Forums | MacLife

I got stuck on a cliff at Harper's Ferry with a Swedish girl once in high school.

StaticAge, I think you underestimate thousands of men who fought for the Union in the Civil War.  Some of the white people of the era were indeed willing to die for abolition.  As writer Marilynne Robinson recently reminded us in her book, Gilead, there was a time when people were willing to sacrifice themselves to stop the continuation of the abominal evil of slavery.  Let's give those people the credit they deserve.  In addition, you are ignoring the determination and bravery of the slaves.  Thousands of them fled across the lines to fight in the Union army -- to  free themselves -- risking execution by the Confederates.   I recommend a viewing of the movie "Glory," if you haven't seen it.  Those are the Southerners we should admire, not people who were fighting to deprive others of the right to have lives of their own. 

Sure, some draftees on both sides of the Civil War did not want to be there.   The South had a very high rate of desertion. (Which you will never see mentioned in a neo-Confederate 'text').   But to focus on the minority of the forces while ignoring that most soldiers were willing participants is misleading. 

So, far, the neo-Confederates' shrill cry of 'but slavery occurred under the U.S. flag, too' has not been made.  One of the problems with NokX's post and run style is that he fails to defend his own claims.  I'll argue both sides.   Yes, slavery occurred under both the Confederate flag and the U.S. flag.  But, emancipation of slaves and Reconstruction also occurred under the  U.S. flag.  The Confederate flag, on the other is only the emblem of traitors and peddlers of human flesh.  It is not something that should be honored.

I can't mention Gilead without praising it some more.  We live in an age when 'Christianity' is too often synonymous with a Right Wing agenda that too often seeks to justify the status quo.  The novel, partly set in "Bloody Kansas" reminds us of a time when Christian faith meant quite the opposite.

Podesta wrote:

StaticAge, I think you underestimate thousands of men who fought for the Union in the Civil War.  Some of the white people of the era were indeed willing to die for abolition.  As writer Marilynne Robinson recently reminded us in her book, Gilead, there was a time when people were willing to sacrifice themselves to stop the continuation of the abominal evil of slavery.  Let's give those people the credit they deserve.  In addition, you are ignoring the determination and bravery of the slaves.  Thousands of them fled across the lines to fight in the Union army -- to  free themselves -- risking execution by the Confederates.   I recommend a viewing of the movie "Glory," if you haven't seen it.  Those are the Southerners we should admire, not people who were fighting to deprive others of the right to have lives of their own. 

Sure, some draftees on both sides of the Civil War did not want to be there.   The South had a very high rate of desertion. (Which you will never see mentioned in a neo-Confederate 'text').   But to focus on the minority of the forces while ignoring that most soldiers were willing participants is misleading. 

So, far, the neo-Confederates' shrill cry of 'but slavery occurred under the U.S. flag, too' has not been made.  One of the problems with NokX's post and run style is that he fails to defend his own claims.  I'll argue both sides.   Yes, slavery occurred under both the Confederate flag and the U.S. flag.  But, emancipation of slaves and Reconstruction also occurred under the  U.S. flag.  The Confederate flag, on the other is only the emblem of traitors and peddlers of human flesh.  It is not something that should be honored.

I can't mention Gilead without praising it some more.  We live in an age when 'Christianity' is too often synonymous with a Right Wing agenda that too often seeks to justify the status quo.  The novel, partly set in "Bloody Kansas" reminds us of a time when Christian faith meant quite the opposite.

I never argued for Nokx's version of the war. On the other hand, as I have been saying over and over, just because slavery WAS the issue doesnt justify the slanted view of history that ignores racism running rampant during that time.  I am not defending the south as much as I am pointing out that Lincoln and most northerners were still white supremacists. Sure, there were people like John Brown, who was NOT some madman, and yes, there were plenty progressives, but they were a minority. I'm not ignoring that, but I'm not going to pretend to ignore the fact that they still were a minority, or ignore the fact that no legitimate historian would ever teach that soldiers, save a very few, on either side had slavery on their minds as for reasons to fight. I am also not going as far as Lerone Bennett as painting Abraham Lincoiln as an evil man in "Forced into Glory," but suffice to say it was his willingness to try new ideas that made him a great president, despite the fact that he was in fact a white supremacist. And read a freaking history book- the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate south- it did not free any slaves in the north or in conquered areas held by the union in the south. Glory was a great movie, but I'd recommend an actual secular history book such as "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

John Brown was a terrorist.

StaticAge wrote:

Podesta wrote:

Wow! Do you have an attitude problem.  Ignorance and arrogance are an awful combination.

Contrary to your apparent belief I am an illiterate darkie you need to talk down to, I've read scores of history books about slavery, emancipation, Reconstruction, segregation, desegregation and contemporary race relations.  (And, I don't mean popular histories like the one you cited.)  I also read primary and secondary historical documents when I studied American and African-American history in college and grad school.  I took courses in constitutional law focusing on civil rights issues in law school.  My understanding of this topic is more thorough than yours will ever be.  You criticize President Lincoln's racism, which lessened as he observed the freedmen's dignity and bravery.  Frankly, I prefer him to you.  He was capable of seeing the error of his ways.

Where did I ever call you an "illiterate darkie?" Where did either of our race become an issue until just now when you brought it up? And now you assume I am a certain race, so really, whose acting in ignorance and arrogance you say? You had previously claimed that emancipation happened under the US flag, which didnt happen- Lincoln emancipated slaves who were under the Confederate flag, a compromise to stave off abolitionists asking for a real emancipation. If directing you to examine facts instead of movies is an insult to your race or education, I am truly sorry.

I wouldnt be too worried about mac mistresses personality disorder, she seems to think pretty much everyone who disagrees is a racist.

This calls for another reenactment!

Yes, you are that intellectually challenged.  Since the U.S. government never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate government, it was freeing slaves in America.   Freeing slaves in the rebellious areas first was an excellent psychological ploy.  It went to the core of why the South was trying to secede in the first place:  maintaining slavery.  You seem to believe President Lincoln was a stupid person.  He wasn't.

StaticAge, I have called you superficial and asked if you are intellectually challenged.  I stand by those comments. 

I do amend my remarks to acknowledge you try to talk down to people regardless of race or other circumstances.  Underestimating other people seems to be the norm for you.

Warin wrote:

Static,

The confederacy lost the civil war, and as much as it is odious, the victors write the history.  In the United States of America, the leaders of the Confederacy were indeed traitors, and their symbols and ideals the product of treasonous actions and beliefs. 

If the British had managed to supress the American Revolution, I am certain history textbooks would use a lot of nasty ways to describe Mssrs. Washington, Franklin, etc.

Whether the Confederacy had a legal right to secede or not, I dont know.  it is a moot point.  By force of arms, the United States of America brought the rebels of the Confederacy to heal.  thems the "facts"

I totally agree that the south were traitors.

I am not trying to downplay the secession, or trying to ignore the awful history of the south. The only thing I have been on here arguing is against this notion that since the south was "bad," then the north were "good," as if the north werent prejudiced and racist, as if the war was fought over some moral reason.

I have said that if Lincoln is to be admired, it should be for his willingness to try new ideas despite the fact that he was a white supremacist, not heroized for every thing he did and ignoring the complexity of the issues he weighed and his personal tendencies.

Like I also mentioned, if there was this moral interest in the black man, why didnt the Reconstruction help him? Where were all those abolitionists then when their homes were being burnt down and lynchings were taking place? Why didnt the government say or do something about it? Because, by and large, they didnt care! They were busy helping reconcile the Confederates, and that was the whole purpose of the affair.

Making Something Good Out Of Something Bad is my guess.

Free slaves was just something good out of something bad (a by product so to say) and used as a victory trofy? although I must say I have not much knowlegde about this it's common knowlegde that wars are always about selfisch reasons and if there comes something good out of bad it's like my egg.

I boiled up my water untill there is nothing left and what's left is the best egg I have ever tasted.
Though I don't care about this egg but it's tasting really good.

The sweat taste of victory.

Last edited by Proost (2005-07-12 7:36 am)

Warin wrote:

The confederacy lost the civil war, and as much as it is odious, the victors write the history.

I remember going into the civil war museum near Chattanooga and being surprised how the Union soldiers were being referred to as the "good guys".

I guess I foolishly expected more of a fair and balanced presentation.

It's an interesting subject from an historical perspective, but I'd still like to find out if NokX knew the example he originally cited in this thread was a ploy by a known white supremacist group, or if he feels he was duped.  And either way, what does that do to his original point?

Do white supremacists have a valid point to make? Are they too tainted with racism to be considered?

Proost wrote:

Iraq.

In a few years or something the US and others pull out (for the most part) and then the people say; ''we went there to free the people in Iraq from Saddam and to give them freedom.''

Is that the truth and the real reason or just an outcome?

To the victors; history. To the losers; denial.

We've seen examples of it in this thread, the Rove/Vietnam thread, and in many of the Iraq threads. Although with the Iraq threads, we get a bit ahead of ourselves.