Jefferson Davis reenactment on 2/19/2011

[OL FU]

they just choose to honor the men who fought in that conflict rather than engage in endless non-academic debates about those causes.

The vast majority of southerners I know and I know a bunch of them could really care less but the ones that do are doing exactly as cid90 described above. There a many conflicts in this country's history that can be debated endlessly. From Iraq to the Indian Wars. I doubt seriously there are many of us that don't understand the moral complications of the Indian Wars and we seemed to have come to an understanding that it just might be ok for us to honor both sides of the events. To confuse the issue even more, let's don't forget that while the Civil War was going on, the US was breaking treaties and killing native americans in the west. Things are not always as clear as they seem.

[kalm]

they just choose to honor the men who fought in that conflict rather than engage in endless non-academic debates about those causes.

The vast majority of southerners I know and I know a bunch of them could really care less but the ones that do are doing exactly as cid90 described above. There a many conflicts in this country's history that can be debated endlessly. From Iraq to the Indian Wars. I doubt seriously there are many of us that don't understand the moral complications of the Indian Wars and we seemed to have come to an understanding that it just might be ok for us to honor both sides of the events. To confuse the issue even more, let's don't forget that while the Civil War was going on, the US was breaking treaties and killing native americans in the west. Things are not always as clear as they seem.

There's a need to honor both sides in the Indian Wars?

Just like southerners have the right to honor their civil war heritage, others have the right to make fun of the slavery aspect of that heritage.

[OL FU]

The vast majority of southerners I know and I know a bunch of them could really care less but the ones that do are doing exactly as cid90 described above. There a many conflicts in this country's history that can be debated endlessly. From Iraq to the Indian Wars. I doubt seriously there are many of us that don't understand the moral complications of the Indian Wars and we seemed to have come to an understanding that it just might be ok for us to honor both sides of the events. To confuse the issue even more, let's don't forget that while the Civil War was going on, the US was breaking treaties and killing native americans in the west. Things are not always as clear as they seem.

There's a need to honor both sides in the Indian Wars?

Just like southerners have the right to honor their civil war heritage, others have the right to make fun of the slavery aspect of that heritage.

On the first question, I think most do whether we should or not you can debate.

On the second point , I think you should be able to tell from what I wrote that they answer to that is yes again. A horrible part of the American story.

[mebison]

One of the more interesting parts of a recent trip to DC for me was Lee's house at Arlington Cemetery. It made me wonder how other places in the world you could find what is really a pretty respectful, even complementary museum to a leading general of the losing side of a civil war overlooking the capitol.

Of course, I realize that there is no shortage of controversy regarding the land ownership over the years, but the fact that its there now did strike me as a little unique.

[OL FU]

One of the more interesting parts of a recent trip to DC for me was Lee's house at Arlington Cemetery. It made me wonder how other places in the world you could find what is really a pretty respectful, even complementary museum to a leading general of the losing side of a civil war overlooking the capitol.

Of course, I realize that there is no shortage of controversy regarding the land ownership over the years, but the fact that its there now did strike me as a little unique.

you will find lots of memorials to the losing side down heah

[mebison]

One of the more interesting parts of a recent trip to DC for me was Lee's house at Arlington Cemetery. It made me wonder how other places in the world you could find what is really a pretty respectful, even complementary museum to a leading general of the losing side of a civil war overlooking the capitol.

Of course, I realize that there is no shortage of controversy regarding the land ownership over the years, but the fact that its there now did strike me as a little unique.

you will find lots of memorials to the losing side down heah

Fair enough and good point...how many other places would Stone Mountain even be allowed to exist in?

(on a side note, I went to the Stone Mountain Park website to make sure I was remembering the name right and was surprised how hard I had to look to find any picture or more than a passing reference to the carving. Are they downplaying that part of the park, now?)

[OL FU]

you will find lots of memorials to the losing side down heah

Fair enough and good point...how many other places would Stone Mountain even be allowed to exist in?

(on a side note, I went to the Stone Mountain Park website to make sure I was remembering the name right and was surprised how hard I had to look to find any picture or more than a passing reference to the carving. Are they downplaying that part of the park, now?)

Hey I was kidding and I understood your point. Most of the confederate memorials in the south were placed here early on after the war and probably through the 20s and 30s. Another remnant of the past.

Stone Mountain? I have no idea. I went there a long time ago and they had a lazor light show that outlined the carving and then had the horses rode off to whereever they rode off to while Dixie was playing in the background. Personally thought it was all kind of cheesey but mainly because lazor light shows don't do much for me unless Pink Floyd is on the stage. Even the Stone Mountain carving was done in the 1910's. ( Had to look it up) Honestly, except for the few, all this talk of the confederacy gets less play down here than one would imagine from reading these boards. People tend to be stubborn when the issue is pressed for example the confederate flag on the capital grounds of SC, but generally the whole thing is ignored until occasionally something happens ( important like the flag on the statehouse grounds or un-important like a small group re-enacting or celebrating or irritating with the Jeff Davis thing).

Probably more important to those who trace their family history to someone who fought for the south. I have ancestors that fought in the war, but still haven't determined which side he fought on. My father was originally from Missouri and most of his family lived there during the war so it could have easily been on either side or both.

[OL FU]

I read more apparently the Stone Mountain carving was starte din 1910 but wasn't finished until the 60's.


We're kinda slow down here

[mebison]

I read more apparently the Stone Mountain carving was starte din 1910 but wasn't finished until the 60's.


We're kinda slow down here

Hey, the Washington Monument took how many decades to finish? And that Crazy Horse monument in SD will likely never get finished.

[CID1990]

While very few southerners owned slaves, it has been estimated that 3/5s of the wealth in South Carolina at the time of secession was in the form of human capital. That is a very powerful motivator for those that control the social order to maintain it. As far as the vast majority of soldiers not owning slaves, through out history the vast majority of soldiers have not been property owners or at least not affluent property owners. Considering that South Carolina seceded following the election of a President from a party formed by abolitionists, there is little doubt as to why South Carolina seceded ( for additional proof read DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION. http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. South Carolina seceded mainly to preserve its peculiar institution. However, and it may be semantics but I don’t think so and to the extent that secession can be separated from the war, the south fought the war for independence. One can argue the rights and wrongs of independence, but there seems to be little evidence that the main reason the north fought the war was to free the slaves. It did become part of the policy in the latter years of the war and once again you can argue whether it was policy or propaganda, but in the end the slaves were freed.

I will agree with Death Dealer, that secession was a stupid act on the part of South Carolina, but the question that remains is considering the loss of 500,000 citizens, the continued de facto slavery that existed in all states for another 100 years that only ended during the civil rights movement, the dire poverty that existed in the south for 100+ years and a myriad of other facts I won’t list, was the war worth the fight or should the north have allowed the split to occur?

As a native son of the Old North State I take constant pleasure in reminding SC folks that South Carolina was "too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum."

[CID1990]

One of the more interesting parts of a recent trip to DC for me was Lee's house at Arlington Cemetery. It made me wonder how other places in the world you could find what is really a pretty respectful, even complementary museum to a leading general of the losing side of a civil war overlooking the capitol.

Of course, I realize that there is no shortage of controversy regarding the land ownership over the years, but the fact that its there now did strike me as a little unique.

Arlington's current incarnation as a "respectful, even complementary museum" to the Lees is ironic, given the reasons Arlington was confiscated and later turned into a cemetery.

During the first days of the war, Union troops moved quickly to capture Arlington, because as can be seen when you visit the site, it commands a good view of the Capitol. A few big guns on the hill there could wreak havoc. Mrs. Lee left a note as she evacuated the house with her family, asking that the new tenants please preserve the house and its contents not out of repsect for the Lees, but instead for respect of the legacy of George Washington and his family (Lee's wife was a Custis and heir to part of the Washington heirlooms) At first, Arlington became a Union army headquarters. Later, Arlington became a temporary hospital. When soldiers began dying there, they began to bury them in the yard. This was not only due to expedience, but also an intentional slap at the Lees at the time. Because of the various arguments going back and forth as to rightful ownership, the Union decided to settle the matter by consecrating the grounds with the bodies of Union soldiers. I may be off here, but I think it was Montgomery Meigs who made that decision. The contents of the house, including a china set that was claimed to have belonged to George Washington himself, were all pilfered over time.

Arlington started out in the Washington/Custis family, moved to Robert E. Lee through his wife, then became a headquarters for military purposes, and then a cemetery to ensure (in part) that the Lees would never again be able to claim it. I think Robert E. and Mary would likely prefer that it be maintained as a monument to either the dead of both sides, or as a museum to the Washington/Custis family. I don't think Lee was actually never all that particular to the place anyway, it really had sentimental value to Mary.

[mebison]

One of the more interesting parts of a recent trip to DC for me was Lee's house at Arlington Cemetery. It made me wonder how other places in the world you could find what is really a pretty respectful, even complementary museum to a leading general of the losing side of a civil war overlooking the capitol.

Of course, I realize that there is no shortage of controversy regarding the land ownership over the years, but the fact that its there now did strike me as a little unique.

Arlington's current incarnation as a "respectful, even complementary museum" to the Lees is ironic, given the reasons Arlington was confiscated and later turned into a cemetery.

During the first days of the war, Union troops moved quickly to capture Arlington, because as can be seen when you visit the site, it commands a good view of the Capitol. A few big guns on the hill there could wreak havoc. Mrs. Lee left a note as she evacuated the house with her family, asking that the new tenants please preserve the house and its contents not out of repsect for the Lees, but instead for respect of the legacy of George Washington and his family (Lee's wife was a Custis and heir to part of the Washington heirlooms) At first, Arlington became a Union army headquarters. Later, Arlington became a temporary hospital. When soldiers began dying there, they began to bury them in the yard. This was not only due to expedience, but also an intentional slap at the Lees at the time. Because of the various arguments going back and forth as to rightful ownership, the Union decided to settle the matter by consecrating the grounds with the bodies of Union soldiers. I may be off here, but I think it was Montgomery Meigs who made that decision. The contents of the house, including a china set that was claimed to have belonged to George Washington himself, were all pilfered over time.

Arlington started out in the Washington/Custis family, moved to Robert E. Lee through his wife, then became a headquarters for military purposes, and then a cemetery to ensure (in part) that the Lees would never again be able to claim it. I think Robert E. and Mary would likely prefer that it be maintained as a monument to either the dead of both sides, or as a museum to the Washington/Custis family. I don't think Lee was actually never all that particular to the place anyway, it really had sentimental value to Mary.

Yeah, that's what the last line of my post was referring to. The museum does summarize those back-and-forths, but I knew I couldn't remember the details, and didn't want to post something incorrect. Thanks for filling in the details.

[OL FU]

While very few southerners owned slaves, it has been estimated that 3/5s of the wealth in South Carolina at the time of secession was in the form of human capital. That is a very powerful motivator for those that control the social order to maintain it. As far as the vast majority of soldiers not owning slaves, through out history the vast majority of soldiers have not been property owners or at least not affluent property owners. Considering that South Carolina seceded following the election of a President from a party formed by abolitionists, there is little doubt as to why South Carolina seceded ( for additional proof read DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION. http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. South Carolina seceded mainly to preserve its peculiar institution. However, and it may be semantics but I don’t think so and to the extent that secession can be separated from the war, the south fought the war for independence. One can argue the rights and wrongs of independence, but there seems to be little evidence that the main reason the north fought the war was to free the slaves. It did become part of the policy in the latter years of the war and once again you can argue whether it was policy or propaganda, but in the end the slaves were freed.

I will agree with Death Dealer, that secession was a stupid act on the part of South Carolina, but the question that remains is considering the loss of 500,000 citizens, the continued de facto slavery that existed in all states for another 100 years that only ended during the civil rights movement, the dire poverty that existed in the south for 100+ years and a myriad of other facts I won’t list, was the war worth the fight or should the north have allowed the split to occur?

As a native son of the Old North State I take constant pleasure in reminding SC folks that South Carolina was "too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum."

We are still doing our best to qualify for the last one. But you did follow us over the cliff

[CID1990]

As a native son of the Old North State I take constant pleasure in reminding SC folks that South Carolina was "too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum."

We are still doing our best to qualify for the last one. But you did follow us over the cliff

Yes, but it took VA to get NC to go. We were perfectly happy with the Republic of South Carolina, but then VA had to make a doughnut hole out of us.

[Ibanez]

While very few southerners owned slaves, it has been estimated that 3/5s of the wealth in South Carolina at the time of secession was in the form of human capital. That is a very powerful motivator for those that control the social order to maintain it. As far as the vast majority of soldiers not owning slaves, through out history the vast majority of soldiers have not been property owners or at least not affluent property owners. Considering that South Carolina seceded following the election of a President from a party formed by abolitionists, there is little doubt as to why South Carolina seceded ( for additional proof read DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION. http://facweb.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. South Carolina seceded mainly to preserve its peculiar institution. However, and it may be semantics but I don’t think so and to the extent that secession can be separated from the war, the south fought the war for independence. One can argue the rights and wrongs of independence, but there seems to be little evidence that the main reason the north fought the war was to free the slaves. It did become part of the policy in the latter years of the war and once again you can argue whether it was policy or propaganda, but in the end the slaves were freed.

I will agree with Death Dealer, that secession was a stupid act on the part of South Carolina, but the question that remains is considering the loss of 500,000 citizens, the continued de facto slavery that existed in all states for another 100 years that only ended during the civil rights movement, the dire poverty that existed in the south for 100+ years and a myriad of other facts I won’t list, was the war worth the fight or should the north have allowed the split to occur?

Less than 1% of the population owned slaves. Additionally, the rule of thumb is, the further from the coast you went, the less and less you would encounter slave plantations. Once you got into the mountains, it was rare. Most mountainous areas were extremely Pro-Union. This has been brought up ad nasuem by myself and others. Some people, like dback, could careless about hte facts and stats. They hold onto the Slavery position without fully understand this socio-economic turmoil and make up of a slave state in the Southern section of the USA.

[Ibanez]

Be honest about your country. We celebrate July 4th regardless of the atrocities exacted towards Native Americans, Blacks, Immigrants, Women and Homosexuals, etc... The USA was more unjust and despicable in the 84 years leading up to Secession than the CSA was in its 4 year history. We were hunting and murdering Native Americans Before, During and After the Civil War. Human Rights weren't any real concern of the American Gov't. The economic backlash was.

[saint0917]

Is now a bad time to bring up the fact that I just happen to reading, Southern Storm: Sherman's March To The Sea by Noah Andre Trudeau. I can't wait to see how it ends, lol. It's gonna be GREAT!!

[OL FU]

Is now a bad time to bring up the fact that I just happen to reading, Southern Storm: Sherman's March To The Sea by Noah Andre Trudeau. I can't wait to see how it ends, lol. It's gonna be GREAT!!

Maybe that's how Atlanta ended up with a Grant Park

[saint0917]

Is now a bad time to bring up the fact that I just happen to reading, Southern Storm: Sherman's March To The Sea by Noah Andre Trudeau. I can't wait to see how it ends, lol. It's gonna be GREAT!!

Maybe that's how Atlanta ended up with a Grant Park

UH....maybe

[OL FU]

Maybe that's how Atlanta ended up with a Grant Park

UH....maybe

If they had to pick one they sure as shit weren't going to name it Sherman Park.






Of course Grant Park ain't named after the general

[Ibanez]

You can quote authors and biographers all day but to go to the source says so much.

From the famed Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Lincoln says

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race

Charleston, September 18, 1858. Some great guy he was.

Lincoln fought the War not to free black people (he didn't care and the average white soldier didn't have a vested interest either North or South) but to defend the Constitution and protect the Union. Slavery did not become an issue until September 1862, with the Emancipation Proclamation, which was recieved worldwide as perposterous. The EP did not free the 800,000+ slaves that were in slave states, that did not secede like Maryland, Deleware or West Virginia, why is that? Why not free the slaves where you can?

This is not a revisionist view of history. Using the Census of 1860, Lincolns speeches, policys, orders and actions before and during his presidency, you can get a true understanding that is a start contrast from what is taught in our schools today. Most people are too ignorant and unwilling to accept the reality. It isn't healthy.

[mebison]

Well, it takes all of about 30 seconds on google to find a variety of Lincoln quotes predating 1960 that are ardently anti-slave. Most likely, he had his own personal views that he tamped down, or even flat-out lied about in the name of electability (some things never change, aye?).

The Emancipation Proclamation was pretty obviously a military/economic move given that it didn't include Northern States. However, that doesn't, in and of itself, mean that Lincoln didn't care about slavery. It probably just acknowledges that he wouldn't have been able to get away with it in the North. (kind of like passing a health care reform bill without a public option, even though that's what you think would be best...again, some things never change)

All that does demonstrate that the Civil War was more complex that just a war over slavery, which was your point. But to downplay slavery as something that was just tacked on as reasoning after the fact is just as disingenuous.

[Ibanez]

Well, it takes all of about 30 seconds on google to find a variety of Lincoln quotes predating 1960 that are ardently anti-slave. Most likely, he had his own personal views that he tamped down, or even flat-out lied about in the name of electability (some things never change, aye?).

The Emancipation Proclamation was pretty obviously a military/economic move given that it didn't include Northern States. However, that doesn't, in and of itself, mean that Lincoln didn't care about slavery. It probably just acknowledges that he wouldn't have been able to get away with it in the North. (kind of like passing a health care reform bill without a public option, even though that's what you think would be best...again, some things never change)

All that does demonstrate that the Civil War was more complex that just a war over slavery, which was your point. But to downplay slavery as something that was just tacked on as reasoning after the fact is just as disingenuous.

It takes more time to research his veiws POST 1860 and sources other than Google. I prefer primary sources. I've spent 5 years and counting on this subject. I've spent money on this subject. So far, It has earned me a degree and some credentials.

August 22, 1862

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

I completely agree that Lincoln should have saved the Union. His job was to preserve the Union, which he did. I disagree with the manner when he could have accepted the numerous peace offerings and invitations to conferences. Furthermore, more blame goes to his predecessor who sat by and watch this all play out. Lincoln was a proponent of colonization, which essential was to relocate all the blacks to Panama(where'd they die) or Liberia. In 1863, he signs a contract to establish a colony in Haiti for this purpose. The American Colonization Society was established for this purpose. Given this little bit of information, you can gather that before and after his elections and during the war, he had a typical, 19th Century White Man view on blacks. Now, it is true that Lincoln had doubts about it and possible gave up, around 1865, but his recorded attempts to continue with this plan suggest his true feelings and intentions. Lincoln does flip flop, quite often, on his views. however, close friends and law partners of his reveal that his views were of white supremecy(which is typical).

[mebison]

It is interesting and complex stuff, to be sure. Even in my 60 second search of quotes I came away with the impression that Lincoln was pretty racist, with his views of slavery shifting back and forth.

Now if you can just distill all of that complexity into a section of 7th grade text-book that can fit into the year along with the American Revolution, Manifest Destiny, and Japanese internment camps, we'll be all set.

[Ibanez]

It is interesting and complex stuff, to be sure. Even in my 60 second search of quotes I came away with the impression that Lincoln was pretty racist, with his views of slavery shifting back and forth.

Now if you can just distill all of that complexity into a section of 7th grade text-book that can fit into the year along with the American Revolution, Manifest Destiny, and Japanese internment camps, we'll be all set.

IF ONLY! But seriously, I hate the abridged, biased history that is taught.


Don't forget the mistreatment of Native Americans after the Civil War. So much for equality.