 |
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
Ok this is yet another Civil War-related thread, but the question at the end of this post has not really been answered before IIRC.
First off, I want to point out that I find the politics of how different groups of people choose to remember the Civil War and Reconstruction fascinating and how this continues to affect race relations today in United States.
Whites who are extremely biased in favor of the Union try to emphasize the racism behind the Confederacy, while ignoring the hypocrisy of the Union during the Civil War and then during Reconcstruction -- enfranchise blacks in Southern states, but exclude Chinese, Amerindians, and Japanese from equal rights. These same people also point out every atrocity some Confederate soldiers have committed against black civilians and black soldiers, while forgetting the atrocities that some white Union soldiers have committed.
Another group includes those whites who are extremely biased in favor of the Confederacy to the extent that they minimalize slavery as an insignificant issue of antebellum America leading up to the Civil War. They also over emphasize the issue of states rights, ignoring the fact that states rights was used as a way to preserve slavery, and later, to revoke the equal rights given to blacks during Reconstruction. This extreme biased memory became the "Lost Cause" mythology.
A third group includes blacks who embrace the emancipationist memory of the Civil War and Reconstruction to an extreme extent, so as to put Lincoln on the pedestal reserved for demi-gods. These blacks want to forget that the Emancipation Proclamation was really a half-step, war-time strategic measure. They also want to ignore the minority of black slaves who were loyal to plantation owners during the Civil War.
Unfortunately, as a result of the "Lost Cause" mythology that developed from the 1880s, white Northerners reconciled with white Southerners on the South's terms, in regards to race relations. They embraced one another through the fraternal spirit of white supremacy.
Having pointed out the three, broad, main extreme biases, I have a question about the "Lost Cause" mythology and its ideology. If those who believe in the "Lost Cause" mythology claim that it is never based on racism, why has it always been the case that the overwhelming majority of blacks -- North and South -- have never venerated the historical Confederacy to this day??
This, I believe, is a question that has never been answered in past Civil War-related threads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
A third group includes blacks who embrace the emancipationist memory of the Civil War and Reconstruction to an extreme extent, so as to put Lincoln on the pedestal reserved for demi-gods. These blacks want to forget that the Emancipation Proclamation was really a half-step, war-time strategic measure. They also want to ignore the minority of black slaves who were loyal to plantation owners during the Civil War. |
i dont believe i know a single black person who subscribes to this theory and all i know are black people. those few who really care and articulate their views Lincoln didn't really care. i dont understand what type of benefits Lincoln gained from the Proclaimation and how anyone could possibly hold this view. Lincoln is seen as someone who wanted to ship blacks off to nicaragua and liberia and didn't give a damn.
of couse, this is a 'black intellectual' minority that likes to speak out of their ass a lot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
First, the North had conscription also.
The fact that each STATE had conscription has nothing to do with your question.observation, GePap.
Other unanswered questions:
1) Why did Lincol wait until the North was through with slavery, replaced by Irish, to issue his beloved Emancipation Proclamation?
2) If the esteemed Lincoln was going to declare all slaves free, why did he wait until half-way through the war? Why not before the first shot was fired?
3) If the wonderful Lincoln was going to free slaves, why just Blacks?
4) What of California?
From the California Constitution of 1879:
"No native of China, no idiot, insane person, or person convicted of any inmfamous crime shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector of this State".
[For the dull-witted, this means can not vote]
5) Why is that so many Northerners refuse to accept the above facts?
6) Will your taffy ass ever get tired of belittling Southern states?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
First, the North had conscription also.
The fact that each STATE had conscription has nothing to do with your question.observation, GePap.
Other unanswered questions:
1) Why did Lincol wait until the North was through with slavery, replaced by Irish, to issue his beloved Emancipation Proclamation?
2) If the esteemed Lincoln was going to declare all slaves free, why did he wait until half-way through the war? Why not before the first shot was fired?
3) If the wonderful Lincoln was going to free slaves, why just Blacks?
4) What of California?
From the California Constitution of 1879:
"No native of China, no idiot, insane person, or person convicted of any inmfamous crime shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector of this State".
[For the dull-witted, this means can not vote]
5) Why is that so many Northerners refuse to accept the above facts?
6) Will your taffy ass ever get tired of belittling Southern states? |
1) Yep -- it's a well known, elementary fact that industrial workers were exploited in many different ways throughout the 19th century in the Northern states. Do you want a brownie point for this?
2) Why didn't Lincoln emancipate the slaves before the first shot was fired? He wanted to try to avoid secession and civil war, but obviously he failed, because the Southern states viewed self-defense of federal government property as a form of agression (Ft. Sumter). This is besides the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation was really only a half-measure that did not apply to all the states.
3) Yes, this is true -- why was the federal government ignoring the plight of white industrial workers? Why were women denied full rights to property and income? Why were children being forced to work in factories in Northern states? I guess you can call it hypocrisy -- it was easier to destroy slavery through the effects of war, and through wartime policies, than to create significant labor changes in Northern states.
4) Part of this was already stated by me in my initial post in regards to Chinese. But I overlooked the laws against the insane and criminal.
5) I have no problems accepting the above facts. Did you just choose to simply ignore where I pointed out Northern extreme biases in my initial post??
6) Will you neo-Confederates ever get tired of waving the Confederate flag in our faces while pretending to be patriotic Americans?
So, can you try to answer the question I asked in my initial post?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:33
|
|
MrFun,
You have to remember that in your three extremists views you forgot to mention the saddest one. The people (as far as I can tell person) that believe in some revisionist "Lost Cause" threoy. You adhere just as dogmatically to your construct as anyone else holding one of the views you label "extremist. I particularly like that anyone who points this out is labeled by you as bieng traped by your hokie theory. It is self justifying, or self defeating if looked at properly.
I could never understand how your view could be so limited and ignorant, apparanty you do it intentionally. You refuse to enterain any other state rights issues other than slavery which is ignorant. It is reasonable to debate which issues were more substatial, but not their existance. The insistance that racist slavery intent was the ONLY reason for war is racist in itself, or rather it shows an inate tendancy for you to think in racial terms. You are simply applying this to a historical incident after the fact. It is called revisionism.
Am I saying racism and slavery were not primary causes, not at all. However, even if they were primary they were still encapsulated in the framework of a states rights debate. The South had no problem with the North removing slavery from their books, as it was their right as soverign states. I am sure they riduclued them and thought them stupid for doing so, but political and moral banter about such social and political issues is common place today. What the South did have a problem with is when the Nothern states used their congressional influence to try and restrict THEIR soverign state right to determan slave status in their territory, or when they tried roundabout means to achieve it through lattitude lines and such.
Let us remember that in 1800-1830 the major states rights issue was not slavery, but rather tariffs and trade restrictions, which led the NORTH to nearly suceed from the union over states rights in 1812. It simply shows the debate was old and entreched before slavery took supremacy in the arguement. Simply because slavery was the firefight that led to hostilities, it was only one firefight in a broader battle. To go back even furhter the debate is as old as the Articles of Confederation, where they for a time had a state contoled Union. And yes, even then they did debate slavery, to a degree.
So in summary, slavery may have been the up and coming issue, but not THE issue. I personal beleive it was 50/50 between slavery and the ideology that the Federal government should not be dominant.
-Pat
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
MrFun,
You have to remember that in your three extremists views you forgot to mention the saddest one. The people (as far as I can tell person) that believe in some revisionist "Lost Cause" threoy. You adhere just as dogmatically to your construct as anyone else holding one of the views you label "extremist. I particularly like that anyone who points this out is labeled by you as bieng traped by your hokie theory. It is self justifying, or self defeating if looked at properly.
I could never understand how your view could be so limited and ignorant, apparanty you do it intentionally. You refuse to enterain any other state rights issues other than slavery which is ignorant. It is reasonable to debate which issues were more substatial, but not their existance. The insistance that racist slavery intent was the ONLY reason for war is racist in itself, or rather it shows an inate tendancy for you to think in racial terms. You are simply applying this to a historical incident after the fact. It is called revisionism.
Am I saying racism and slavery were not primary causes, not at all. However, even if they were primary they were still encapsulated in the framework of a states rights debate. The South had no problem with the North removing slavery from their books, as it was their right as soverign states. I am sure they riduclued them and thought them stupid for doing so, but political and moral banter about such social and political issues is common place today. What the South did have a problem with is when the Nothern states used their congressional influence to try and restrict THEIR soverign state right to determan slave status in their territory, or when they tried roundabout means to achieve it through lattitude lines and such.
Let us remember that in 1800-1830 the major states rights issue was not slavery, but rather tariffs and trade restrictions, which led the NORTH to nearly suceed from the union over states rights in 1812. It simply shows the debate was old and entreched before slavery took supremacy in the arguement. Simply because slavery was the firefight that led to hostilities, it was only one firefight in a broader battle. To go back even furhter the debate is as old as the Articles of Confederation, where they for a time had a state contoled Union. And yes, even then they did debate slavery, to a degree.
So in summary, slavery may have been the up and coming issue, but not THE issue. I personal beleive it was 50/50 between slavery and the ideology that the Federal government should not be dominant.
-Pat |
I'm aware of other issues that were tied to states rights -- such as when the South Carolina threatened to secede under the presidency of Jackson.
But I cannot ignore the historically preceding incidents that erupted in antebellum America over slavery and westward expansion, and with the agitation from abolitionists who inflamed the issue even more.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
First, the North had conscription also.
The fact that each STATE had conscription has nothing to do with your question.observation, GePap.
Other unanswered questions:
1) Why did Lincol wait until the North was through with slavery, replaced by Irish, to issue his beloved Emancipation Proclamation? |
Cuz Lincolsn wasn't Preisdent until about fifty years after the last Nothern state had abolished slavery. Or do you mean Nothern = Union? Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia (IIRC), Maryland and Delaware were all pro-Union slave states, but they were never considered part of the North. They are all south of the Mason-Dixon line, which makes them Southern.
quote:
2) If the esteemed Lincoln was going to declare all slaves free, why did he wait until half-way through the war? Why not before the first shot was fired? |
Because he didn't have the political support to make it happen and was afraid of losing the rest of the salve states to the evil cause.
quote:
3) If the wonderful Lincoln was going to free slaves, why just Blacks? |
Because only the slaves were Black. No other race in the U.S. was enslaved at the time of the Civil War.
quote:
4) What of California?
From the California Constitution of 1879:
"No native of China, no idiot, insane person, or person convicted of any inmfamous crime shall ever exercise the privileges of an elector of this State". |
This happened after the Civil War and is irrelevent when it comes to trying to understand the "Lost Cause" mythos.
quote:
5) Why is that so many Northerners refuse to accept the above facts? |
Because the South acts unrepentent and too happily embraces the charicature of the South, rather than pointing out the huge minority of Southerners that were pro-union and anti-slavery. Because many in the South embrace the cult of the "Lost Cause."
quote:
6) Will your taffy ass ever get tired of belittling Southern states? |
The only real question in your list.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-01-2004 12:56
you lincoln hater 
|