You have to know better....

[SensualMan]

"Not every person who takes a strong state's rights stance is a racist.

But those who also bemoan the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War, are."

- I am disappointed queer, how can you even make that statement? Any person who takes state's rights seriously knows that the Confederate loss in the War of Northern Agression was the end of states rights. From that time on, the ferderal government has assumd much of the power the states had at that time. So while I am no racist, I wholeheartedly feel the US would have been better off in terms of state's rights had the Confederacy won. Slavery was a dead issue anyway, with the oncoming of the industrial revolution in the 1870's slavery would no longer have been economical and would have slowly disappeared. I have always maintained that the Confederacy would have done well to have realized that earlier and freed the slaves at the opening of the war. With the slavery issue gone, the abolishionists in the North that were pushing for war would have evaporated. War would have been avoided and the Confederacy would have existed peacefully. Even with slavery as an issue, if you read any history of the war, by the time Gettyburg rolled around most people in the North were tired of war and wanted it over. That is the only reason Lee invaded the North, he knew if he could get a decisive victory he could then sue for peace and the public would support it.

 

[Queersetti]

I can make that statement because I am well educated in American history.

Your argument is entirely specious. had the Confederacy prevailed, those states which insisted on state sovereignty would no longer be a part of the United States, and the issue of state's rights versus federal power would have been resolved in a complete victory for the federal government.

In addition, the limited industrial expansion that occurred in the south in the late 1800s took place because of, not in spite of the war, and even so, it was economically negligible compared to the dominant agricultural sector well into the second half of the 20th century. You are probably correct that legally institutionalized slavery would have eventually disappeared, but absent federal intervention, it would obviously have been replaced by a system at least as repressive as was imposed in actuality during the era of Jim Crow. Segregation was enforced by law and custom until the civil rights movement spurred federal intervention in the 1950s and 60s. Obviously, if the Confederacy has triumphed in the Civil War, such an intervention would not have occurred.

I ask you, what are we to make of a person who states that they lament the fact that the Confederacy was not allowed to continue the system of overt racial oppression, and bemoans the fact that the federal government did, finally, after generations of repression, take steps to protect the rights of it's citizens?


As a sidenote, I don't know where you live, but in the part of the country I'm from, the expression "The War of Northern Aggression" is considered offensive and deliberately provocative.

 

[SensualMan]

Well in the part of the country I am from, the "Civil War" is considered offensive and a false representation of what happened. I am sorry if you are offended by the term "War of Northern Aggression", but I imagine you are offended because of the underlying sentiment. The same things that probably offend you about it are the very things that I find accurate about it.

Well, you obviously come from a second school of thought regarding the Confederacy. I come from the school of thought that believes, had the Confederacy won, it was just a matter of time before the reunification took place. There was too much that the North and South had in common, they were in many ways too dependent on eachother. I tend to believe that by one of the World Wars, the US would have been one nation again, with the right of the states to retain their power in tact.

As for segregation and such, you are naive if you think the issue is black and white. There were just as many racists north of the Mason Dixon line as there were south of it, they were just open about it in the South. The North had their own form of slavery...they paid blacks a wage they could not afford to live on and treated them as less than human. The Emancipation Proclomation was not given out of good intent, it was used to emphasize a military victory. The intent was to get blacks in the South to rise up against the Confederacy, thereby helping the North win the war. I am not saying that racism did not exist after the war, or even today, in many parts of the South. I also feel that much of the racial tension was a product of the war itself, and the Reconstruction period afterwards. That is a totally different issue though, and would take way too much time to get into here. Also, just to point out, Europe did not aid the South during the war because of the slavery issue. The economic pressure they would have exerted on the Confederacy, had the South been successful in the war, would have also lead to a rapid decline in slavery.

As for industry in the South during and after the war, it was much more developed than most people believe. In fact, the South had more miles of railroad than the North did prior to the war. In those days, that was a fairly significant sign of development. The South had enough industry to support itself through the length of the war, which is quite a bit. The problem in the South was distribution. The North was successful at interrupting and damaging railways lines, making it almost impossible for the South to distribute their goods. The South could have done the same thing if Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee had not firmly believed that the South should not take the role of aggressor. It was not until Gettysburg, when Lee was convinced that he could launch a successful campaign into the North and sue for peace that the Confederate Army set foot on Northern soil. And if you read about it, the Army of Northern Virginia inflicted much less civilian damage on the people of Pennsylvania than the Union Army did throughout the South.

Anyway, the argument over the War (by whatever name you call it) could go on for ages, and I am sure it will. My point is that slavery and race were fringe issues in the war. Slavery was sort of the spark that lit the powder keg. There were a number of more pressing political issues that led to the start of hostilities when the North attacked the South. Most of them had to do with state's rights. And the fact that the North was trying to force the South into trading agricultural goods with them by setting unreasonably high tariffs on trade with europe.


"I ask you, what are we to make of a person who states that they lament the fact that the Confederacy was not allowed to continue the system of overt racial oppression, and bemoans the fact that the federal government did, finally, after generations of repression, take steps to protect the rights of it's citizens?"

- You can rest assured that I find the idea of slavery abhorrent, but I also find the idea of the federal government trampling on our rights much more abhorrent.

 

[Queersetti]

Fact: The Confedacy initiated hostilities by firing on Fort Sumter, while Lincoln was still attempting to negotiate a compromise settlement.

Fact: Lee invaded the Union twice. He was turned back the first time at Antietam. Confederate forces also invaded Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas and new Mexico, all Union states or territories.

Fact: In 1860 there were approximately 110,000 manufacturing plants in the north. fewer than 18,000 in the south.

Fact: The North contained more than twice as much mileage of railroad track and manufactured over 905 of all railroad equipment made in the country.


No reputable historian would claim that racial tension in the south was "a product of the war itself".

The root causes of the war will always be in dispute, but the issue is only framed as "not being about slavery" by those who push a racist agenda. Real historians do not argue about whether or not slavery was the cause of the war, but to what degree it was a cause, in conjucture with other factors. To blame economic and political factors as if slavery was not a root cause of every one of those problems is either hopelessly naive or deliberately misleading.


If you want to debate history, learn some first.

 

[SensualMan]

"The root causes of the war will always be in dispute, but the issue is only framed as "not being about slavery" by those who push a racist agenda. Real historians do not argue about whether or not slavery was the cause of the war, but to what degree it was a cause, in conjucture with other factors. To blame economic and political factors as if slavery was not a root cause of every one of those problems is either hopelessly naive or deliberately misleading."

- Did I ever claim slavery was not an issue in the war? I seem to remember saying it was the spark that lit the powder keg. It was the hot issue that ignited the tension over all of the other issues.

Fact: The Union Army was occupying Confederate soil....which anyone can tell you is an act of war. They were given more than enough opportunity to leave the fort, and they refused.

You cite the number of manufacturing plants in the North and South as if it means something by iteself. In order for it to mean something, you have to post the populations of the North and the South as well, or it is like comparing the number of plants we have now to the number the Brits have. And no one is disputing the fact that the North had a higher degree of industrialization, I was simply stating that the South was more industrialized than most people think.

I never claimed the racial tension was a result of the war, and if that is the way you read it I am sorry. You are right that no sane person would believe that. My point was that the war made the situation worse. The Reconstruction era made many people in the South bitter, and who was there to take it out on? Someone many already did not accept as equal...black people.

You are correct about invasion in the strictest sense. There were a few occasions when the Confederate Army entered Union soil as part of a campaign. I should have been more clear there, I really meant invasion in the true sense, Like Sherman's march to the sea. The Confederates never stormed through Union territories and states with the intention of destruction like was reaped on the South.

As for miles of railroad, I read that in one of my books and will have to look it up again. It has been a while and there may have been a qualifier like "per capita" or something that I missed.

Regardless of the details of the war, I am surprised that you can't see how someone could be pro-Confederacy and anti-slavery at the same time. Just because you are American do you agree with all of the decisions and practices of our government? I am pro-Confederate because of where they stood on a number of political issues....slavery not being one of them.

 

[Queersetti]

Very well. The population of the north was approximately 22 million, of the south, about 8 millions. So that's one plants for every 200 people in the north, one for every 444 in the south, a more than 2 to 1 advantage to the north.

You might want to read some history of the war in the west. Some areas of Missouri and Kansas were virtually depopulated due to the pillaging of Confederate as well as Union troops.

Alexander Stephens said of the Confederacy"Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery is his natural and normal condition."

If one of it's key founders believed that so emphatically, who are we to disagree?

 

[SensualMan]

"You might want to read some history of the war in the west. Some areas of Missouri and Kansas were virtually depopulated due to the pillaging of Confederate as well as Union troops."

- I will definately do that. I admit I have a limited knowledge of the war in the west. Having graduated from college in Virginia, I was much more interested in Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

"If one of it's key founders believed that so emphatically, who are we to disagree?"

- I am not disputing that many in the South supported slavery. What I am saying is that you can support the rest of the political motivation the South had without supporting the institution of slavery. Like I said, I hate slavery.

As for the two to one industrial capacity advantage, I believe that. My problem is that many schools teach that the South was strictly agrarian, no industry. I remember being taught in school that Southern troops had to go without shoes, uniforms, weapons and other essentials because the South could not produce them. That is a fallacy. The South was able to produce them, just not able to transport them.

 

[MrRocknRoll]

I don't wish to crash the party but your Thread caught my attention. I don't pretend to know anything of substance about the US Civil war but am keenly interested in civil rihgts issues per se. Therefore, the movement in the 50s and 60s in the US and the Emancipation Proclamation etc. are certainly things I am familiar with.

As such, and maybe this is down to my ignorance, it is hard to accept that someone would maintain their dissapointment at the Confederacy not winning the war whilst ascerting their abhorrence of slavery. Again, I am not au fait with the majority of details of your civil war but I am certain that it was a fact that Alexander Stephens stated, as previously quoted, "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery is his natural and normal condition". I can only reiterate that whilst there may have been other issues at work here, the Confederacy's paramount issue was that of slavery as detailed in this testimony of Alexander Stephens.

To trumpet their cause for any reason would be the equivalent of myself voting for the British National Party (BNP) and supporting the National Front based on their policy of taxation when their ultimate agenda is the creation of a facist state through racism under the banner of patriotism.

But thanks again. It's been food for thought!!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Isn't a defense of the Confederacy a defense of treason?

 

[destinie21]

To me it's a paradox how anyone could support the confederacy and claim to a not support the slavery of the time. The south prior to the industrial revoulution was based almost soley on agriculture and thereby they "needed" slaves as a workforce. I don't buy that without the civil war that the south would have abolished slavery and social discontent and opression is not a situation that just works itself out. After the war the southern most parts of the united state were forced into industrial revolution kicking and screaming. Furthermore if the civil war hadn't ensued I'm of the mind that the slave uprising that would have eventually occured would have changed the face of the country indefinately anyhow.

 

[sexymom]

Prior to the war, the abolitionists were a radical fringe element, sort of like the peta people today. The real issue was the settlement and creation of new states in the west. Lincoln was very emphatic about his position that the abolition of slavery wasn't worth endangering the union, but he didn't want it extended to the newly created states out west. Of course, the slave owners weren't happy with this, and decided that leaving the union and forming a new one (like we did with Britain in 1776) would allow the creation of new confederate states in the west, which would, of course, be slave states.

There is little doubt that the war hastened the demise of slavery, but there is also little doubt that it would have happened sooner or later anyway. All the other countries abolished slavery without a civil war- or most anyway- I think there are a couple of slave countries still in Africa; so why would the U. S. have been any different ?

 

[destinie21]

Prior to the war, the abolitionists were a radical fringe element, sort of like the peta people today. The real issue was the settlement and creation of new states in the west. Lincoln was very emphatic about his position that the abolition of slavery wasn't worth endangering the union, but he didn't want it extended to the newly created states out west. Of course, the slave owners weren't happy with this, and decided that leaving the union and forming a new one (like we did with Britain in 1776) would allow the creation of new confederate states in the west, which would, of course, be slave states.

There is little doubt that the war hastened the demise of slavery, but there is also little doubt that it would have happened sooner or later anyway. All the other countries abolished slavery without a civil war- or most anyway- I think there are a couple of slave countries still in Africa; so why would the U. S. have been any different ?

I still stand by the the notion that opression that has the weight and magnitude of slavery doesn't just work itself out. A lot of countries dominated in war didn't have their natives subjegated and edged out so what makes africa and america different on that count from the other countries. And tell me the time frame we're loking at here maybe it would work itself out just like the apartid worked itself out

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I still stand by the the notion that opression that has the weight and magnitude of slavery doesn't just work itself out. A lot of countries dominated in war didn't have their natives subjegated and edged out so what makes africa and america different on that count from the other countries. And tell me the time frame we're loking at here maybe it would work itself out just like the apartid worked itself out

Have things even worked themselves out yet? Black people are still struggling to overcome to inherent disadvantages created by slavery.

 

[sexymom]

"Have things even worked themselves out yet? Black people are still struggling to overcome to inherent disadvantages created by slavery."

That is a theory, not a fact. Some people actually believe that the blacks in the US, where slavery existed for many years, are now better off than the blacks in Africa; even those in places where slavery never existed.

We don't know why there are racial disparities in education, income, life span, crunem etc., and once we understand, then the solution to the problems will be much easier.

Before you flame me, please note that I didn't say your theory was incorrect- I believe that, like most theories, it is at least partially true, but not the whole story by any means.

 

[Queersetti]

"Have things even worked themselves out yet? Black people are still struggling to overcome to inherent disadvantages created by slavery."

That is a theory, not a fact. Some people actually believe that the blacks in the US, where slavery existed for many years, are now better off than the blacks in Africa; even those in places where slavery never existed.

We don't know why there are racial disparities in education, income, life span, crunem etc., and once we understand, then the solution to the problems will be much easier.

Before you flame me, please note that I didn't say your theory was incorrect- I believe that, like most theories, it is at least partially true, but not the whole story by any means.

Crunem? Could you please explain what that means?

I don't think comparing blacks in America to Africans is really germane. The histories of the two groups over the past couple of centuries have ben two dissimilar to merit any meaningful comparison. One would have to be able to quantify the effects of slavery versus the effects of colonization, and there isn't any means by which one can do so.

A more valid measure of the effects of slavery and it's aftermath would be to compare the progress of black Americans to other ethnic groups, such as the Irish or Italians or Chinese, who started from a disadvantaged situation in this country, had to overcome social, economic and religious barriers to succeed, and have in general, fared much better as communities than have blacks.

It seems to me that one can draw only two conclusions from that comparison, either blacks are just plain inferior, or the negative effects of their unique history in America have not yet been fully rectified.

 

[lavender]

I'll post once I calm down about seeing someone call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

I'm from the south. I'm from one of the most conservative areas of the country. And no one - I mean NO ONE, calls it the war of nothern aggression so openly.

A person who uses that names screams out to me that I should distrust them and their views.

 

[Queersetti]

I'll post once I calm down about seeing someone call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

I'm from the south. I'm from one of the most conservative areas of the country. And no one - I mean NO ONE, calls it the war of nothern aggression so openly.

A person who uses that names screams out to me that I should distrust them and their views.

In New England, it can get you a punch in the nose!

 

[oh21]

I particularly dislike the term war of northern aggression too but I will say that in my 8th grade Georgia History class the war of northern aggression was the term the instructor actually used. He was an older guy, still teaching in his 60s and was a huge confederate civil war reenactment buff, he did all the mock battles and such in this area. I couldn't help thinking we were getting a very skewed view of history

.

 

[sexymom]

You don't know Crunem ?

"Crunem? Could you please explain what that means?"

Um- I have no idea what it means. I know, I wrote it, but I think my mind was elsewhere at the time. Sadly, I can't even figure out what I meant to say there.

I also heard the term "War of Northern Aggression" in elementary school, but had not heard it in years until I saw it here. The theory was that most of the fighting took place in the south, and involved northern armies attacking southern forces and cities. That wasn't always the case, but it was sort of a pattern.

The term war of northern aggression was, I think, made up long after the war as a counterpoint to the also inaccurate term civil war. In every other "civil war" I can think of, there were two groups fighting to take over the government, or avoid being taken over, and that wasn't what happened here. We don't use the term "civil war" for the war with Britain which resulted in our independence, and it was the same type of war, except, of course, the winners get to write the history books.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

"Have things even worked themselves out yet? Black people are still struggling to overcome to inherent disadvantages created by slavery."

That is a theory, not a fact. Some people actually believe that the blacks in the US, where slavery existed for many years, are now better off than the blacks in Africa; even those in places where slavery never existed.

We don't know why there are racial disparities in education, income, life span, crunem etc., and once we understand, then the solution to the problems will be much easier.

Before you flame me, please note that I didn't say your theory was incorrect- I believe that, like most theories, it is at least partially true, but not the whole story by any means.

Actually, it is a fact, and it is based on the reality that we are only 40 years removed from the civil rights movement. There is still institutional racism, that is rather subconscious but still exists.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: You don't know Crunem ?

"Crunem? Could you please explain what that means?"

Um- I have no idea what it means. I know, I wrote it, but I think my mind was elsewhere at the time. Sadly, I can't even figure out what I meant to say there.

I also heard the term "War of Northern Aggression" in elementary school, but had not heard it in years until I saw it here. The theory was that most of the fighting took place in the south, and involved northern armies attacking southern forces and cities. That wasn't always the case, but it was sort of a pattern.

The term war of northern aggression was, I think, made up long after the war as a counterpoint to the also inaccurate term civil war. In every other "civil war" I can think of, there were two groups fighting to take over the government, or avoid being taken over, and that wasn't what happened here. We don't use the term "civil war" for the war with Britain which resulted in our independence, and it was the same type of war, except, of course, the winners get to write the history books.

Actually, the current trend among historians is to see the American War for Independence asa Civil War. (The term "American Revolution" is virtually anathema nowdays). If you are interested in this perspective, you might want to check out Kevin Phillip's The Cousins Wars.

The term "The Civil War" is likely the best compromise solution to what the war should be called. "The War of Northern Aggression" is historically inaccurate and reflects a pro-Confederate bias. "The War of Southern Succession" is more accurate, but it's just a clumsy expression. "The War Between The States" which used to be popular, is also inaccurate, as the war was not between the states per se, but between a group of states and the federal government.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

So you are saying I should stop calling it the War of Southern Treason?

 

[sexymom]

If it's up to me, I'll allow you to call it The War of Southern Treason whenever you hear one of our British brethren (or sisteren ??) refer to the Revolution as The War of American Treason.

 

[destinie21]

"Have things even worked themselves out yet? Black people are still struggling to overcome to inherent disadvantages created by slavery."

That is a theory, not a fact. Some people actually believe that the blacks in the US, where slavery existed for many years, are now better off than the blacks in Africa; even those in places where slavery never existed.

We don't know why there are racial disparities in education, income, life span, crunem etc., and once we understand, then the solution to the problems will be much easier.

Before you flame me, please note that I didn't say your theory was incorrect- I believe that, like most theories, it is at least partially true, but not the whole story by any means.

OH this is rich. As a black woman I can tell you that racism and prejudice have a bit to do with the advancement or lack there of of the black Americans as well as many other minority groups. And BTW comparing black Americans to Africans is like comparing native Americans to the "Indians Columbus thought they were, and calling racism or the like a theory at all would be like saying yes the first settlers in America and later on subjugated the people and knowingly infected them with disease but now they have their reservations so everything is peachy. It's easy to call out that the race card is being played but are we even in the same game? I know what it is to be stooped by a police officer while I'm walking in around in my neighborhood and be questioned on the why I'm there, and a million other veiled and unmasked improprieties. I'm by no means saying that some people don't go overboard on the issues of reparations and such but until you've lived it you can't understand.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

If it's up to me, I'll allow you to call it The War of Southern Treason whenever you hear one of our British brethren (or sisteren ??) refer to the Revolution as The War of American Treason.

Its not up to you...