Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

And ou can't quote just the ordinances of secession from a few southern states and ignore the numerous other historical documents out there, some from many years befoer the Civil War. For one thing, those documents were mostly written by one or two people. They certainly didn't speak for all southerners of the time. Even Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," and yet, he was a slave owner. There is no way I would take that quote out of context and discern that Jefferson must have treated his slaves remarkably well because, after all, he thought all men were equal.That is why I am not posting documents or quotes. I think most of us are aware that, without appropriate context, a few quotes are meaningless. Go back a few pages and look at the posts by dueling Lincoln posters. The issues leading up to he Civil War were incredibly complex, and next to impossible or us to understand wit out modern viewpoints.

 

No one is denying there were other issues at play, things that had been going on for awhile but..the documents do state that it was the PRIMARY reason.

 

Did they not have secession conventions? With voting? I don't think the documents were just written by some random guy and fired off to the papers without anyone else seeing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 651
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The original source documents show that slavery was the cause given by the Southern states for the war.

 

That slavery is now, among most people—Douglas Wilson and others like him excluded— a source of great embarrassment does not allow rationalizations and revisionisms that don't reflect the truth to be substituted with confabulations.

 

Bill

ANd I believe you are revising history because you are trying to make jugements on people from that time period from a 21st century perspective. Once again, it doesn't negate the fact that mot historias agree that slavery was not the only cause of the war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before the Civil War there actually weren't a lot of abolitionists in the north or elsewhere.

 

By 1838 there were 1350 local chapters of the American Anti-Slavery Society. And that was just the radical wing of the anti-slavery movement - many more people were members of the Free Soil movement or favored a more gradual end to slavery.

 

But whatever. I think we're done here. You're showing a remarkable imperviousness to historical evidence here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What he said was

 

 

Actually I quoted clearly where he said "to the present." I was trying to clarify what he meant and explain why people were getting offended.

 

I was not trying to pretend it was not ever used to promote racist causes. However, since there is a legitimate discussion about states' rights today it is imprecise to say that states rights is always used with racist meaning. Bill's original posts did not clarify this. His later one did.

 

As far as historical documents supporting other causes of the Civil War, if you are really interested (not meant in a snarky way. More recognition that reading about tariffs can be a snore) you can read up on tariffs from around 1825 on. The fed. gov't imposed high tariffs on imported manufactured goods. This was great for the North 'cause it made their goods cheaper by comparison. However, the South felt this was unfair. Some states even tried to nullify the tariffs. (I pasted some of the original doc. below.)

 

I would never argue that slavery was not a main cause of the war. I do not think it was the ONLY cause.

 

 

South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification (November 24, 1832) South Carolina and other southern states were upset when Congress passed the Tariff of 1828 which Southerners dubbed the "Tariff of Abominations." Southerners saw the tariff as protecting Northern industry at the expense of the South, and as unconstitutionally expanding the powers of the federal government.

Many Southerners was not satisfied when Congress lowered tariffs slightly in 1832. In response, South CarolinaÃŒs state legislature passed laws nullifying the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 and forbidding the collection of the tariffs in South Carolina. South Carolina also threatened to secede * to withdraw from the United States * if its stance on the tariff was not respected. As you read, consider South CarolinaÃŒs position on the tariff and its response. How might South Carolina have defended its position on the tariff and on a states power to nullify the laws of the federal government?

 

Whereas the Congress of the United States , by various acts, purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of domestic manufactures, and the giving of bounties to classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at the expense and to the injury and oppression of other classes and individuals... hath exceeded its just powers under the Constitution....

 

We, therefore the people of the state of South Carolina in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain .... [That the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832] purporting to be laws for the imposting of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities.... are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens....

And it is further Ordained, That it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce payment of the duties imposed by said acts.... [and] it shall be the duty of the [south Carolina] Legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this Ordinance....

And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the Government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this, our Ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard, Do further Declare that we will not submit to the application of force, on the part of the Federal Government, to reduce this State to obedience; but that we will consider the passage by Congress, of any act... to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union: and that the people of this state will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate Government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do....

Edited by MSNative
Bolding is mine. Original is not bolded.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is denying there were other issues at play, things that had been going on for awhile but..the documents do state that it was the PRIMARY reason.

 

Did they not have secession conventions? With voting? I don't think the documents were just written by some random guy and fired off to the papers without anyone else seeing it.

I can tell you exactly whathappened in Georgia. Do you mean did the citizens vote? Absolutely not! The Ordinance of Secession of Georgia was primarily written by one man, Thomas R.R. Cobb, wo was killed in 1862 in he Battle of Chancellorsville. State legislatures voted on and passed these ordinances, not the ordinary citizen.

 

Oh, and here's one of those quotes you like so much, from Georgia's OOS.

 

The action, taken by the Georgia Legislature because, as they wrote at the time, “The rulers whom the North offers us ... give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power ...; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars and our firesides,” is one of the precursors to the American Civil War, which started slightly less than four months later, on April 12, 1861, at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

 

Imagine that you were a middle class white farmer who owed a couple ofslaves. Ending slavery wold meanthat you would lose your livelihood, your home and your family may starve. All our twnetienth century hackles about the injusticies of it all mean very little if your family is starving. Many, many southern families faced total ruin an starvation with the end of slavery. Survival, in its most baic form, will cause men to do all manner of things that we, sitting in our fine houses with plenty of food cannot imagine. The comparison of the average southerner at the time of the Civil War to Hitler makes me very mad. Hitlewasnt starving and trying t feed his family. He wasevil and powe hungry. Most southerners at that time were not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we are in agreement because I also do not think it was the ONLY cause but I do believe it was the main cause

 

I believe we are. :) You and I were posting at the same time before and I've also seen where you used the word primarily. I hope no one is arguing that slavery wasn't a main- just that there are other causes,too.

 

 

 

(FYI - Sis, I love your avatar and sig. quote. They always make me smile.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
O.K., now you are moing the issue into the 20th century. Several people have posted that you were only talking about the Civil War.

 

 

So I'm not misunderstood, I am talking about the legacy of racism and hate that stretches up to (and includes) the present day.

 

I recognize there are legitimate differences on the limits or extent of Federal power that need to be debated. It is one of the central balances of power we have in a Federal system.

 

But legitimate differences over State vs Federal power is not the way "States Rights" has been used as a code-word for segregation and racism in this country up to (and including) today.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can tell you exactly whathappened in Georgia. Do you mean did the citizens vote? Absolutely not! The Ordinance of Secession of Georgia was primarily written by one man, Thomas R.R. Cobb, wo was killed in 1862 in he Battle of Chancellorsville. State legislatures voted on and passed these ordinances, not the ordinary citizen.

 

Oh, and here's one of those quotes you like so much, from Georgia's OOS.

 

The action, taken by the Georgia Legislature because, as they wrote at the time, “The rulers whom the North offers us ... give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power ...; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars and our firesides,” is one of the precursors to the American Civil War, which started slightly less than four months later, on April 12, 1861, at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.

 

There was a convention and they voted. Our country is a Democratic Republic. We elect people to represent us. Georgia citizens sent elected representatives to a Secession Convention.

 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3250

 

 

 

Imagine that you were a middle class white farmer who owed a couple ofslaves. Ending slavery wold meanthat you would lose your livelihood, your home and your family may starve. All our twnetienth century hackles about the injusticies of it all mean very little if your family is starving. Many, many southern families faced total ruin an starvation with the end of slavery. Survival, in its most baic form, will cause men to do all manner of things that we, sitting in our fine houses with plenty of food cannot imagine. The comparison of the average southerner at the time of the Civil War to Hitler makes me very mad. Hitlewasnt starving and trying t feed his family. He wasevil and powe hungry. Most southerners at that time were not.

 

That seems more like an excuse than historical fact.

 

Imagine being his slaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By 1838 there were 1350 local chapters of the American Anti-Slavery Society. And that was just the radical wing of the anti-slavery movement - many more people were members of the Free Soil movement or favored a more gradual end to slavery.

 

But whatever. I think we're done here. You're showing a remarkable imperviousness to historical evidence here.

 

As I said in my previous post, many abolitionists were in areas where their livelihood and that of their families would not be affected. Most people in the South were just trying tosurvive at the time. They didn't have time for meetings and movements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said in my previous post, many abolitionists were in areas where their livelihood and that of their families would not be affected. Most people in the South were just trying tosurvive at the time. They didn't have time for meetings and movements.

 

I am sorry but that sounds completely biased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So I'm not misunderstood, I am talking about the legacy of racism and hate that stretches up to (and includes) the present day.

 

I recognize there are legitimate differences on the limits or extent of Federal power that need to be debated. It is one of the central balances of power we have in a Federal system.

 

But legitimate differences over State vs Federal power is not the way "States Rights" has been used as a code-word for segregation and racism in this country up to (and including) today.

 

Bill

 

I appreciate your clarification. I have never thought of the phrase "States' Rights" itself as code word for segregation. (not arguing with you, just sharing where I'm coming from.) I know it was used as such but someone saying States Rights would not immediately make me think of segregation or racism. I understand now how you meant it. I figured there was a misunderstanding but I did want you to know why some of us were reading it and getting fiesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a convention and they voted. Our country is a Democratic Republic. We elect people to represent us. Georgia citizens sent elected representatives to a Secession Convention.

 

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3250

 

 

 

 

 

That seems more like an excuse than historical fact.

 

Imagine being his slaves.

We do, in my classes:tongue_smilie: It is absolutely historical fact. One of the main jobs of a good history teacher is to get the students to understand all the issues of the day, including the economics, politics and means of living.

When I am teaching about the rainforest to my 6th graders, we discuss not only the impact of the destruction of the rainforest on the world at large, but on the lives of the very poor who are cutting down the rainforest. Are the poor famers in Brazil just evil people who don't care about the destruction ofthe forest? There may be some like that, but the majority are just trying to provide a place to live and food for their families. This was absolutely much the same situation that the majoriy of southerners were in at the time of the Civil War.

 

One of things that I see so often complained about on here is that history is dry and just a bunch of dates and facts in public school. I believe that th heart of history is about the veryday people. Yes, famous figures are important, but if you only learn about Jefferson Davis and what he believed, you are missing so much about the day to day living of ordinary folks at that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate your clarification. I have never thought of the phrase "States' Rights" itself as code word for segregation. (not arguing with you, just sharing where I'm coming from.) I know it was used as such but someone saying States Rights would not immediately make me think of segregation or racism. I understand now how you meant it. I figured there was a misunderstanding but I did want you to know why some of us were reading it and getting fiesty.

:iagree:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry but that sounds completely biased.

How could it be biased? I didn't live at that time. Historical fact shows that the majority o the wealth in the U.S. at the time was n the North. the Noth also had a moe than 30% larger population than the Suth. Almost all industry was in the North. Nine out of ten bank were in the North. Southern farmers relied on those Northern bank to borrow money, and those banks were quite willing to provide funds to buy slaves. These ae facts, not opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We do, in my classes:tongue_smilie: It is absolutely historical fact. One of the main jobs of a good history teacher is to get the students to understand all the issues of the day, including the economics, politics and means of living.

When I am teaching about the rainforest to my 6th graders, we discuss not only the impact of the destruction of the rainforest on the world at large, but on the lives of the very poor who are cutting down the rainforest. Are the poor famers in Brazil just evil people who don't care about the destruction ofthe forest? There may be some like that, but the majority are just trying to provide a place to live and food for their families. This was absolutely much the same situation that the majoriy of southerners were in at the time of the Civil War.

 

One of things that I see so often complained about on here is that history is dry and just a bunch of dates and facts in public school. I believe that th heart of history is about the veryday people. Yes, famous figures are important, but if you only learn about Jefferson Davis and what he believed, you are missing so much about the day to day living of ordinary folks at that time.

 

That is great you can have an emotional connection to the white slave owners at the time...some of whom were rich plantation owners but what about the slaves?

 

What about the enslaved people whose families were torn apart, who were beaten, raped and forced to care for those who were treating them this way otherwise they would be killed?

 

Honestly, if a teacher was teaching my child about poor white slave owners and the mean rich north then I would complain to the administrators of the school district.

Edited by Sis
Link to post
Share on other sites
I appreciate your clarification. I have never thought of the phrase "States' Rights" itself as code word for segregation. (not arguing with you, just sharing where I'm coming from.) I know it was used as such but someone saying States Rights would not immediately make me think of segregation or racism. I understand now how you meant it. I figured there was a misunderstanding but I did want you to know why some of us were reading it and getting fiesty.

 

I would gently suggest you study in greater detail the way the phrase "States Rights" was used by people like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and other segrationist leaders in the battle against school integration and civil rights. It might prove eye-opening.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
How could it be biased? I didn't live at that time. Historical fact shows that the majority o the wealth in the U.S. at the time was n the North. the Noth also had a moe than 30% larger population than the Suth. Almost all industry was in the North. Nine out of ten bank were in the North. Southern farmers relied on those Northern bank to borrow money, and those banks were quite willing to provide funds to buy slaves. These ae facts, not opinion.

 

Were there not poor farmers in the North who were abolitionists? Because you just seemed to gloss over that possibility.

 

Do you think abolitionists were rich?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Cherokee were pro-slavery, the ones in Oklahoma were in the Confederacy and had slaves. Have you heard of the "Free-Men"

 

He is a controversial figure because he signed the treaty that lead to the Trail of Tears and also there was a large split in the Cherokee after the war over the North/South issue. He was a leader of the "south" faction. I am sure his descendants are proud...but he is controversial nonetheless.

 

 

How do people have a poor understanding of events, exactly?

 

The blanket statements such as

 

"States Rights" is a code-word for the right of some people (White people) to enslave other people (Black people).

 

No way around that.

 

 

 

display poor historical understanding of events.

 

Those who can not grasp the fact that one may be proud, intensely proud, of an ancestor who fought in the Confederacy while being justly disgusted with the concept of slavery have a poor understanding of people.

 

To argue that "states rights" is code for the right of whites to enslave blacks is a myopic position and further ignores that fact that as both you and I pointed out it was not ONLY whites who held slaves. (I agree that the overwhelming majority of slave-owners were white, but the blanket statement above does not acknowledge that).

 

Further the term "states rights" is NOT defined solely by the Civil War, as exemplified by Jefferson who in his opposition to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts wrote

 

Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

 

This is a defining tract on states rights and is NOT about slavery. Therefore the quote to the effect that states rights is code for slavery is demonstrated to indicate a poor understanding of the term.

 

Those who believe that the ONLY reason that Southern soldiers died in their tens of thousands was to defend the institution of slavery have a poor understanding of historical events. Most Southerners did not own slaves yet they fought and died. They did so for land, for family, for honor and not to understand that is a, in your words, "poor understanding of events."

 

Further people still speak of "states rights." I would hope we are all agreed that those today who advocate these rights are not looking for a return to slavery.

 

 

One of the things that has most shocked me about this thread is the adherence to broad stereotypes when speaking of people who are proud of their heritage. All encompassing statements and narrow vision of events and history are one of the reasons that we HS, ie we wanted to get away from this. The level of understanding of one of the pivotal periods in our nation's history, as displayed by some posters, is overly simplistic. One might even say that it is a Hollywood level, akin to what is seen in many "historical films." I am stunned…. HSers are supposed to be better than this.

 

Again I am not supporting the South in their effort at secession, but a discussion should be based on fact not stereotype.

Edited by pqr
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would gently suggest you study in greater detail the way the phrase "States Rights" was used by people like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and other segrationist leaders in the battle against school integration and civil rights. It might prove eye-opening.

 

Bill

 

Exactly. And as some of us have pointed out, it is no coincidence that some southern states started flying the Confederate flag again during the segregation battles.

 

I don't hate the south or southerners (I am one myself), but it is quite sad how some here go to extremes to defend the darkest aspects of southern history, and try to justify the actions of those who fought to keep others in bondage. I actually get a headache when I hear those who fought for the Confederacy celebrated as heroes and freedom fighters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of the things that has most shocked me about this thread is the adherence to broad stereotypes when speaking of people who are proud of their heritage. All encompassing statements and narrow vision of events and history are one of the reasons that we HS, ie we wanted to get away from this. The level of understanding of one of the pivotal periods in our nation's history, as displayed by some posters, is overly simplistic. One might even say that it is a Hollywood level, akin to what is seen in many "historical films." I am stunned…. HSers are supposed to be better than this.

 

Again I am not supporting the South in their effort at secession, but a discussion should be based on fact not stereotype.

 

Hang on..I am trying to stick to facts.

 

Let's be clear. I am from Oklahoma...not exactly the bastion of civilization. I have a lot of redneck in my blood. I do sorta like some country music, pick ups and I do own a gun. I don't think it has anything to do with the Confederate Flag.

Edited by Sis
Link to post
Share on other sites
That is great you can have an emotional connection to the white slave owners at the time...some of whom were rich plantation owners but what about the slaves?

 

What about the enslaved people whose families were torn apart, who were beaten, raped and forced to care for those who were treating them this way otherwise they would be killed?

 

Honestly, if a teacher was teaching my child about poor white slave owners and the mean rich north then I would complain to the administrators of the school district.

 

Seriously, have you read anything I've said? I portray all sides equally. It i just a much a travesty of histoy to leave out the economic plight of the majority of the southerners at the time of the Civil War as it is to focus on any one group. We spent extensive time discussing the issue of slavery, the slave trade, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Grimke sisters, the intelligence of slaves that were able to embed escape codes in their spiritual songs, and of course, The Underground Railroad. I also like to show portions of the movie, "Glory," one of my absolute favorite Civil War movies. The courage of the 54th Massachusetts regiment was amazing.

 

My husan is from Niagara Falls, NY, and he concurs that his teachers in the North were absolutey biased in their teaching of the Civil War. He hasa very different attitude about the South and its history afterliving here for more than 10 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, have you read anything I've said? I portray all sides equally. It i just a much a travesty of histoy to leave out the economic plight of the majority of the southerners at the time of the Civil War as it is to focus on any one group. We spent extensive time discussing the issue of slavery, the slave trade, Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Grimke sisters, the intelligence of slaves that were able to embed escape codes in their spiritual songs, and of course, The Underground Railroad. I also like to show portions of the movie, "Glory," one of my absolute favorite Civil War movies. The courage of the 54th Massachusetts regiment was amazing.

 

My husan is from Niagara Falls, NY, and he concurs that his teachers in the North were absolutey biased in their teaching of the Civil War. He hasa very different attitude about the South and its history afterliving here for more than 10 years.

 

Where did you portray all sides equally? I am a bit freaked out by your posts honestly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would gently suggest you study in greater detail the way the phrase "States Rights" was used by people like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and other segrationist leaders in the battle against school integration and civil rights. It might prove eye-opening.

 

Bill

And I would suggest that you study the use of the phrase by people such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other founding fathers. I think w have concluded tat there are definitely two ways to view this term.

 

You left out Robert Byrd, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes since because you seem to have little understanding of history.

 

Or little understanding of your made-up history with your own made-up facts.

 

you have spent more time on opinion and fiction than you have in offering any true records to back your statements.

 

What part do you not understand?

The part where you started attacking people offering facts and saying they were revisionist while making excuses for poor white slave owners.

Edited by Sis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hang on..I am trying to stick to facts.

 

Let's be clear. I am from Oklahoma...not exactly the bastion of civilization. I have a lot of redneck in my blood. I do sorta like some country music, pick ups and I do own a gun. I don't think it has anything to do with the Confederate Flag.

 

 

I agree facts.

 

Fact: Not everyone who flies the Confederate Battle flag is a racist.

Fact: It is perfectly acceptable to be proud of the courage of one's ancestors.

Fact: Supporters of "states rights" are NOT advocates of slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. And as some of us have pointed out, it is no coincidence that some southern states started flying the Confederate flag again during the segregation battles.

 

I don't hate the south or southerners (I am one myself), but it is quite sad how some here go to extremes to defend the darkest aspects of southern history, and try to justify the actions of those who fought to keep others in bondage. I actually get a headache when I hear those who fought for the Confederacy celebrated as heroes and freedom fighters.

 

And I, for one am not defending slavery or racism. It is quite clear to me that there are a number of people who know very little about our actual history. I am certainly beginning to see the fruits of the public school's lack of real history and geography teaching on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or little understanding of your made-up history with your own made-up facts.

 

you have spent more time on opinion and fiction than you have in offering any true records to back your statements.

 

 

The part where you started attacking people offering facts and saying they were revisionist while making excuses for poor white slave owners.

I have studied history extensively. You asked about my qualifications in an earlier post. I make it a point to stick to facts. Unfortunatey, you don't seem to know the facts.

 

I agree with Bill about pride. When presented with things thatyu didn't know abou history, why no just admit it rather than try to argue points you aren't familiar with? I'm not in a discussion with anyone about nuclear science because I don't have enough facts about it. It would behoove you to realize how you sound to those who do have a understanding and not just assumptions abot history. Ad I can tell you that prima documents do not tell all there is to know about history. thougt I explained that before?

Edited by leeannpal
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree facts.

 

Fact: Not everyone who flies the Confederate Battle flag is a racist.

Fact: It is perfectly acceptable to be proud of the courage of one's ancestors.

Fact: Supporters of "states rights" are NOT advocates of slavery.

 

1.) The first is a fact that no one disputes. It is reasonable to question why one with any intelligence would fly a flag that has been used repeatedly as a symbol of hate and oppression.

 

2.) I see nothing particularly courageous about fighting to uphold articles of secession that are based heavily on the right to keep other human beings in bondage. (And yes, that is a fact as well.) I also don't see the need to celebrate what relatives of mine did generations back. Perhaps if some of those confederate soldiers had been less "courageous", and not so heavily brainwashed by southern leadership, then the matter of slavery could have been resolved without bloodshed. Strangely enough, had that occurred, the argument in favor of states rights would be much stronger now.

 

3.) True, but "states rights" has been the base of the argument in favor of both slavery and segregation. Again, if states rights advocates picked their battles better, or actually had the courage to fight against the racists among them, they would not find themselves stuck with such negative connotations of their position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1.) The first is a fact that no one disputes. It is reasonable to question why one with any intelligence would fly a flag that has been used repeatedly as a symbol of hate and oppression.

 

2.) I see nothing particularly courageous about fighting to uphold articles of secession that are based heavily on the right to keep other human beings in bondage. (And yes, that is a fact as well.) I also don't see the need to celebrate what relatives of mine did generations back. Perhaps if some of those confederate soldiers had been less "courageous", and not so heavily brainwashed by southern leadership, then the matter of slavery could have been resolved without bloodshed. Strangely enough, had that occurred, the argument in favor of states rights would be much stronger now.

 

3.) True, but "states rights" has been the base of the argument in favor of both slavery and segregation. Again, if states rights advocates picked their battles better, or actually had the courage to fight against the racists among them, they would not find themselves stuck with such negative connotations of their position.

 

:iagree:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would gently suggest you study in greater detail the way the phrase "States Rights" was used by people like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and other segrationist leaders in the battle against school integration and civil rights. It might prove eye-opening.

 

Bill

I have studied them which is what I meant when I said that I knew it had been used that way. I meant that I didn't see the phrase as a code word. It is not a term like "skinhead" or "Neo-nazi" which immediately screams racist to me. I did not realize that some people react that way to the phrase States' Rights. It's good to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have studied them which is what I meant when I said that I knew it had been used that way. I meant that I didn't see the phrase as a code word. It is not a term like "skinhead" or "Neo-nazi" which immediately screams racist to me. I did not realize that some people react that way to the phrase States' Rights. It's good to know.

It is actually sort of scary that people are so misinformed as to think that the phrase "state's rights" would automatically have anything to do with slavery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have studied history extensively. You asked about my qualifications in an earlier post. I make it a point to stick to facts. Unfortunatey, you don't seem to know the facts.

 

I quoted historical documents and linked an encyclopedia to cite a certain point where I disagreed with you.

 

I haven't made an argument that wasn't backed by information.

 

I guess that makes me dumb. *cries* *rends garments*

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I, for one am not defending slavery or racism. It is quite clear to me that there are a number of people who know very little about our actual history. I am certainly beginning to see the fruits of the public school's lack of real history and geography teaching on here.

 

I am quite certain I have a better overall understanding of U.S. history than you do (double major in economics and history, emphasis on United States history), especially based on your posts in this thread.

 

If you want to start the snark about homeschooling versus public education, the outright ignorance displayed by *some* throughout this thread in defense of the Confederacy makes an excellent case for the dangers of those who are vastly undereducated teaching their children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have studied history extensively. You asked about my qualifications in an earlier post. I make it a point to stick to facts. Unfortunatey, you don't seem to know the facts.

 

I agree with Bill about pride. When presented with things thatyu didn't know abou history, why no just admit it rather than try to argue points you aren't familiar with? I'm not in a discussion with anyone about nuclear science because I don't have enough facts about it. It would behoove you to realize how you sound to those who do have a understanding and not just assumptions abot history. Ad I can tell you that prima documents do not tell all there is to know about history. thougt I explained that before?

 

 

 

Most historians would have cited their information. Primary documents, which I agree do not always give all the information are still very important when offering pertinent information that is particularly given in those documents.

 

Fiction and opinion do not supersede primary sources. If you call yourself a historian offer actual information. You have not done that.

Edited by Sis
Link to post
Share on other sites

2.) I see nothing particularly courageous about fighting to uphold articles of secession that are based heavily on the right to keep other human beings in bondage. (And yes, that is a fact as well.) I also don't see the need to celebrate what relatives of mine did generations back. Perhaps if some of those confederate soldiers had been less "courageous", and not so heavily brainwashed by southern leadership, then the matter of slavery could have been resolved without bloodshed. Strangely enough, had that occurred, the argument in favor of states rights would be much stronger now.

This statement shows a real lack of understanding of the people of the time period. More than 75% of Southerners were so poor at the time of the Civli War that survival was the main issue. Do you now how many years that Congress fought to resolve the issue of slavery without a war? The fact is, giving up slavery would destroy the economy of the South. If your family was at stake, perhas your "holier than thou" attitude wouldn't have made muh sese?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2.) I see nothing particularly courageous about fighting to uphold articles of secession that are based heavily on the right to keep other human beings in bondage. (And yes, that is a fact as well.) I also don't see the need to celebrate what relatives of mine did generations back. Perhaps if some of those confederate soldiers had been less "courageous", and not so heavily brainwashed by southern leadership, then the matter of slavery could have been resolved without bloodshed. Strangely enough, had that occurred, the argument in favor of states rights would be much stronger now.

This statement shows a real lack of understanding of the people of the time period. More than 75% of Southerners were so poor at the time of the Civli War that survival was the main issue. Do you now how many years that Congress fought to resolve the issue of slavery without a war? The fact is, giving up slavery would destroy the economy of the South. If your family was at stake, perhas your "holier than thou" attitude wouldn't have made muh sese?

 

Do you have a personal stake in this issue?

 

Why did you just attack her?

Edited by Sis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Most historians would have cited their information. Primary documents, which I agree do not always give all the information are still very important when offering pertinent information that is particularly given in those documents.

 

Fiction and opinion do not supersede primary sources. If you call yourself a historian offer actual information. You have not done that.

I have. You just choose not to believe me. Oh, and my students who w our state history competition cited a number of primary and secondary documents. We worked etensively on the use of primary source documents.

 

Do you want me to cite my professors, all the reseach sources I've used, all the books Ive read and compared to other authors, or the people I have worked with who have a greater knowledge of issues concerning American history than I do, and from wom I am happy to learn? I can't boil down my years of historical study to a few quotes, sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite certain I have a better overall understanding of U.S. history than you do (double major in economics and history, emphasis on United States history), especially based on your posts in this thread.

 

If you want to start the snark about homeschooling versus public education, the outright ignorance displayed by *some* throughout this thread in defense of the Confederacy makes an excellent case for the dangers of those who are vastly undereducated teaching their children.

I have a master's degree in social sciences, including histor and economics. We can argue that all day long.

 

Ae you from the South or do you know anything about the South?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2.) I see nothing particularly courageous about fighting to uphold articles of secession that are based heavily on the right to keep other human beings in bondage. (And yes, that is a fact as well.) I also don't see the need to celebrate what relatives of mine did generations back. Perhaps if some of those confederate soldiers had been less "courageous", and not so heavily brainwashed by southern leadership, then the matter of slavery could have been resolved without bloodshed. Strangely enough, had that occurred, the argument in favor of states rights would be much stronger now.

This statement shows a real lack of understanding of the people of the time period. More than 75% of Southerners were so poor at the time of the Civli War that survival was the main issue. Do you now how many years that Congress fought to resolve the issue of slavery without a war? The fact is, giving up slavery would destroy the economy of the South. If your family was at stake, perhas your "holier than thou" attitude wouldn't have made muh sese?

 

 

Yes, the average southerner was very poor. But why? Examine the economic, political, and educational system of the south at the time. It certainly did not benefit the average southerner. Yet they marched off to war to defend a system that was oppressive to them. That is courageous? Not in my book.

Could southern leadership have went to war over slavery without the support of the southern masses? No, and they knew it. Which is why the dangers of black emancipation and the evils of the black race were fed to southerners constantly by their press and their politicians. I refuse to condone or defend the actions of southerners which were caused by their ignorance (and I am using that word in its purest definition). I understand why they did what they did, but it was neither courageous nor something that should be celebrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a master's degree in social sciences, including histor and economics. We can argue that all day long.

 

Ae you from the South or do you know anything about the South?

 

Born and raised here. My MA is in economics, and quite a bit of my undergraduate and graduate work was on comparative economic systems, which included work on the slavery in the Confederacy and why it was not sustainable as a economic model.

Edited by ChocolateReign
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the average southerner was very poor. But why? Examine the economic, political, and educational system of the south at the time. It certainly did not benefit the average southerner. Yet they marched off to war to defend a system that was oppressive to them. That is courageous? Not in my book.

Could southern leadership have went to war over slavery without the support of the southern masses? No, and they knew it. Which is why the dangers of black emancipation and the evils of the black race were fed to southerners constantly by their press and their politicians. I refuse to condone or defend the actions of southerners which were caused by their ignorance (and I am using that word in its purest definition). I understand why they did what they did, but it was neither courageous nor something that should be celebrated.

 

Who said anything about it being courageous? I certainly didn't. I am trying to deal in fact, not emotionalism which has been so prevalent on his thread. The fact of the matter is that souterners were ignornant to other ways of lie at the time. While it certainly wasn't courageous, it is understandable why they would fight in the war. Many believe things that were patently false because they couldn't read or write. I've been saying all along that we need to viw history through he eyes of the people who lived it-not our hindsight views. And, fwiw, the correct use of the verb phrase in your 7th sentence is "have gone", not "have went". Sorry, a petpeeve of mine.

Edited by leeannpal
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have about the same reaction as seeing Nazi flag displayed it a person's home.

 

"States Rights" is a code-word for the right of some people (White people) to enslave other people (Black people).

 

No way around that.

 

Bill

 

I'm new to the south and was appalled to see that the south honors Robert E. Lee, the commander of the southern army. This was news to me. I thought I was misreading.

 

I sort of, kind of understand where the southern people are coming from -- their ancestors died etc.

 

But I agree with Bill: I associate the flag w/ the Nazi emblem and wouldn't display it, that's for sure.

 

Alley

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said nytng aboutit being curageous? I certainly didn't. I am trying to deal in fact, not emotionalism which has been so prevalent on his thread. And, fwiw, the correct use of the verb phrase in your 7th sentence is "have gone", not "have went". Sorry, a petpeeve of mine.

 

PQR did. The person I quoted in the reply that you then responded to a post ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have. You just choose not to believe me. Oh, and my students who w our state history competition cited a number of primary and secondary documents. We worked etensively on the use of primary source documents.

 

Do you want me to cite my professors, all the reseach sources I've used, all the books Ive read and compared to other authors, or the people I have worked with who have a greater knowledge of issues concerning American history than I do, and from wom I am happy to learn? I can't boil down my years of historical study to a few quotes, sorry.

 

No, I don't care who your professors were.

 

All the credentials in the world do not matter if you can't carry on a civilized discussion

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said nytng aboutit being curageous? I certainly didn't. I am trying to deal in fact, not emotionalism which has been so prevalent on his thread. And, fwiw, the correct use of the verb phrase in your 7th sentence is "have gone", not "have went". Sorry, a petpeeve of mine.

 

If you want to play that game Leeann, spelling "courageous" without the first "o" is a pet peeve of mine. I'll grant you the typos on "anything" but misspelling is not cool. :glare:

 

And I think when your argument degenerates into a grammar lesson, that it's possibly the end of the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I've been mulling over.

 

I personally don't like it (I live in the South right now but am from CA). Where I grew up, it was seen as at least ignorant - if not racist. I don't personally think it is either one, necesarrily, but I will admit that I have known people who are both who have that flag. I have also known quite a few people who are "under the table" racists who do not fly the flag, and people who really aren't racist have one framed in their homes (usually as part of family history).

 

Anyway - here is something to chew on. There was a lot more involved in the Civil War. And,,, there were also a lot more people (Confederate or not) who supported slavery. Many Christian denominations were absolutely pro-slavery and used the scriptures to support it. The Democratic Party was pro-slavery (for the most part)....

 

So - are we saying that anyone in those denominations or in the Democratic party is also racist? If you take the same standards applied to the Confederate flag (and I'm guilty of this as well) and apply them to the two other issues above, well - you'd have to do mental gymnastics to avoid having to come to the same conclusion about all of them.

 

The flag is obviously a strong symbol. Based off the fact that there are 50 pages of posts, I'd say it's quite a controversial one as well. I believe it has a lot of historical significance for many families - just as someone diplaying their great-grandfather's army hat, or a long-ago relative's picture. As for those without family history who decide to fly it - I've never really understood it. But then again, I'm not a Southerner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...