thesis was way more interesting than mine - an economic analysis of the impact of the savings and loan debacle. Also had a better title, but I know the word debacle was in it often - great word. Though not that riveting a read, I must say that research has been quite useful given recent events.

[MSNative]

From the letter:

"The Arlington Confederate Monument is a denial of the wrong committed against African Americans by slave owners, Confederates, and neo-Confederates, through the monument’s denial of slavery as the cause of secession and its holding up of Confederates as heroes." The 45+ scholars actually said that the monument stands for the legitimacy of secession, opposition to Reconstruciton, and glorifies the principles of Confederacy, along with promoting white supremacy.

 

It also sounds like the 9 history professors, 4 assistant history professors, and 2 associate professors of history who signed the letter believe that slavery was the cause of secession and that the Confederates should not be considered heroes.

 

 

An offshoot question - what do you (everyone in general) think the reaction would have been had the president chosen last year to break tradition and not laid a wreath and/or chooses this year not to do so? Would that be the desired end result of the signers of the letter? (Obviously we cannot presume to read people's minds, but we can make some guesses and inferences.)

[Orthodox6]

An offshoot question - what do you (everyone in general) think the reaction would have been had the president chosen last year to break tradition and not laid a wreath and/or chooses this year not to do so? Would that be the desired end result of the signers of the letter? (Obviously we cannot presume to read people's minds, but we can make some guesses and inferences.)

 

If each interest-group in the country were to achieve its goals . . . Heaven help us !

[jazzyfizzle]

I never shall understand why people continue to "live this extinct war" as if it were ongoing. -- :confused: -- As soon as I saw the thread topic, I knew it would wax long and furious. I'm a little surprised that the moderators have not aborted the onslaught, as the topic is blatantly political !

 

 

 

 

When you travel southward and see tons of items in convenience stores such as confederate flags stating The south will rise again it does make one realize the mindset that is still perpetuated. A good number of the posts on here likewise.

[junepep]

How sad that my first instinct was to ask you to post it or at least your bibliography? Your thesis was way more interesting than mine - an economic analysis of the impact of the savings and loan debacle. Also had a better title, but I know the word debacle was in it often - great word. Though not that riveting a read, I must say that research has been quite useful given recent events.

 

That sounds like it would have been enormously helpful! I loved econ :) but I didn't have the math skills to go beyond a year of macro and micro. As to the biblio, I think that I probably could pull it out -- the darn thing is around here somewhere (hopefully). If I remember correctly I only used primary sources (mostly reading the Times, Punch, and some other popular magazines of the day over the 5 year period) + Lincoln's writings and the laws enacted on both sides (mostly as an analysis point to have a comparator to say - this major legislation was enacted or speech given and this is what was showing up overseas). It obviously wasn't as clear cut as 'we'll benefit from this, go south!' but although there was a lot of talk about the horrors of slavery there was still a very large, quite powerful contingent in favor of active (in addition to the passive monetary support) of the South. Ultimately they chose not to get involved, and frankly, that often seemed more guided by economics again than sentiment o.O (obviously there were factions there as well, which then (as now) wouldn't have had their concerns covered in any depth by the major media outlets).

 

It was really a lot of fun to research, and the sources, being newspapers were enormously fun to read :D